JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 14th December 2012, 03:28 PM   #41
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past 'Resume Speed'
Posts: 13,850
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
........
Its as if someone told me the world is going to end on 12/21/12. Starting on 12/22/12 I'm not going to believe anything he has to say, even if it was plausible coming from anyone else.
That says a lot more about your judgement than it does about someone else' truthfulness..
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 14th December 2012 at 03:31 PM.
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 03:31 PM   #42
lobosrul
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,053
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
That says a lot more about your judgement than it does about someone else' truthfulness..
It means I don't consider them a credible source. I guess I should say I wouldn't consider a "Mayan calender world is going to end on 12/21/12'er" credible even before they're proven wrong.
lobosrul is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 03:37 PM   #43
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,426
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
I didn't know Mark Weber was a holocaust denier. Sorry. I just googled for an article on the topic of this thread. Its what I found.
Yeah right. And you didn't check the provenance for a second?

Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
But what the hell does holocaust denial have to do with any of it anyway?
The guy is a holocaust denier. Therefore, nothing he says about history can be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
Now I'm a conspiracy theorist and a holocaust denier? Thanks.
Nobody actually called you a holocaust denier up to this point. However, the longer you wait retracting that article as a source, the more I am going to think you actually are one.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 03:42 PM   #44
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,426
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
[nitpick]Olympic was the planned invasion of Kyushu in the fall of 1945. The planned invasion of Honshu, in the spring of 1946, was codenamed Coronet. The entire plan for the invasion of Japan was codenamed Downfall.[/nitpick]
Thanks for the correction.

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
And probably another 10 million in the areas still under Japanese occupation.
China and Korea and the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies etc.? Yes, I forgot those. 1 million Chinese civilians alone perished per month due to the Japanese occupation.

Those ca. 150,000 Japanese that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a drop in the bucket compared to the alternative.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

Last edited by ddt; 14th December 2012 at 03:46 PM.
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 03:50 PM   #45
Debaser
Muse
 
Debaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 806
I suggest the OP get a copy of the documentary series 'The World at War' made only 18 years after the end of WW2, or at least episode 24 'The Bomb' which tells of the political manoeuvering in the Japanese government from the lips of some of those Japanese politicians who were there.
Link for anyone in the UK.

Therein he will find that even after the 2nd bomb was dropped (on the 9th August) the Japanese cabinet was in stalemate, and only then was the Emperor brought in to decide what direction to take (his final decision not being made/accepted until 14th August);

Yoshio Kodama suggest that the pride of the people would make them fight to the last man;

Marquis Koichi Kido explain that the majority of the army and civilian population were "completely unaware" their government was negotiating peace with the Allies and that leaflets dropped by the US at that time might have triggered a revolution;

Toshikazu Kase say it was "completely unnecessary" due to Japan's exhaustion and negotiations, but then go on to say that "[he knew that] 99 men out of 100 expected the Emperor to urge them to fight on", in his broadcast to the nation, and that "the shock [of that broadcast] was tremendous";

Marquis Kido go on to say the bombing and the attack by Russia helped to bring about the end of the war "[because] if they hadn't happened, at that stage Japan probably couldn't have stopped fighting";

Hisatsune Sakomizu say "[the Americans] were brutal...but at the same time that this may become a key for Japan to end the war"

And all of this only after both bombs had been dropped...
Debaser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:07 PM   #46
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
TubbaBlubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8,779
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
The guy is a holocaust denier. Therefore, nothing he says about history can be taken seriously.
I seem to vaguely recall that one of the most prominent WWII scholars is a holocaust denier.
__________________
There are two kinds of fact - the trivially true, and the technically correct.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:17 PM   #47
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,051
Originally Posted by Debaser View Post
I suggest the OP get a copy of the documentary series 'The World at War' made only 18 years after the end of WW2, or at least episode 24 'The Bomb' which tells of the political manoeuvering in the Japanese government from the lips of some of those Japanese politicians who were there.
Link for anyone in the UK.

Therein he will find that even after the 2nd bomb was dropped (on the 9th August) the Japanese cabinet was in stalemate, and only then was the Emperor brought in to decide what direction to take (his final decision not being made/accepted until 14th August);

Yoshio Kodama suggest that the pride of the people would make them fight to the last man;

Marquis Koichi Kido explain that the majority of the army and civilian population were "completely unaware" their government was negotiating peace with the Allies and that leaflets dropped by the US at that time might have triggered a revolution;

Toshikazu Kase say it was "completely unnecessary" due to Japan's exhaustion and negotiations, but then go on to say that "[he knew that] 99 men out of 100 expected the Emperor to urge them to fight on", in his broadcast to the nation, and that "the shock [of that broadcast] was tremendous";

Marquis Kido go on to say the bombing and the attack by Russia helped to bring about the end of the war "[because] if they hadn't happened, at that stage Japan probably couldn't have stopped fighting";

Hisatsune Sakomizu say "[the Americans] were brutal...but at the same time that this may become a key for Japan to end the war"

And all of this only after both bombs had been dropped...
In addition to the above the Marquis Kido was the last living genro and the Privy Seal, the man who controled access to the Emperor. He was Showa's buddy, confidant, and was very well informed as to what the Emperor was thinking.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:26 PM   #48
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Yeah right. And you didn't check the provenance for a second?


The guy is a holocaust denier. Therefore, nothing he says about history can be taken seriously.


Nobody actually called you a holocaust denier up to this point. However, the longer you wait retracting that article as a source, the more I am going to think you actually are one.
Call me a liar all you want. What the hell do I care? I just read the article and though it was interesting. Its funny how around here the topic isn't discussed as much as the accusations fly.
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:39 PM   #49
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,426
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
Call me a liar all you want. What the hell do I care? I just read the article and though it was interesting. Its funny how around here the topic isn't discussed as much as the accusations fly.
I didn't call you a liar. Come up with a more credible source if you want to discuss this. Counter the arguments brought forth by other posters instead of whining that your source is called junk. But I note you still haven't retracted the IHR article as your source.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:41 PM   #50
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,426
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I seem to vaguely recall that one of the most prominent WWII scholars is a holocaust denier.
You don't mean David Irving, do you? He never was prominent, but he's the closest to a historian the holocaust denial movement has on offer.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:42 PM   #51
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: A floating island above the clouds
Posts: 24,284
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
It does not make much sense that the atomic bombs caused the end of the war. Most of Japan's cities had already been destroyed. Japan never actually unconditionally surrendered. It wanted and got its emperor to continue to be the emperor.

Makes much more sense to think that the bombs were dropped to send a message to the USSR.
Best explanation I've heard was the US wanted to force capitulation before Russia got involved, even a token amount, which afterward would involve carving up Japan like Germany, and we had no intention of handing over still more economic powerhouse chunks to them.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 14th December 2012 at 04:44 PM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:51 PM   #52
Giz
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK/US
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
Best explanation I've heard was the US wanted to force capitulation before Russia got involved, even a token amount, which afterward would involve carving up Japan like Germany, and we had no intention of handing over still more economic powerhouse chunks to them.
I think the main reason was that they thought an invasion would be like a dozen Okinawa's. Sending a message to the USSR was just gravy (as was saving civilians in occupied areas and indeed in all likelihood massively minimizing Japanese losses).

Great thing for the Emperor: he got to excuse surrendering because it was a whole new type of weapon. Save face. Killing the same number with conventional bombs probably wouldn't have ended the war.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:51 PM   #53
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
TubbaBlubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 8,779
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
You don't mean David Irving, do you? He never was prominent, but he's the closest to a historian the holocaust denial movement has on offer.
Nope. Might've been Harry Elmer Barnes, a once esteemed historian who went nuts. Or I could just be thinking of some other absolutely preposterous dissonance involving denialism. Can't find what I originally read, either...
__________________
There are two kinds of fact - the trivially true, and the technically correct.
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 05:13 PM   #54
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,051
How many threads do we have on this topic?
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 05:51 PM   #55
abaddon
Philosopher
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,136
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
The outcome of the war was in little doubt by Dec 7, 1941. There was absolutely no plausible way Japan could hope to win a war against the US.
Funny. 1941 Japan didn't think so.

Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
Is there any scenario where you think its justified to bomb civilians of one nation, who started a war, to save on military causalities of another? Because that's exactly what decision faced Truman. He could continue on with a conventional bombing (and start an atomic) campaign against Japan and hope they surrendered, or at least weaken them for an upcoming invasion. Or, he could go ahead with an invasion of Japan and explain to the American people how a Japanese civilians life was more valuable than an 18 year old Americans was (many of whom would be draftees).
And you just made the argument that it was the correct thing to do. Or are you saying that the correct thing to do would be order a conventional invasion, with casualties on both sides being an order of magnitude greater? That would have been better, somehow?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 07:45 PM   #56
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
I didn't call you a liar. Come up with a more credible source if you want to discuss this. Counter the arguments brought forth by other posters instead of whining that your source is called junk. But I note you still haven't retracted the IHR article as your source.
What does "yeah right" mean? That's not calling me a liar? I thought the article was interesting on the topic at hand. I goggled the subject and its what came up. I did not know he was a racist. But I still thought the article was interesting as far as the topic of this thread goes.
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 10:09 PM   #57
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 25,733
Profanz, the longer you avoid admitting you cited a crappy source from a crackpot,neo Nazi website, the worse it will get for you.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 12:03 AM   #58
Furi
Felix Sapiens
 
Furi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Living life in the bus lane
Posts: 2,006
Ok, what search terms did you happen to type in? because I got bored trying to see if that site popped up, this thread was listed around 100 or so in the search engine. many many other press agencies and military history sites as well as those that are vehemently opposed to nuclear weapons showed up but IHR.

Asking if the bombings were neccesary, is like asking if the allies have used ANY form of new technology during the conflict that increased the military ability to damage it's opponent.

the fire bombing of various cities through conventional means was devastating, I always get surprised by this topic popping up and essentially it is because it is NewKleeAr weapons, good old fashioned High ex just isn't kewl enough to warrant peoples attention.

plus a repetition of Okinawa Iwo Jima, Tinian, Italy, France, would have been just HOW costly in terms of Civilian life, Civilian Soldiers as well as well as Non combatants,

Is the civilian working in the farm to provide food for the troops, or making the uniforms which is allowing the country to effectively further their military goals not also a valid target?

OT
the box set of the remastered world at war, is actually in my computer now, as I bought it for my self as a Bday present a fortnight ago. (never try and watch it all in one sitting)
__________________
=^..^= Felix Sapiens,Drink Beer! It is big, and it is clever,
There’s a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets
The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one they say.
Furi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 04:20 AM   #59
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,426
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
What does "yeah right" mean? That's not calling me a liar? I thought the article was interesting on the topic at hand. I goggled the subject and its what came up. I did not know he was a racist. But I still thought the article was interesting as far as the topic of this thread goes.
You always uncritically link to any web page that supports your point of view, without checking what it is? I'm incredulous of that. That's what "yeah right" means, in this case. But then, I didn't know you're a 9/11 truther, as I don't tread into that area.

Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Profanz, the longer you avoid admitting you cited a crappy source from a crackpot,neo Nazi website, the worse it will get for you.
This.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 05:04 AM   #60
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,051
I always get around to asking the anti-bomb folks what alternatives do they propose. So, whatchagot?
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 06:32 AM   #61
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 11,303
Firstly:



Now, to re-hash the arguments.

In 1945 the Allies were entering the endgame phase of the Pacific war; Japan was finished but still fighting and attempting to negotiate an armistice with the Allies, subject to certain non-negotiable preconditions that were utterly unacceptable to the Allies, i.e.:
1. No interference with the institution of the Emperor.
2. War crimes to be investigated, prosecuted and punished by Japan alone.
3. Japan would handle it's own disarmament
4. There be no occupation of Japan
These were still being pursued by some (e.g. Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda) after the Nagasaki bombing.

To Japan unconditional surrender was unacceptable (for example on 21JUL1945 Japanese Prime Minister Togo said, with the consent of the cabinet, that "With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever")
To the Allies the Japanese conditions were unacceptable, as they feared they would lead to another war in a decade or two.

This left the Allies with four options to eliminate Japan as a current and future threat:
1. Continue the blockade and bombardment of Japan, eliminate all transport infrastructure, obliterate cites and attack agriculture, using the existing B29, B24, B17 fleet along with new aircraft like the B50 and B36 (or B35 if it had worked out).
2. Begin use of chemical (and possibly biological weapons) to escalate the threat to Japan.
3. Make use of the atomic bombs, if they were available in time and actually worked.
4. Invade the Japanese home islands.

Option 1 wasn't working. Despite actions such as the firebombing of Tokyo (Operation Meetinghouse which killed more people than both atomic bombs) Japan didn't surrender. It was felt that an escalation in the level of force was needed.

Option 2 wasn't popular. Roosevelt had opposed even tactical use of CW and wouldn't agree to strategic use against cities. Churchill was more enthusiastic and suggested a variation on Operation Vegetarian, i.e. anthrax bombing of agricultural areas..

Option 3 required the bombs to work and be available. However if they could be used they offered a greater level of force that might convince Japan to surrender.

Option 4 was being planned for. Operation Downfall was scheduled to start
on 01NOV1945. The casualty figures expected were high; estimated at 250,000 to one million Allied troops for each of the two elements of operation (Olympic and Coronet) with 20-30% of these being fatalities. Japanese casualties, mostly civilian, were estimated to be three to six times as many.
The Soviets were already planning an invasion of Hokkaido and might have been persuaded to cooperate in Coronet. However this would have meant adding all of Korea and half of Japan to the Soviet sphere.

So perhaps six million casualties with 1.5 million dead, though Shockley's study estimated 1.7 to 4 million American casualties (with 4-800,000 dead) and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. And these numbers still don't factor in the Japanese plans to slaughter prisoners, Koreans and others.
Compared to 200,000 which is the largest remotely credible death toll for the atomic bombings.

The Allies didn't know about programmes like Kokumin Giyū Sentōtai and these weren't factored into planning.
Even before August 1945, Japan was reserving fuel, aircraft (5-9,000 were stockpiled), and personnel for the defense of the home islands. The Japanese defense plan, "Ketsu-Go," called for suicide attacks on an unprecedented scale, military and civilian, and for turning Japan itself into a vast network of fortified caves, underground bunkers, and tunnels. Every road would have been booby-trapped and millions of Japanese civilians would be armed with whatever weapons can be brought to bear. This included bows launching explosive arrows and black powder firearms. Chemical and biological weapons were also stockpiles for use. The slogan adopted was "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation".

Two facts about Downfall: firstly atomic weapons (and probably chemical weapons if Truman was in charge) would be used, at least eight nuclear bombs were to be employed tactically and, secondly, the supply of Purple Hearts (the US military aware for a combat injury) manufactured for Downfall still hasn't been exhausted (though more were ordered in 2000).

To summarise:
1. Intense bombing of more than sixty cities, including the firebombings. Naval blockade and bombardment.
Result: No surrender.
2. Potsdam Ultimatum.
Result: No surrender. It was rejected on 28JUL1945 by the Japanese prime minister, Kantaro Suzuki. Emperor Hirohito made no attempt to influence his government on this matter.
3. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima, followed up with the "rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth" warning.
Result: No surrender.
4. The Soviet declaration of war on Japan.
Result: Guess what? No surrender. In fact, they impose martial law to prevent anyone from entering into surrender discussions.
5. Atomic bombing of Nagasaki.
Result: No surrender.
6. Finally the emperor had to step in to force Japanese government's hand; the Japanese cabinet were evenly split on the surrender decision.
Even then there is opposition and an attempted coup. When asked if the war would be continued if the kokutai [the Emperor's sovereignty] could not be preserved, Hirohito's reply was "of course".

In late 1945 the Allies weren't in the ethical position of good choice/bad choice, it was bad choice/bloody awful choice.


I believe the correct decision, on moral, ethical and practical grounds was made. Millions of lives weren't ended by the atomic bombing that would have been otherwise.

ETA: Sorry if the above doesn't look great, I've tried a few re-organisations but it hasn't improved.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

Last edited by catsmate1; 15th December 2012 at 08:08 AM. Reason: Changed text to red. Also tidied up Ketsu-Go and timeline paragraph and fixed a few typos.
catsmate1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 07:32 AM   #62
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,051
The underlying point of this whole argument is that the Allies would have been accused of doing something mean and nasty whatever they did. This is almost always based on lack of study of the situation. Catsmate1's post above points out several issues that the fingerwaggers ignore, and they ignore them because it tends to make that fingerwagging look ignorant. It gets tedious.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 08:12 AM   #63
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 11,303
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
The underlying point of this whole argument is that the Allies would have been accused of doing something mean and nasty whatever they did. This is almost always based on lack of study of the situation. Catsmate1's post above points out several issues that the fingerwaggers ignore, and they ignore them because it tends to make that fingerwagging look ignorant. It gets tedious.
Exactly. When you're taking about actions that cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands/millions there are no *good* options only less bad ones.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

Last edited by catsmate1; 15th December 2012 at 08:24 AM. Reason: Eliminated feline related typos.
catsmate1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 09:03 AM   #64
Giz
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK/US
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Exactly. When you're taking about actions that cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands/millions there are no *good* options only less bad ones.
Indeed. Great posts.


(Best save them for when this subject reappears next year!)
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 09:26 AM   #65
lobosrul
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,053
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Funny. 1941 Japan didn't think so.


And you just made the argument that it was the correct thing to do. Or are you saying that the correct thing to do would be order a conventional invasion, with casualties on both sides being an order of magnitude greater? That would have been better, somehow?
Japan thought they'd knock out the USN Pacific Fleet and the USA would roll over and let Japan conquer Asia and the Pacific as they pleased. They were wrong. It was never going to happen. And anyways that was just a point I was making: the atomic bombings had nothing to do with changing the actual outcome of the war (as in Japan was going to lose), but with how it would be brought about.

And no, that's not what I was saying. Please take into context what I was replying to. The alternative to dropping the bombs most likely would have meant more causalities to US servicemen, to Japanese servicemen and civilians, and civilians in Japanese held areas.
lobosrul is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 09:29 AM   #66
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,051
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
Japan thought they'd knock out the USN Pacific Fleet and the USA would roll over and let Japan conquer Asia and the Pacific as they pleased. They were wrong. It was never going to happen. And anyways that was just a point I was making: the atomic bombings had nothing to do with changing the actual outcome of the war (as in Japan was going to lose), but with how it would be brought about.

And no, that's not what I was saying. Please take into context what I was replying to. The alternative to dropping the bombs most likely would have meant more causalities to US servicemen, to Japanese servicemen and civilians, and civilians in Japanese held areas.
The area commander for Malaya had ordered that all ~150,000 Allied prisoners of war, men, women, children, would be killed when the first invasion troops hit beaches in his area. Date of the planned invasion was August 15th. So add another 150,000 people to the rolls of the dead-that-might-have-been.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 09:40 AM   #67
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 7,842
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
Was it necessary to not only drop one but two? Was the first one even necessary? Some historians claim Japan was going to surrender anyway.

Were the Americans really just sending a message to Russia?
America wanted unconditional surrender. Japan had some kind of idea that they could have an agreeable armistice via the Potsdam agreement but America wanted none of that. To avoid Allied casualties estimated to be in the millions they dropped the atomic bomb on Japan.

Should America have do that? I've heard arguments saying both yes and no.

I personally feel that dropping the bomb saved allied lives and the lives of perhaps millions of Japanese civilians.

I wasn't alive then so I'm not completely sure either way and neither should anyone else be.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 10:26 AM   #68
Furi
Felix Sapiens
 
Furi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Living life in the bus lane
Posts: 2,006
Catsmate, fantastic post, in some situation there is not the lesser of 2 evils there are just a lot of really unfortunate decisions and whichever unfortunate decision is taken is going to be whinged at.

ETA
I believe the bombing of these 2 cities saved more civilians in the long run, it hastened decisions that should have been made 6-12 months earlier
__________________
=^..^= Felix Sapiens,Drink Beer! It is big, and it is clever,
There’s a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets
The chances of anything coming from mars are a million to one they say.

Last edited by Furi; 15th December 2012 at 10:28 AM.
Furi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 10:39 AM   #69
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 3,976
Nobody seems to remember that Japan had an atomic bomb program. It never amounted to much, and came to nothing at all in the end -- but it's the thought that counts.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Yes, they were necessary, and yes, they ended World War Two more decisively and quickly than any other weapon could have done. They brought an end to the most terrible thing that ever happened.

But Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also unavoidably on the American conscience -- not other nations', Americans' -- and there's nothing we can ever do about it. They come back in those difficult hours of darkness when we lie awake troubled, and sometimes they appear in our dreams. That is the American fate, and it will continue to be for as long as men remember.

That question, Was it really necessary? will recur like our bad memories and bad dreams. Even quite a foolish man can ask it.

I'm glad that this comes up periodically on this forum and elsewhere. We need to keep our memories fresh and our arguments keen. No, not to prevent it happening again, but to maintain our claim to being thinking and feeling men.
__________________
A little knowledge is an irritating thing.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 02:22 PM   #70
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 10,468
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
1. Continue the blockade and bombardment of Japan, eliminate all transport infrastructure, obliterate cites and attack agriculture, using the existing B29, B24, B17 fleet along with new aircraft like the B50 and B36 (or B35 if it had worked out).

The real killer of the Japanese war economy was the naval blockade. USN submarines all but eradicated the Japanese merchant fleet, and Japan was heavily dependent on imports of critical raw materials. Its economy was already in steep decline before the USAAF embarked heavily on its strategic bombing campaign. The U.S., however, was not aware of this. (Its intelligence as to the state of the Japanese economy was extremely limited.)


Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
4. Invade the Japanese home islands.

It's been claimed that the scheduled invasion would likely have never taken place. First, the proponents of the naval and aerial campaigns say that the combined effect of blockade and bombing would have forced Japan to surrender within a few months, likely before the scheduled start of Olympic on 1 November. (Of course, that assessment is made with knowledge gained only after the war had ended, so the decision makers in July 1945 would not have known that Japan was closer to collapse than they realized. One can only make decisions based on the information one has at the time.)

Second, U.S. intelligence had become aware of the degree to which Kyushu had been reinforced by the Japanese, and the planners now knew that the U.S. no longer had the ratio of force believed necessary for a successful landing. It is quite possible that Olympic would have been recast into a landing elsewhere in the Japanese islands. At the very least it would have resulted in a major dispute between the U.S. Army and Navy as to how to proceed.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 02:35 PM   #71
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 10,468
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
I always get around to asking the anti-bomb folks what alternatives do they propose. So, whatchagot?

To my mind, the real blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be laid at the feet of the Japanese leadership. After all, it was their stubbornness and intransigence which continued the war. It was clear to anyone even halfway rational that Japan had long since lost the war. Most of the remainder of Japan's surface fleet had been sunk way back in October 1944; Japanese naval air power had been permanently broken back in June 1944 ('The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot'). Privately many Japanese recognized the war was lost.

Yet the nation's leadership foolishly insisted on prolonging the war, condemning both its own citizens and those of other nations to needless deaths in a futile attempt to delay an outcome that was already obvious and inevitable.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 03:10 PM   #72
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,403
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
In late 1945 the Allies weren't in the ethical position of good choice/bad choice, it was bad choice/bloody awful choice. [/b]

I believe the correct decision, on moral, ethical and practical grounds was made. Millions of lives weren't ended by the atomic bombing that would have been otherwise.

This.

[disclosure]My grandfather was on a troopship headed from Europe to the Pacific when the captain came on the intercom and announced, "The Japanese have surrendered; this ship is now bound for Norfolk." My grandfather was a junior officer in an engineer regiment, so he wouldn't have been going ashore in the first wave of Olympic or Coronet, but he certainly could have been placed in some potentially dangerous situations.[/disclosure]

Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
[Sorry if the above doesn't look great, I've tried a few re-organisations but it hasn't improved.

Not at all; it looks fine.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 03:10 PM   #73
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
I think that until the bombs were dropped it was a stalemate. Japan was a very worthy opponent. That can be debated I guess.

I thank everyone with a much more extensive knowledge on this topic than myself. I thought it was a worthy subject and I was curious. Unfortunately after seeing the Oliver Stone interview I goggled the topic and came up with an article that was written by a holocaust denier and I posted it here.

I apologize if I offended anyone. But I'm really just interested in the topic.
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 08:56 PM   #74
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 10,468
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
I think that until the bombs were dropped it was a stalemate. Japan was a very worthy opponent.

Depends on what you mean by 'worthy'.

At the time, economically they were at best a third-rate power compared to the United States. In a massive war of attrition—which is precisely what total war between industrialized nation-states was—Japan stood little chance. Moreover, the 'Bushido' warrior code which infused much of its military efforts actually contributed to Allied victory—quite a few of its better naval commanders, for example, chose to go down with their ships, thus depriving the navy of those quality personnel. There was almost no search and rescue effort for its pilots; in contrast, the U.S. spent a great deal of effort in retrieving its downed aircrew, thus preserving those skilled men for future missions.

As to its being a stalemate, no. Japan had lost the bulk of its remaining naval pilots in June 1944; it had lost most of its remaining surface ships in October 1944; it had lost most of its merchant fleet, depriving the nation of vitally important material; it had lost Iwo Jima and Okinawa; American navy and army aircraft could strike almost anywhere in the country with relative impunity. There is no question that Japanese soldiers could be incredibly dogged and tenacious in defence. But as soon as they came out to counterattack they were decimated. They had almost no artillery or tank support, and typically resorted to mass human wave assaults into the teeth of American firepower—the outcome of which was in little doubt.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 09:53 PM   #75
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Depends on what you mean by 'worthy'.

At the time, economically they were at best a third-rate power compared to the United States. In a massive war of attrition—which is precisely what total war between industrialized nation-states was—Japan stood little chance. Moreover, the 'Bushido' warrior code which infused much of its military efforts actually contributed to Allied victory—quite a few of its better naval commanders, for example, chose to go down with their ships, thus depriving the navy of those quality personnel. There was almost no search and rescue effort for its pilots; in contrast, the U.S. spent a great deal of effort in retrieving its downed aircrew, thus preserving those skilled men for future missions.

As to its being a stalemate, no. Japan had lost the bulk of its remaining naval pilots in June 1944; it had lost most of its remaining surface ships in October 1944; it had lost most of its merchant fleet, depriving the nation of vitally important material; it had lost Iwo Jima and Okinawa; American navy and army aircraft could strike almost anywhere in the country with relative impunity. There is no question that Japanese soldiers could be incredibly dogged and tenacious in defence. But as soon as they came out to counterattack they were decimated. They had almost no artillery or tank support, and typically resorted to mass human wave assaults into the teeth of American firepower—the outcome of which was in little doubt.
So why were the bombs necessary? We couldn't just wait them out without a ground war? And we needed to drop two? I think we had a shiny new weapon and wanted to show it off. And Japan was defiant. I think they really brought it to us in the Pacific. Some really crazy full out battles. Maybe Truman just believed they really wouldn't give up.
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 10:43 PM   #76
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,681
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
So why were the bombs necessary? We couldn't just wait them out without a ground war? And we needed to drop two? I think we had a shiny new weapon and wanted to show it off. And Japan was defiant. I think they really brought it to us in the Pacific. Some really crazy full out battles. Maybe Truman just believed they really wouldn't give up.
Have you actually read what's been posted and opened the links?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 11:12 PM   #77
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Have you actually read what's been posted and opened the links?
Yes, I have. Thanks.
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 11:47 PM   #78
Giz
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK/US
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
Yes, I have. Thanks.
Obviously not - otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to ask what had already been explained.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 11:55 PM   #79
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 33,681
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Obviously not - otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to ask what had already been explained.
Correct. Profanz's questions have been answered more than once.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2012, 12:14 AM   #80
Profanz
Muse
 
Profanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 932
I've read what all have you have posted. A lot of you much more knowledgeable than me on history. I appreciate it. Its why I started the thread. I wanted to read what people here know about it. Thanks. But I think its still an interesting topic and still debated in more places than this.

That's it.
Profanz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.