This just in: Japan free from blame!

[Glenn]

I hope that we can avoid the usage of atomic bomb on people permanently.
I've read this somewhere before, "we are like monkeys playing with matches. "
☝

Probably more like monkeys playing with dynamite and fire.

 

[Index]

Sensuikan San, I agree on Truman's decision to drop the bombs. The A-bomb may be a fearsome invention, but it has prevented a higher and bloodier death toll in regular fighting,
.

Unlikely. It's been estimated that if the U.S. had to invade Kyushu then there would have been about thirty thousand casualties. No doubt one could argue that it's better to kill three hundred Japanese, the majority of which were civilians, than thirty thousand of one's own troops, yet if trading civilian lives for military one's is acceptable then the concept of war crimes really becomes irrelevant.

We could also imagine that if the US had finally defeated Japan without using the A-bomb, the first use of the A-bomb in war would have been during the cold war between the US and Russia, when both of them would have had the bomb.

So it's OK to bomb some people with an atomic bomb but not others? In any case the technology was new at that time and the effects relatively unknown so it's quite possible that they would have been used anyway, if other circumstances were different. At the time it wasn't really common knowledge that as well as the initial blast, the long term effects of this kind of warfare were serious. Further developments such as the hydrogen bomb which is more devastating than the atom bomb, along with the associated testing, would have been much stronger factors in preventing thermonuclear or atomic war.

So it could be that the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have prevented a subsequent worldwide nuclear holocaust.

In other words you think that testing an atomic bomb on the Japanese in order to see what the effects would be and making an international example of them to show what happens if you mess with the U.S. is OK? Dr Joeseph Mengele would be proud.

By the way, one of Truman's motivating factors in using the atomic bomb in Japan was revealed in his first speach on the topic when he said that the Japanese had been repaid "many fold" for their attack on Pearl Harbor. I'm sure this would be an interesting point to make in Smoke's ninth philosophical question regarding revenge.

 

[Index]

had America not dropped the two bombs on Japan, Japan would have fought til the last man standing.

No that's crap. Like I mentioned earlier, the Japanese were looking for a way out in 1944 and were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

 

[PaulTB]

had America not dropped the two bombs on Japan, Japan would have fought til the last man standing.

... is a commonly made assertion but not one capable of proof.

 

[Tim33]

had America not dropped the two bombs on Japan, Japan would have fought til the last man standing.

I thought they had already lost actually and were already considering surrender.

The bombs may of made this process faster but i still think it was just a short time away.

I dont agree with the bombs dropped at all, it was merely a case of saying "Hey look what we can do"

However i do agree it probally resulted in the non use of them later on. However that does not justify it, they could not possibly see the future back then and so would not think it would stop others from using them. Therfore it was totally unreasonable.

 

[Maciamo]

... is a commonly made assertion but not one capable of proof.

One of the evidence was the Battle of Okinawa (April to June 1945, just 2 months before the A-bomb was dropped), where everybody, including civilians, women, children and elderly fought the US troops or committed mass suicide, as they were told it was better than being taken prisoner by the barbaric Americans that would rape and torture them (it's only natural the Japanese would believe that, as it was the way the Japanese soliders treated the locals in conquered countries). This sole battle cost the lives of over 100,000 civilians and 76,000 soldiers. That's already more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, and Okinawa is one of the least populous region of Japan !

 

[PaulTB]

One of the evidence was the Battle of Okinawa (April to June 1945, just 2 months before the A-bomb was dropped), where everybody, including civilians, women, children and elderly fought the US troops or committed mass suicide, as they were told it was better than being taken prisoner by the barbaric Americans that would rape and torture them (it's only natural the Japanese would believe that, as it was the way the Japanese soliders treated the locals in conquered countries). This sole battle cost the lives of over 100,000 civilians and 76,000 soldiers. That's already more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, and Okinawa is one of the least populous region of Japan !

That counts as evidence to the likelihood of certain outcomes but it doesn't count as proof.

I simply object to Dream Time stating as fact something which is incapable of proof in that it depends on the free will actions of people in response to a sequence of events which didn't take place.

That sort of 'if world' speculation is all very well but however well founded it is it isn't Fact.

 

[Dream Time]

had America not dropped the two bombs on Japan, Japan would have fought til the last man standing.

i should put the words 'i think' into this sentence.

i didn't mean to state it as a fact.

 

[Mahoujin Tsukai]

If the USA invaded Japan conventionally in WWII...

I read this from a computer game manual (Aces of The Pacific). A 'what if A-bombs were not used' scenerio is part of the game. It's purely fictional but I think it makes some sense.


It was mentioned that the Japanese fought with extreme ferocity. Japanese women & children took part in human wave attacks (sometimes with bamboo sticks). In operation 'Olympic', the US invasion fleet was hit by a massive kamikaze attack that sent the Enterprise to Davy Jones's Locker along with many other US ships. The carnage was little different for US troops who landed on the Japanese beaches.

The USA had to fight for every inch of Japan. The battle for Tokyo made Stalingrad seem like small unit action. Japan surrendered on January 1947, but only after US troops were literally at the doorstep of the Imperial Palace.

Japan
- 570,000 KIA
- 900,000 WIA
- 2,000,000 civillians in killed during land fighting.
- Another 1,500,000 civillians killed in air raids.
- Severe material damage

USA
- 295,125 KIA
- 789,250 WIA
- 14,341 MIA
- 8 flatops, 1 battleship, 10 cruisers, 35 destroyers + many transport/assault ships lost.
_________________________________________________________________

This could have happened if not for the dropping of atomic bombs. In addition, the above toll does not include the fighting (& a possible scorched-earth policy employed by retreating Japanese troops) that would have taken place in the remaining Japanese occupied territories (Malaya, Indonesia, China, etc). I may not even be around to type this message as my grandfather (who was on the run from the Japanese back then) could have been caught & killed. Damn, the 'Grandfather Paradox' ☝ .

 

[Anthraquinone]

Death Pusher, named United states

<After Japanese-Russian war>
United states had "War plan Orange" against Japan.

<After Military Alliance among japan, german and italy>
United states has "Rainbow 5" against the alliance.

<Before Pacific war>
United stats arranged Siege by US, British, China and Dutch.
And gave "Hull note" to japan.

Japan opened fire on Dec. 08, 1941....

The president of the united states ignored the japanese attack
although he knew the attack comes in advance.

<Vietnam War>
United states said that North vietnam lunched torpedos at
aimed at US destroyer in Tonkin gulf and US Army started invading.
After the war, US said that any torpedos were not came from north vietnam.

<Against iraq recently>
United states said that Iraq may have mass-destruction
weapons, so US started invading.
but no these kinds of weapons are in iraq after the invade.

 

[PaulTB]

Japan opened fire on Dec. 08, 1941....

The president of the united states ignored the japanese attack
although he knew the attack comes in advance.

Cite? As far as I know Japan intended to announce the attack shortly before it actually occurred but its delivery was delayed and the decyphered message was actually handed over after the attack had already taken place.

 

[Index]

This sole battle cost the lives of over 100,000 civilians and 76,000 soldiers. That's already more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined

Not really. Estimates of the casualties come to about three hundred and fifty thousand, taking into account long term radiation damage. There was also the damage to the cities, around forty percent destroyed, as well as vegetation and animals that were tainted by radiation.

 

[PaulTB]

Not really. Estimates of the casualties come to about three hundred and fifty thousand, taking into account long term radiation damage.

Seeing as Maciamo used Wikipedia for his numbers
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
"Hiroshima ... killing an estimated 80,000 civilians outright."

"By the end of 1945, it is estimated that 60,000 more people died due to radiation poisoning, bringing the total killed in Hiroshima in 1945 to 140,000. Since then several thousand more people have died of radiation-related causes.[6] (http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm) (According to the city of Hiroshima, as of August 6, 2004, the cumulative death toll of atomic-bomb victims was 237,062, [7] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/06/world/main634348.shtml) but it remains uncertain how many of them exactly died of the effects of the bombing."

"Some 75,000 of Nagasaki's 240,000 residents were killed, followed by the death of at least as many from resulting sickness and injury. "
"If taken into account those who died from radioactive materials causing cancer, the total number of residents killed is believed to be at least 100,000."

So, depending on how you count, that's up to ~337,000 people killed. Or a bit under twice the Okinawa battle numbers quoted.

 

[Index]

The president of the united states ignored the japanese attack
although he knew the attack comes in advance.

Actually, I've heard this somewhere before as well. Apparently the Dutch knew about it and informed the U.S. beforehand. Here's an interesting article.

The Pearl Harbour attack is a terrible example of bureaucratic red tape though; like PaulTB said, the Japanese intended to declare war on the U.S., but the declaration got lost in the paperwork and in the meantime Pearl Harbour happened.

 

[PaulTB]

like PaulTB said, the Japanese intended to declare war on the U.S., but the declaration got lost in the paperwork and in the meantime Pearl Harbour happened.

I think they intended to declare war when it was too late to do much about it.

There was also, if you can believe films (and you usually can't ), some sightings of the Japanese fleet that weren't passed up high enough, fast enough or believed enough.

[EDIT] Apparently the 'interesting article' link was added after I posted.

Apart from my natural skeptism prompted by the url 'thetruthseeker' I'm surprised that if Vice Admiral Conrad E. L. Helfrich made such a damning statement there isn't more reference to it outside of articles written by Ian Woods (and quotes of said articles).

If I was to indulge in conspiracy theory myself I might wonder whether the Dutch had failed to inform the US properly given a quote I found elsewhere

"The direct attack on Pearl Harbour gave great satisfaction to the Dutch, in that it forced America into the war." - Lieutenant Colonel M.D.S. Saunders, commander of the British 21st LAA Regiment

I don't really think that's likely though. What's more plausible is that such a warning might not have been taken seriously or had got lost in the bureaucracy. Warnings lost, ignored or underestimated are far from uncommon for the US (and doubtless elsewhere). (c.f. 9-11)

 

[Index]

Here's some more if you're interested.

 

[PaulTB]

Here's some more if you're interested.

Actually that one reads a lot more convincingly than your first link.

 

[Maciamo]

That counts as evidence to the likelihood of certain outcomes but it doesn't count as proof.

In this very case, I think the likelyhood was pretty high. It would have be surprising if the Japanese had acted in a completely different way on the main islands than in Okinawa, especially that the soldiers in the Pacific were as tenacious, the kamikaze did fear dying for the emperor, and there were even soldiers who stayed in the jungle in the Philippines, etc. for decades after the war was over. I think that goes to show the extreme indoctrination and tenacity of the Japanese during WWII, and that there would have been people like that (even if only 1/3 or 1/2 of the population) on the main islands.

That sort of 'if world' speculation is all very well but however well founded it is it isn't Fact.

But this kind of thinking unfortunately kills all discussions.

 

[Maciamo]

The Pearl Harbour attack is a terrible example of bureaucratic red tape though; like PaulTB said, the Japanese intended to declare war on the U.S., but the declaration got lost in the paperwork and in the meantime Pearl Harbour happened.

Anyhow, psychologists will tell you that it is better to manipulate the public opinion, call for a war effort and recruit soldiers to wait for an attack on one's soil (Pearl Harbor, 9/11...) than to be ready for the attack and counter-attack before any damage is done. So even if the US knew about the intention of the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour, it was probably preferable from the government's point of view to wait, get hit, then call for a massive revenge. That's how US politics work.

 

[PaulTB]

But this kind of thinking unfortunately kills all discussions.

Not at all. It just needs an "I think", an "Available evidence suggests" or similar sentiment.

 

[Index]

Anyhow, psychologists will tell you that it is better to manipulate the public opinion, call for a war effort and recruit soldiers to wait for an attack on one's soil (Pearl Harbor, 9/11...) than to be ready for the attack and counter-attack before any damage is done. So even if the US knew about the intention of the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour, it was probably preferable from the government's point of view to wait, get hit, then call for a massive revenge. That's how US politics work.

Well it makes sense, especially in the case of the U.S. who were far away from the action; a lot of people probably didn't feel the threat and wouldn't have supported the war otherwise.

 

[lolife]

I read a guys interesting take (I think it was schoolwork) on why the japanese didn't submit. He boiled it down to the simple fact that the allied first asked, probably without knowing, for the emperor to turn himself over to be tried for war crimes, etc. And you don't turn over your God, do you? Anyway, the paper was interesting, with a lot of sources to substantiate. Can't find the link though.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Sensuikan San, I agree on Truman's decision to drop the bombs. The A-bomb may be a fearsome invention, but it has prevented a higher and bloodier death toll in regular fighting, and later prevented the cold war to degenerate into an open war. What's more the total death toll for both Nagasaki and Hiroshima was lower about 100x lower than the total number of civilians killed by the Japanese around Asia. So it is a "measured atrocity", probably necessary to avoid more horrendous atrocities to happen.

We could also imagine that if the US had finally defeated Japan without using the A-bomb, the first use of the A-bomb in war would have been during the cold war between the US and Russia, when both of them would have had the bomb. The probability of an open nuclear war would have been higher, as nobody would have been sure of the destructive power and side-effects of the bombs, and therefore thought less about using it. So it could be that the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have prevented a subsequent worldwide nuclear holocaust.

In my opinion ... and it is only my opinion .... but widely shared .... absoluteley so ! Couldn't have put it better ! - although it's only our opinion ....!

What more can I say ... except, perhaps to apologise to all, for my slightly aggressive last post !

But I do get a little passionate on this one (- I got a little ostracized back in the 'sixties - when I refused to campaign for nuclear disarmament.....!)

One thought though; aren't we getting a little "off-topic"?

Sorry, folks - it's possibly my fault !

Warmest Regards to all,

ﾆ淡ﾆ停?｡ﾆ停?

 

[Anthraquinone]

Cite? As far as I know Japan intended to announce the attack shortly before it actually occurred but its delivery was delayed and the decyphered message was actually handed over after the attack had already taken place.

Most important things are

Siege by ABCD cooperation.
Hull note.

First blood on ABCD.

 

[Shibuyaexpat]

Sensuikan San,
First, sorry for the late response. Needed to go back to the hospital for some post-surgery "stuff."
Second, your comment on Truman is DEAD ON! I could not agree with you more.