RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:07:02 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I think In fact that the answer maybe whether you accept that Japan was ready to surrender

I found a useful article which suggests surrender terms were discussed in jan 45

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/129964

Factions, including the emperor, were willing to think the unthinkable, but the real power in Japan was quite resistant. The a-bomb attacks may have given the emperor what he needed to end the thing. As a counterpoint remember what happened in Germany which only surrendered after total collapse, and even then grudgingly.

(in reply to adek670)

Post #: 31

RE: Were the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:11:04 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

RE: US against Russia issue - both countries are as bad as each other. One just has better a better public relations team.

Regarding the atomic bombs - both were completely unnecessary.

Japan was on the verge of mass starvation thanks to the USN's submarine fleet, it's military was completely shattered and the majority of major cities were smouldering heaps of ash.

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the knockout blow to the Japanese will to fight.

I'd like to see a citation on that.

Toland's "The Rising Sun" or Hastings "Nemesis". Can't remember which for the life of me, but it was one of those two. I'm leaning towards "Nemesis", but I'll check and post back.

Basically, it was the event that sowed some doubt into the value of the Japanese leaderships stance of "all-out" resistance.

quote:

The Soviets would not have been able to do amphibious landings on Japan, their will to fight I believe was undiminished as far as that goes. Surrendering the Home Islands was a great humiliation that would not have been done without brute force being applied to the Home Islands, which only the US could do. I wouldn't have liked to be Harry Truman on this issue, but it bothered him not a whit.

The Soviet's lack of amphib capability had no relevance to the Japanese leadership. What mattered was that with Soviet intervention, the last remanants of the Japanese empire (Manchuria & Korea) would be lost.

With nothing left to try to save and the options being to open talks or starve...

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 32

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:11:45 PM

adek670

Posts: 281
Joined: 9/21/2010
From: Twickenham
Status: offline

Dropping the bombs didn't save lives

Estimates of casualties on the basis of conventional war fighting were fairly reasonable -- also we often merge casualties and KIA together - saying that the bombs saved lives as a justification for the argument is simply false

Also see link above -- I wonder why the surrender was never accepted in early 45

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 33

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:12:12 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.

warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?

Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.

Warspite1

Hello mind_messing. We seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate for a change

I was not talking about islands in that way - and certainly not the UK.

I was talking about the numerous examples of the Japanese refusal to surrender on the various Pacific Islands - including some cases involving Japapese civilians who would rather die than surrender.

I do no know whether, in the absence of the atomic bombs, the Japanese would have refused to surrender - and if so - for how long. Based purely upon the conduct of their (mostly military but also some civilian) actions during the war, I would not have been surprised to see them hold out for sometime - with all the death that that would entail.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 34

RE: Were the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:15:20 PM

sandlance

Posts: 31
Joined: 8/5/2012
Status: offline

Considering my father was an infantryman in the 25th Div. I have a rather biased and personal opinion about this. Had the he land on Kyushu was the rest of the "Olympic" forces, I wouldn't be here. I beleive there would not have been enough Japanese left after the war to make a 9man team for baseball, and they would have earned their extinction.

S.Nelson FTG1(SS) ret.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 35

RE: Were the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:15:56 PM

adek670

Posts: 281
Joined: 9/21/2010
From: Twickenham
Status: offline

Useful article.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan-signals-intelligence-u-s-invasion-planning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html

(in reply to sandlance)

Post #: 36

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:16:18 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Warspite

I guess that's essentially it -- but how does this play out in witp-ae??

I'm playing the AI in the standard GC and am in late 44 -- do many people that get to 45 consider the bombs as aiding victory ? Or isn't that really a factor given that the political dimension is not modelled beyond pp

The atomic bombs' modelling in the game has been a point of contention.

There is a 'political' cost to using >2 atomic bombs in the game, per the manual. Please read that aspect under victory conditions. It's not PP per se-it's a shift in the victory conditions. Does this model the 'political cost' for which you seek?

From limited numbers of games getting to late 1945, there has been limited information on game usage of this weapon. I think consensus is that the bombs are decidedly 'underpowered' regarding their effect on military units in the hex, LI/HI destroyed (and damaged), factories and so forth.

As an exclusively Japanese player, I'd be gobsmacked (good word for the lexicon, thanks my English friends) if my Allied opponent didn't use them (at least the two 'freebies').

_____________________________

(in reply to adek670)

Post #: 37

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:19:21 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper
Dropping the bombs didn't save lives

If you're interested in a discussion of that-pro or con-you'll provide the numbers that you are using to base this statement. Otherwise, this conclusion flies in the face of everything I've read about expected casualties (KIA and otherwise) from an invasion of Kyushu.

_____________________________

(in reply to adek670)

Post #: 38

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:20:03 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.

warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?

Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.

Warspite1

Hello mind_messing. We seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate for a change

Perhaps my resolution for the new year should be to try to agree with you :)

quote:

I was talking about the numerous examples of the Japanese refusal to surrender on the various Pacific Islands - including some cases involving Japapese civilians who would rather die than surrender.

The scale is quite different. Trying to translate the circumstances of Saipan and Okinawa (where the enemy were right outside your cave) to the Home Islands (where the enemy flew overhead and dropped some bombs) is difficult.

I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 39

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:20:35 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper
Dropping the bombs didn't save lives

If you're interested in a discussion of that-pro or con-you'll provide the numbers that you are using to base this statement. Otherwise, this conclusion flies in the face of everything I've read about expected casualties (KIA and otherwise) from an invasion of Kyushu.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sandlance

Considering my father was an infantryman in the 25th Div. I have a rather biased and personal opinion about this. Had the he land on Kyushu was the rest of the "Olympic" forces, I wouldn't be here. I beleive there would not have been enough Japanese left after the war to make a 9man team for baseball, and they would have earned their extinction.

S.Nelson FTG1(SS) ret.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 12/27/2014 12:21:44 AM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 40

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:20:53 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

The people making those decisions were fallible, just like you and me. Remember that a general (I forget whom) said, after Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese would invade the US and dictate terms in Washington. I suppose they were going to cross the continent on bicycles. People made decisions based on what they believed to be true, and moral culpability has to be judged on that, not on the truth. I'm not suggesting anyone was attempting here to assess that, I didn't see it, so I guess I did, or more properly cautioned against trying (here).

(in reply to adek670)

Post #: 41

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:21:34 PM

adek670

Posts: 281
Joined: 9/21/2010
From: Twickenham
Status: offline

Chicken boy see the recent link I posted
Extract as follows

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000 150,000 3,500 193,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000

< Message edited by Reaper -- 12/27/2014 12:24:18 AM >

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 42

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:27:35 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

I think the Japanese population had an uncommon fidelity / fealty to the Emperor. They would have endured a great deal in his name and at his behest. Moreso than many (including most Western European) other country's citizens. Their reserves of resilience were certainly not endless-but their resilience often ended with the end of their lives: by default or by design.

_____________________________

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 43

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:28:51 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.

warspite1

Why is that a terrible irony? Surely the saving of those Japanese lives (mostly civilian) and ending the war quickly is a good thing? Apologies if I have read you wrong but you seem to be saying it would preferable to slowly starve the population (with the possibility that, like on so many islands, they refuse to give up) than drop the bombs and hopefully end it quickly. The former is unthinkable surely?

Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.

Warspite1

Hello mind_messing. We seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate for a change

Perhaps my resolution for the new year should be to try to agree with you :)

quote:

I was talking about the numerous examples of the Japanese refusal to surrender on the various Pacific Islands - including some cases involving Japapese civilians who would rather die than surrender.

The scale is quite different. Trying to translate the circumstances of Saipan and Okinawa (where the enemy were right outside your cave) to the Home Islands (where the enemy flew overhead and dropped some bombs) is difficult.

I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

warspite1

Exactly, the scale is quite different - and IF you are wrong and IF I am right, then the level of starvation of the population would be quite hideous.

I do not say superhuman, but I think it's clear from many examples in history, just how difficult it is for a population to simply rise up against their military masters. Yes, it may happen eventually - the big unknown is the when.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 44

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:29:21 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Chicken boy see the recent link I posted
Extract as follows

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000 150,000 3,500 193,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000

Are these Allied casualty estimates? Presumably so. How many civilians would have died? Presumably many, many more than Allied soldiers-an order of magnitude higher?

ETA: These were exclusively Allied casualty estimates. Truman's limited knowledge was quite vague: The published version of Truman's letter states that Marshall told him it would cost "at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties and might cost as much as a million.

I see nothing there to contradict that the bombs saved lives if one includes Japanese civilians and military (some 900,000 in the home islands). It would have been an abattoir.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 12/27/2014 12:37:06 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to adek670)

Post #: 45

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:31:35 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Chicken boy see the recent link I posted
Extract as follows

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000 150,000 3,500 193,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000

Warspite1

Sorry I cannot read the link - are these Allied casualties only?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to adek670)

Post #: 46

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:36:40 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

I think the Japanese population had an uncommon fidelity / fealty to the Emperor. They would have endured a great deal in his name and at his behest. Moreso than many (including most Western European) other country's citizens. Their reserves of resilience were certainly not endless-but their resilience often ended with the end of their lives: by default or by design.

The worst the vast majority of the Japanese population had to endure was food shortages and homelessness as a result of Allied bombing.

That is severe in itself, but it isn't living under starvation conditions with no prospect of improvement.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 47

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:37:08 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Chicken boy see the recent link I posted
Extract as follows

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000 150,000 3,500 193,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000

Warspite1

Sorry I cannot read the link - are these Allied casualties only?

Aren't you reading my posts? Git.

_____________________________

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 48

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:38:34 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

I think the Japanese population had an uncommon fidelity / fealty to the Emperor. They would have endured a great deal in his name and at his behest. Moreso than many (including most Western European) other country's citizens. Their reserves of resilience were certainly not endless-but their resilience often ended with the end of their lives: by default or by design.

The worst the vast majority of the Japanese population had to endure was food shortages and homelessness as a result of Allied bombing.

That is severe in itself, but it isn't living under starvation conditions with no prospect of improvement.

No. The worst the majority of Japanese had to endure was firebombings, immolation and death. Lots of it too. Some 40,000 KIA from the Tokyo firebombings of March 1945, IIRC.

_____________________________

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 49

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:40:58 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Chicken boy see the recent link I posted
Extract as follows

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000 150,000 3,500 193,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000

Warspite1

Sorry I cannot read the link - are these Allied casualties only?

Aren't you reading my posts? Git.

Warspite1

I never read your lousy posts you twat

In all seriousness CB i'm trying to post using a fiddly IPAD so I did not finish typing mine before yours appeared - soz

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 50

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:41:54 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 51

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:53:46 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

I think the Japanese population had an uncommon fidelity / fealty to the Emperor. They would have endured a great deal in his name and at his behest. Moreso than many (including most Western European) other country's citizens. Their reserves of resilience were certainly not endless-but their resilience often ended with the end of their lives: by default or by design.

The worst the vast majority of the Japanese population had to endure was food shortages and homelessness as a result of Allied bombing.

That is severe in itself, but it isn't living under starvation conditions with no prospect of improvement.

No. The worst the majority of Japanese had to endure was firebombings, immolation and death. Lots of it too. Some 40,000 KIA from the Tokyo firebombings of March 1945, IIRC.

The term "vast majority" must not have registered.

40,000 KIA from Tokyo firebombings, but there were an estimated million plus made homeless.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 52

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/26/2014 11:59:02 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 53

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 12:10:58 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.

warspite1

Two things:

Firstly "reasonable terms" - a) as you say these were not agreed, but even if they were, they were not unconditional (the Emperor). Yes they were pretty similar to what was ultimately signed, but I think the US bent over backwards in allowing the Emperor to stay - rather than the US being unreasonable not to have accepted the January terms (had they been sanctioned).

Secondly you seem to be making an absolute distinction between military and civilian population. I suspect that there would have been a great many civilians - old and young, male and female - taking up arms in the event of a US invasion.

A third point: if the atomic bomb was not necessary and the invasion of Manchuria was the deciding factor for the Japanese, why did they wait until the second bomb had been dropped to give in?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 54

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 12:23:02 AM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.

warspite1

Two things:

Firstly "reasonable terms" - a) as you say these were not agreed, but even if they were, they were not unconditional (the Emperor). Yes they were pretty similar to what was ultimately signed, but I think the US bent over backwards in allowing the Emperor to stay - rather than the US being unreasonable not to have accepted the January terms (had they been sanctioned).

Those terms are perfectly reasonable. They were everything the Americans demanded, bar the face-saving gesture of allowing the Emperor to remain in power.

It's not as if the Americans had a burning anti-monarchial agenda to push - they let the Emperor stay regardless...

quote:

Secondly you seem to be making an absolute distinction between military and civilian population. I suspect that there would have been a great many civilians - old and young, male and female - taking up arms in the event of a US invasion.

I've been saying that there would be no need for an invasion since my first post in this thread, so I can't think of where I'd have made that distinction...

quote:

A third point: if the atomic bomb was not necessary and the invasion of Manchuria was the deciding factor for the Japanese, why did they wait until the second bomb had been dropped to give in?

Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th.

The Soviet invasion was on August 9th as was the bombing of Nagasaki.

Hirohito's broadcast was on August 15th.

I think you can agree that six days is a pretty reasonable time-frame for a government to get the full details and make an informed decision to act.

Food for thought: If the Atomic bombs were necessary and they were the deciding factor for the Japanese to surrender, why did they wait until the second bomb before giving in?

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 55

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 12:24:01 AM

RJL5188

Posts: 170
Joined: 11/27/2010
Status: offline

simple answer...YES!

_____________________________

"Remember. This is a military operation. They NEVER go according to plan." ---Gen. Beck to Col. Stauffenberg (VALKYRIE)

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 56

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 12:32:56 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Annoyingly I will have to answer one by one on this IPAD

Re the demands, as I said, I believe the demand for unconditional surrender was not unreasonable. The fact that ultimately the US allowed Hirohito to remain was sensible under the circumstances and showed flexibility on the part of the US.

I suspect we will never agree so will just have to agree to disagree on the point of what was reasonable.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/27/2014 1:50:11 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 57

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 12:39:55 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Re the distinction between military and civilian - it does not matter whether there is an invasion or not. You say the civilian population would not allow the military to starve them and would force a surrender with no need of an invasion. Again we will have to agree to disagree. Whether an invasion or an attempt to starve the population is carried out, I see no reason for the large part of the Japanese populace to suddenly throw in the towel. In the absence of the bomb, an invasion would have been necessary but either way, it would have been horrendous for the Japanese people in terms of lives lost.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 58

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 12:48:16 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Re why did Japan wait for the 2nd bomb? To be crude about it, I think they needed time to understand and take in just what the ?�&@ had hit them at Hiroshima. By the time they realised this was serious number 2 had landed. BUT even then there was further delay and indecision on their part.

Two cities obliterated and Manchuria being overrun and still there was doubt as to whether surrender was the right course of action for their people.....

It's been an interesting debate as ever mind_messing but I will never be drawn to a different conclusion on this.

Captain Ramsey, you were right all along

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 59

RE: We're the atomic bombs necessary - 12/27/2014 1:20:55 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

I think the Japanese population had an uncommon fidelity / fealty to the Emperor. They would have endured a great deal in his name and at his behest. Moreso than many (including most Western European) other country's citizens. Their reserves of resilience were certainly not endless-but their resilience often ended with the end of their lives: by default or by design.

The worst the vast majority of the Japanese population had to endure was food shortages and homelessness as a result of Allied bombing.

That is severe in itself, but it isn't living under starvation conditions with no prospect of improvement.

No. The worst the majority of Japanese had to endure was firebombings, immolation and death. Lots of it too. Some 40,000 KIA from the Tokyo firebombings of March 1945, IIRC.

The term "vast majority" must not have registered.

40,000 KIA from Tokyo firebombings, but there were an estimated million plus made homeless.

Aye, but in your previous postings, we were only to consider death (not wounded or other injuries) in our cold calculus. Surely, "just" being homeless wouldn't rise to your challenge, would it?

I've not seen any reasoned calculation of the numbers of Japanese made homeless on Kyushu by an Allied invasion.

_____________________________

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 60