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: BBC - Hiroshima

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: BBC - Hiroshima Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 1:56:33 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Well, then it seems I may have misunderstood you. You've been talking about a Soviet invasion...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 61
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 2:00:20 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

To give credit to Truman, you have to look at the fact that the US had been at war for a while now and I'm sure everyone was ready for it to be over. He had a choice of using the A bombs now or bomb Japan for several more months before an invasion fleet could be ready. And I'm sure the cost of taking Okinawa was on his mind too. It was a different time back then. For example, I have a cousin that is a female college student with no knowledge of military history whatsoever and she is totally convinced that we were evil for dropping the bombs.


I just thought of another informative tidbit you can mention to your cousin about dropping the bomb versus an invasion of Japan.

Before major operations the US military would order the production of medals such as Purple Hearts (given for battle wounds and deaths). The very same Purple Hearts produced for the invasion of Japan were so numerous that they are still be issued to this day.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 62
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 3:10:03 AM   
invernomuto


Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
Some days ago I read an interview to Gar Alperovitz, University of Meryland, on an important Italian newspaper.
He said that the decision to drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was only political, for two reasons:
1 - According to US intel, Japan "was ready to surrender". It was just a diplomatical matter, Japanese want to preserve their Emperor.
2 - Soviet DOW to Japan should have been the final blow to Japanese resistance.
Truman ordered to drop the A-bomb for political reasons. US used the A bomb as a threat against a soviet expansion in the area.

I cannot translate the entire interview (not so skilled in English, sorry), if someone is interested here is the link http://www.lastampa.it/Speciali/hiroshima/articoli/hiroshima_armaimmorale.asp

Bye

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 63
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 3:30:29 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
There was more than just political reasons for dropping the bomb. There were legitimate military reasons as well.

Both military and political reasons ended up causing the bomb to be dropped.

Japan was defeated - at that time any "Western" country would have already had surrendered - but the Japanese military didn't consider surrender as an option even at this stage and in the end it basically took a direct order from Hirohito to force the military to surrender. After that decision was made it may be interesting to note that the Japanese prime minister was changed to a member of the royal family so the military wouldn't assassinate him and continue the war.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 64
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 10:05:06 AM   
Tomo


Posts: 66
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: JAPAN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The Germans officially accepted their responsibilty for what the Nazi government had done but by and large from what i've read, Japan has not. Even an attempt to understand the radical differences in Japanese culture from the West really dont excuse this IMO.


I don't wanna talk about political problem here. This is a game board.

Just wanna let you know how many times Japanese govermment officially accepted responsibility of the pacific war.
From below site,The Japanese Government and many politicians expressed an apology officially at least more than 30 times. It is including emperor. I know The Chinese Communist Party and Korean government still need Japanese apologies. Almost of its aims are for a domestic nationalism reason.
If the Korean political party could get a Japanese new apology, she can win an election.
1 Japanese apology produce many votes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E6%88%A6%E4%BA%89%E8%AC%9D%E7%BD%AA%E7%99%BA%E8%A8%80%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E6%88%A6%E4%BA%89%E8%AC%9D%E7%BD%AA#.E8.AC.9D.E7.BD.AA.E3.81.AE.E5.9B.9E.E6.95.B0


http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Hiroshima
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/

Nagasaki
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20050808-02620591-jijp-soci.view-001&kz=soci
http://base.mng.nias.ac.jp/
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/

< Message edited by Tomo -- 8/8/2005 2:26:06 PM >


_____________________________

Japanese wargamer. Will post from "the other side" .

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 65
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 11:12:13 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

I have just watched BBC documentary made in 2005 (party re-enacted, partly documentary, partly computer graphics) on my country's national TV.

It was 50+minutes long and it ends with bomb explosion.


I just saw that today at 4 PM is 2nd part (form bob explosion afterwards I suppose)... it must be long documentary 2x 50 minutes...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 66
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 3:37:15 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
What war crime did the US commit on Saipan?

If your going to claim the murder of the civilian population, I suggest you get a better history teacher and source, the Japanes population committed suicide at the insistance of their own government and local commanders. They had been taught we were barbarians and might do things like eat them if captured.

The projected losses in the invasion mainland japan were in the millions for both sides, it was feared that an invasion could lead to the destruction of the Japanese race, based on the events on Saipan and Okinawa.

You tell me.... was the loss of 250 thousand worse than the potential loss of MILLIONS? Based on what the Americans knew in August 1945, the Japanese would NOT surrender and the civilian population would aid in defense using bamboo sticks ( meaning slaughtered when they tried to attack american positions) those civilians not killed in defense of Japan would likely take their own life.

There was no way the Americans were gonna make a settlement with Japan. It wasnt going to happen, pretending if only we had, is a waste of time.
Using records from the time found AFTER the surrender to justify what the Government should have done BEFORE they knew the facts is stupid and foolish.

The reality is that EVEN after Hirohito called for surrender the Japanese military tried to prevent him from announcing it.

Were the bombs justified.... YES. Were they neccassary... Yes.

Both targets were ( in WW2) legitamate Military targets. At least Hiroshima was a marshalling center for an entire Army for the defense of Japan. They were selected BECAUSE they hadnt been bombed previously and would show the full weight of what the BOMB would do. In an effort to shock the Japanese into surrender. And it worked.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 67
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 5:34:55 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
In regards to "supposed" diplomatic effort by the Japan to end the war later Ulta-Magic intercept
""The diplomatic intercepts included, for example, those of neutral diplomats or attachés stationed in Japan. Critics highlighted a few nuggets from this trove in the 1978 releases, but with the complete release, we learned that there were only 3 or 4 messages suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace, while no fewer than 13 affirmed that Japan fully intended to fight to the bitter end. Another page in the critics' canon emphasized a squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe, from Sweden to the Vatican, who attempted to become peace entrepreneurs in their contacts with American officials. As the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary correctly made clear to American policymakers during the war, however, not a single one of these men (save one we will address shortly) possessed actual authority to act for the Japanese government."

An inner cabinet in Tokyo authorized Japan's only officially sanctioned diplomatic initiative. The Japanese dubbed this inner cabinet the Big Six because it comprised just six men: Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Minister Korechika Anami, Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, and the chiefs of staff of the Imperial Army (General Yoshijiro Umezu) and Imperial Navy (Admiral Soemu Toyoda). In complete secrecy, the Big Six agreed on an approach to the Soviet Union in June 1945. This was not to ask the Soviets to deliver a "We surrender" note; rather, it aimed to enlist the Soviets as mediators to negotiate an end to the war satisfactory to the Big Six--in other words, a peace on terms satisfactory to the dominant militarists. Their minimal goal was not confined to guaranteed retention of the Imperial Institution; they also insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled.

The conduit for this initiative was Japan's ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato. He communicated with Foreign Minister Togo--and, thanks to code breaking, with American policymakers. Ambassador Sato emerges in the intercepts as a devastating cross-examiner ruthlessly unmasking for history the feebleness of the whole enterprise. Sato immediately told Togo that the Soviets would never bestir themselves on behalf of Japan. The foreign minister could only insist that Sato follow his instructions. Sato demanded to know whether the government and the military supported the overture and what its legal basis was--after all, the official Japanese position, adopted in an Imperial Conference in June 1945 with the emperor's sanction, was a fight to the finish. The ambassador also demanded that Japan state concrete terms to end the war, otherwise the effort could not be taken seriously. Togo responded evasively that the "directing powers" and the government had authorized the effort--he did not and could not claim that the military in general supported it or that the fight-to-the-end policy had been replaced. Indeed, Togo added: "Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender."

Starting with the publication of excerpts from the diaries of James Forrestal in 1951, the contents of a few of the diplomatic intercepts were revealed, and for decades the critics focused on these. But the release of the complete (unredacted) "Magic" Far East Summary, supplementing the Diplomatic Summary, in the 1990s revealed that the diplomatic messages amounted to a mere trickle by comparison with the torrent of military intercepts. The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender. Ultra was even more alarming in what it revealed about Japanese knowledge of American military plans. Intercepts demonstrated that the Japanese had correctly anticipated precisely where U.S. forces intended to land on Southern Kyushu in November 1945 (Operation Olympic). American planning for the Kyushu assault reflected adherence to the military rule of thumb that the attacker should outnumber the defender at least three to one to assure success at a reasonable cost. American estimates projected that on the date of the landings, the Japanese would have only three of their six field divisions on all of Kyushu in the southern target area where nine American divisions would push ashore. The estimates allowed that the Japanese would possess just 2,500 to 3,000 planes total throughout Japan to face Olympic. American aerial strength would be over four times greater."

From mid-July onwards, Ultra intercepts exposed a huge military buildup on Kyushu. Japanese ground forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of four. Instead of 3 Japanese field divisions deployed in southern Kyushu to meet the 9 U.S. divisions, there were 10 Imperial Army divisions plus additional brigades. Japanese air forces exceeded prior estimates by a factor of two to four. Instead of 2,500 to 3,000 Japanese aircraft, estimates varied between about 6,000 and 10,000. One intelligence officer commented that the Japanese defenses threatened "to grow to [the] point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) which is not the recipe for victory.""


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5894&R=C62A29C91
It also talks about the fact that between 250,000- 400,000 Asian were dying a month due to the war.

This from the author of "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire."





< Message edited by madmickey -- 8/7/2005 5:47:04 PM >

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 68
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 8:06:40 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
My point was that INVADING Japan by the Fall of '45 wasn't going to be that difficult. The "defensive" capabilities of her Navy and Air Power were almost nil.
Her ability to fight started at the shoreline. Yes, there would be suicide boats and kamikazes thrown at the follow up waves (they had to be dragged out of their hiding places). Yes, there were lots of troops and spear carrying militia once you got ashore. But invading wasn't going to be a problem. Establishing a successful beachhead, and expanding it, was going to be the tough part. But Japan's resources (such as were left) we concentraited to meet the Americans
in the South and then on Honshu. The Russians would have landed on Hokaido in the north, where much less was available defensively. And given Stalin's willingness to pile up bodies, they had a good chance of succeeding. Thus opening the "can of worms" I mentioned. I still maintain that Harry was right to use the bomb. Japan "sewed the wind..., and reaped the whirlwind". It's as simple as that. And all they had to do to save themselves was say "I quit" any time before the 6th of August. Stupidity CAN be fatal...

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 69
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/7/2005 8:30:18 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

My point was that INVADING Japan by the Fall of '45 wasn't going to be that difficult. The "defensive" capabilities of her Navy and Air Power were almost nil.
Her ability to fight started at the shoreline. Yes, there would be suicide boats and kamikazes thrown at the follow up waves (they had to be dragged out of their hiding places). Yes, there were lots of troops and spear carrying militia once you got ashore. But invading wasn't going to be a problem. Establishing a successful beachhead, and expanding it, was going to be the tough part. But Japan's resources (such as were left) we concentraited to meet the Americans
in the South and then on Honshu. The Russians would have landed on Hokaido in the north, where much less was available defensively. And given Stalin's willingness to pile up bodies, they had a good chance of succeeding. Thus opening the "can of worms" I mentioned. I still maintain that Harry was right to use the bomb. Japan "sewed the wind..., and reaped the whirlwind". It's as simple as that. And all they had to do to save themselves was say "I quit" any time before the 6th of August. Stupidity CAN be fatal...


Japanese had _NO_ serious wish to defend the beaches with all might they still possesed - they have learned the hard lesson(s) that they can't stop the invasion.

What would be bloody is to crush Japanese defensive lines inland... here is where casualties would lie... not at amphibious landing...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 70
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/8/2005 12:31:34 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
Well, I watched it.

God, that was disturbing.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 71
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/8/2005 12:32:53 AM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
quote:

God, that was disturbing


told you so

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 72
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/8/2005 12:35:06 AM   
51st Highland Div


Posts: 347
Joined: 7/23/2005
From: Glasgow,Scotland
Status: offline
Yep especially the bit with the Japanese mother unable to help her trapped daughter..very disturbing.

_____________________________

https://i.ibb.co/SRBTPGK/hmsglasgowmatrix.jpg
______________________________________________

The beatings will continue until morale improves....

Banner thanks to RogueUSMC

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 73
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/8/2005 1:52:59 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 51st Highland Div

Yep especially the bit with the Japanese mother unable to help her trapped daughter..very disturbing.


Yeah, thats the bit I was thinking of.

(in reply to 51st Highland Div)
Post #: 74
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/8/2005 2:00:07 AM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
We both agree on Truman wisdom I also brought in my post 68 to back it up.
If the USSR invaded Hokkaido they would have to transfer far east troops from Korea to Vladivostock (which is still nearer to Jap air bases at Hohshu than Hokkaido), I doubt they would take troop from Germany and Eastern Europe for that operation. Do you think the Japanese would have reacted to that and moved troops around? The passage between the Hohshu and Hokkaido is narrow and troops can be ferried and Northern Hokkaido is very mountainous and can be easily defended. Where would you place your air cover for your invasion fleet to prevent the thousands of kamikazes? If the US with all its naval air arms heaviled AA ships and experience in amphibious operation had so much problems with kamikazes at Okinawa what do you think the USSR would have face?


< Message edited by madmickey -- 8/8/2005 7:38:38 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 75
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/8/2005 3:49:30 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Well, I watched it.

God, that was disturbing.


I watched the 2nd part as well on my national TV yesterday afternoon... true... disturbing... but I think it was necessary...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 76
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/8/2005 8:45:48 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Well, I watched it.

God, that was disturbing.


I watched the 2nd part as well on my national TV yesterday afternoon... true... disturbing... but I think it was necessary...


Leo "Apollo11"


I agree there.

You need to have a hard heart to be a general or president I think, though.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 77
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/8/2005 9:14:51 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Yeah... knowingly sending young people to their deaths and all...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 78
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 4:12:18 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Thx for the information Tomo. I should have been more specific in mentioning that yes, officials in the Japanese gov have multiple times expressed regret and made acknowledgements on the part of their country for what was done in WWII. I was referring more to actions such as the recent Japanese 'version' of WWII (what little mention there was of it apparantly) authorized for the public schools combined with recent revisionist histories that among other things claimed that massacres such as Nanking did not happen.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tomo)
Post #: 79
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 6:38:38 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

. Where would you place your air cover for your invasion fleet to prevent the thousands of kamikazes? If the US with all its naval air arms heaviled AA ships and experience in amphibious operation had so much problems with kamikazes at Okinawa what do you think the USSR would have face?



Wouldn't need any. The Kamikazes would have all trashed themselves against the Americans. That's when the Russians would make their move. Joe Stalin was an inhuman monster..., but he wasn't stupid.
Let the Allies pull the teeth of the Japanese defense, then make your move is the way I see it.

_____________________________


(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 80
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 6:44:44 PM   
Sharkosaurus rex


Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline
Just like the western Allies rushed in at Normandy???? Just leave it to the Russians to clean up the Nazi then we'll land at the last minute, make some Hollywood movies and grab all the credit!

_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 81
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 8:48:22 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
They rushed in at France, Low Countries, BOB, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, bomber offensive, murmansk convoys, lend-lease. Made movies about them too.

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 82
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 9:46:43 PM   
usersatch

 

Posts: 400
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
Well, you have to admit, what the Americans suffered in Europe, it paled in comparison to what the Soviets suffered in the east. D-day casualties? Business as usual on the Eastern Front. Operation Cobra...same thing. The Ardennes? Kids stuff compared to Kursk, Moscow, Stalingrad, Rostov, etc. I dont think Ike planned on using the Russkies as fodder, but we did take a bit of time getting into France, so it might appear that way.

Personally, I dont think Uncle Joe gave two sh&ts about the island of Japan. I think what he wanted was land and resources, something Japan is not known for.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 83
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 10:03:16 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Well, the Americans wanted to land in France in 1942...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 84
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 10:05:30 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Lovely fantasy that....



_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 85
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 10:56:41 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
It is not a fantasy that the American Military tried to organize an invasion in 1942 and 43. The British were dead set against it. and maybe correctly.

As for the crocodile tears for the Soviets, boo hoo hoo. Remind me again who agreed to a pact with Hitler in 39 that saw the transfer of oil and war materials to Germany up until the invasion in June 41. And exactly where do you thing German pilots were trained in the early 30's?

The Soviets could not have won WW2 with out the allies and without the Atomic bomb, I doubt the Allies could have beat the Germans with out the Soviets either. To claim one or the other was able to do it alone is wishful thinking.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 86
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 11:02:08 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
When discussing the relative importance of the 2 bombs Vs. the destruction of the Kwangtung Army by the Soviets its important to remember that the Kwangtung Army had a lot of political importance for the Japanese army. It was thier largest force outside of Japan, and the whole war had been started so that Japan could have its way in China. There were even Japanese general who felt that the Kwangtung could go on fighting after the loss of the home islands!

Not very realistic, but illustrative of thier mind set.

The Soviets used to claim that Japan surrenderd because they attacked, I think its pretty obvious that this is not true, but the sudden very rapid loss of a very important army did have an impact on the leadership of Japan.

As far as the decision to drop the horrible things for me it come down to something like this.

If you don't drop them and Japan surrenders you save the lives of 150,000 to 200,00 people.

But if Japan chooses not to surrender then somewhere between 1 and 5? million people will die.

Its really ugly, ugly math no matter how you look at it, but that second choice is gambling with the lives of a lot of people.

Of course morally if your the president of the United States your obligated to protect the citizens who elected you, and if dropping the bomb might save some of thier lives, in the context of WWII you should do it.

The real moral onus lies with the Japanese Government of 1945, parts of which were perfectly happy to consume the lives of all Japanese in the flames of the war that they started, fought and glorified.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 87
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 11:21:02 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

It is not a fantasy that the American Military tried to organize an invasion in 1942 and 43. The British were dead set against it. and maybe correctly.



I believe it was, which is not to say such an effort was impossible, but rather by my saying it was fantasy is in relation to the intial viewpoint by the US joint chiefs that they could simply draft up some divisions, ship em overseas and invade the continent within 6-8 months of entering the war without it having a superlatively high chance of coming to tears. One only has to look at the preperation and buildup required for Overlord to see it. 1943 was more realistic but the Allies still lacked experience in conducting such a large amphibious operation.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 8/9/2005 11:23:51 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 88
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 11:45:48 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I knew what you meant, Nik... now get back to your campaign against Venezuela!

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 89
RE: BBC - Hiroshima - 8/9/2005 11:54:15 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
the United States of Nik vehemenantly denies that it is planning to invade Venezwhatitsname. (looks at map....where the hell is that anyway? oh yeah....next to Denmark i think)



_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: BBC - Hiroshima Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.891