WW2 Debate

[TDHeysus]

Here is always a good convo-starter.

First off, let me state I am 1,000,000 percent pro american, I'm not one of those ppl that criticize the government at every turn, and I am not a Oliver Stone conspiracy theorist. I hold all veterans of this counrty with utmost respect, and I really, honestly believe that their sacrifices is what allows us to live the lives that we live today. That being said, I'm going to simply state my opinion on a touchy subject, with the hope of sparking a debate.

The US did not need to drop atomic bombs on Japan. At the time of the war, Germany(Italy) was already defeated (4months before), Japan had virtually no allies that could provide any type of aid to them. Their entire navy was completely wiped out during the Pacific campaign, and after the Yamamoto was sunk.

There was no need for a Allied invasion of Japan(ala D-Day June 6, 1944). Japan was completely isolated from the entire world, and they were an island nation. A blockade would have achieved the same result, and Japan would have eventually surrendered without any atomic bombs being dropped, and without the need for any allied ground invasion.

Truman took over in apr 1945 and that was the first he had ever knew about the bomb! 4 months later it was dropped. Politically, Truman could have done very little to stop it - outside of scraping/blowing the whistle on the most expensive secret military project in the history of mankind (up until that point).

 

[TheMightyQuinn10]

The US did not need to drop atomic bombs on Japan'

yes they did...the US would have lost at least a couple of thousand lives and the war would have dragged on for at least 2 more years.....the japs are some stubborn bastards...my grandfather was in an internment camp from 38-45....i asked him about this actually...the japs were too proud...they would have never given up....

 

[TDHeysus]

There was no need for a Allied invasion of Japan'

yes there was...the US would have lost at least a couple of thousand lives and the war would have dragged on for at least 2 more years.....the japs are some stubborn bastards...my grandfather was in an internment camp from 38-45....i asked him about this actually...the japs were too proud...they would have never given up....

then they would have starved to death....no need to drop a bomb, or to invade.. starve them out. What were they going to do? Throw rocks at our ships? Shoot guns at our ships? blockade the island, nothing goes in or out. they had no allies, no navy or air force to combat the blockade. it would have been a waiting game. it may have lasted longer, but lives would not have been lost on either side.

If you make the argument that it would have cost alot money for a blockade, then you are saying that saving money is more important than saving lives. even if they were the enemy, that is a tough sell. Especially considering that the majority of the ppl killed in nagasaki, and hiroshima were civilians.

 

[TheMightyQuinn10]

starve them out?...they were (are) an island nation....they could survive..(fish-farming etc.) they did it for thousands of years before they even started exploring..fact

 

[TDHeysus]

starve them out?...they were (are) an island nation....they could survive..(fish-farming etc.) they did it for thousands of years before they even started exploring..fact

yes, but by 1945 Japan was not an isolated country, they particiapted in world trade. Yes, in theory, they could have reverted back to ancient ways and became a self-sufficiant nation. But how long would that have lasted? And would they have been a threat the most industrilized nation in the world at that point?

Supposedly the bomb was dropped to avoid a normandy-like invasion on japan resulting in alot of allied casualties. My point is, no invasion was needed, therefore no bomb was needed.

With the allies sitting off the coast of Japan; and all navy, air force for japan defeated and Japan being completely isolated from the world - What was the need for an imminent invasion? was japan any threat whatsoever to the allies at that point?

 

[TDHeysus]

dang...work is calling, gotta go. Will be back later

 

[TheMightyQuinn10]

you underestimate the japs my friend...a very proud ppl..the bomb is the ONLY reason they surrendered.....

k im done...enough debate....

hi-five!

 

[Rocket's Rocket Fan]

We told Japan to surrender or we would drop the first bomb. When they didn't we dropped the first one. After that we asssumed they would surrender, when they didn't we dropped the second, after telling them we would do it again.

Basically it was that we had the ability to do it, but Japan wouldn't stop. The people in Washington thought it would be a quick and easy way to stop the war.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

Hindsight.



George C Scott. At least watch the video until 1:20. Too funny.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZTstgN8ReTo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZTstgN8ReTo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Learn from the past, set vivid, detailed goals for the future, and live in the only moment of time over which you have any control: now.
Denis Waitley

 

[Junkhead]

It was estimated that the Allies could lose up to million troops in an invasion of Japan. I think it was the right choice at that time to use the new weapon. It end the war quickly, and most likely reduced deaths. (sounds ironic) Japan would have survived a blockade indefinitely, at the expense of their population starving. Good facts in this article.

Plans For the US Invasion of Japan

 

[Jason Pham]

I would argue that what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was contributive, but neither necessary nor sufficient, to the Japanese surrender.

To argue that they were would be to argue that the threshold for Japanese surrender was the 75,000 immediately killed in Nagasaki. This number is not much greater than the 70,000 immediately killed in Hiroshima and pales in comparison to the 125,000 killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo.

Air and sea power is formidable in forcing an enemy into submission but you cannot conquer with either of these. It is land power that gives a state its power. In order to take a country, you need an army capable of occupying the land.

On August 9th, this land power came to threaten Japan in the form of the Soviet invasion of the then Japanese-held Manchuria. The Soviets had about 1.5 million men under the control of their Far East Command and more to come with the mobilization of its land power on the Western Front. They swiftly devastated the Japanese forces in Manchuria and adjusted their sights towards the islands when Japan finally decided to surrender.

The nuclear bombs dropped by American forces surely exacerbated the despair experienced by Japanese leaders, but it was not without the land forces aimed at Japan from the Soviet front which forced the end of the war.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

The effect on the Japanese wasn't the only consideration in the decision to drop both atomic bombs. The Russians were currently on the doorstep of Western Europe and some feared there would be more of a desire on their part to occupy more of Europe given the weakened state of some of the western allies. Even Patton knew that we would have to fight the Russians one day and he thought we should just get it over with since we were already there. The US needed to flex a little muscle in front of the Russians to prevent any further action by the Red Army.

In addition to the considerations in Western Europe, there were also problems with any engagements on the Island of Japan. Our flanks and supply lines would have been vulnerable to the Russians along our axis of attack. Also, the points made above were accurate that the Japanese would have been much tougher on their own soil. They were already incredibly tough fighters as proven in areas like Guadalcanal and the Philippines and defending their homeland would have stiffened their resolve even more. Military experts show that the closer the Americans moved to Japan along the Pacific Island region, the tougher the Japanese resistance became.

There are distinct differences between a liberating force and an invading force. Even in Normandy, we were not, technically, an "invading" force because the native population welcomed us as liberators. If you invade a country where you are not welcomed, the native poplulation poses a distinct threat in terms of resistance. It was not the same as in Germany. By the time we moved in to Germany, not only were the German people severely depleted and demoralized, but they were less afraid of us than they were of the Russians. As a result of that fear of the Red Army, the German civilian population and retreating soldiers alike viewed the Americans as "saving" them from the Red Army and the atrocities that came from the Eastern Front. The Americans knew invading Japan would be a much different proposition with civilian resistance, guerilla warfare, and no discinct "front lines".

The bomb was dropped as much as a show of force to the Russians as it was a motivation to surrender for the Japanese or to save American lives and prevent an invasion.

 

[TDHeysus]

just to clarify, I dont blame the US for dropping the bombs. I'm not saying ppl are responsible, or someone needs to answer for it or anything like that. I certainly dont fault the US, or anyone associated with the US with regards hiroshima/nagasaki. It is what it is. I just wanted to offer a different point of view, and to start a conversation....

 

[TDHeysus]

Also, the points made above were accurate that the Japanese would have been much tougher on their own soil.

August 1st-4th, 1945 - What was the imminent danger to the Allies, or Allied soldiers from Japan? USSR was an ally during this period, at least on paper. Given the scenario of sitting off the japanese coast, and japan being unable to attack. Yes, they could have defended their homeland (as any culture would) but defending and attacking is 2 different things. what was the imminent danger to the US and its allies? The only danger would have come if the US/Allies decided to invade. But what if they decided NOT to invade, what was the danger?

Why Invade?

 

[Jason Pham]

August 1st-4th, 1945 - What was the imminent danger to the Allies, or Allied soldiers from Japan? USSR was an ally during this period. Given the scenario of sitting off the japanese coast, and japan being unable to attack. Yes, they could have defended their homeland (as any culture would) but defending and attacking is 2 different things. what was the imminent danger to the US and its allies? The only danger would have come if the US/Allies decided to invade. But what if they decided NOT to invade, what was the danger?

Why Invade?

The United States, on one hand, rationally calculated not to invade Japan. The stopping power of water is a major factor in this calculation.

The Soviets, on the other hand, had every reason to invade Japan. Imperial Japan had demonstrated to the Asian region its ability to behave aggressively with some efficacy. As a newly minted great power, the Soviets rationally calculated that invading Japan would not only ensure their own security, but would ensure the preponderance of their power in the Asian region.

As argued above, the use of the nuclear bomb may have been used to deter further Soviet aggression as Soviet-US relations was quickly deterring as a result of Soviet aggression in Europe.

 

[TDHeysus]

The Soviets, on the other hand, had every reason to invade Japan. Imperial Japan had demonstrated to the Asian region its ability to behave aggressively with some efficacy. As a newly minted great power, the Soviets rationally calculated that invading Japan would not only ensure their own security, but would ensure the preponderance of their power in the Asian region.

Good Point

As argued above, the use of the nuclear bomb may have been used to deter further Soviet aggression as Soviet-US relations was quickly deterring as a result of Soviet aggression in Europe.

So are you saying that 100,000's of japanese civilians were sacrificed in part to keep russia in check post-1945?

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

As argued above, the use of the nuclear bomb may have been used to deter further Soviet aggression as Soviet-US relations was quickly deterring as a result of Soviet aggression in Europe.

In my opinion as an amateur historian, this is the primary reason in this argument. The argument of saving American lives by stopping the invasion of Japan is the more politically correct argument the government used, but the threat of future incursions into other lands by a very large and very mobile Red Army was more paramount.

At that time, Russia did not have any technological capabilities and very little manufacturing infastructure. What they did possess was a vast army of battle tested soldiers. Additionally, a great number of former Nazi conscripts from countries like Poland, Romania, and Hungary would have, most likely, joined the cause of the Red Army. This is where the real threat existed.

The U.S. had the advantage of better technology and manufacturing capabilities, but the popular sentiment was against continued military action. The bomb was an answer to a lot of questions. The Russians knew they could not compete with something so advanced at the time and all their tanks and artillery would be no match for more atomic bombs falling on Russian cities and soldiers.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

I would argue that what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was contributive, but neither necessary nor sufficient, to the Japanese surrender.

To argue that they were would be to argue...

Huh?

Apparently it was sufficient.

I own a box set of WW2 videos. Watched and read much about Hitler. Here is my serious thought on this, from everything I have read, from my heart and soul, to all of you

YouTube - The Gap Band - You Dropped A Bomb On Me

 

[Jason Pham]

So are you saying that 100,000's of japanese civilians were sacrificed in part to keep russia in check post-1945?

The logic is there, whether it is sound is arguable. Forcing Japanese surrender while allowing the island nation to retain its autonomy is largely more preferable to the United States than allowing the Soviets to invade and conquer Japan, thus assuming the power of Japan. The bombs may have been used, at least in part, to demonstrate the American commitment both to forcing the surrender and to allowing Japan to retain its political sovereignty.

That said, I honestly am rather ignorant on the whole topic myself. I'm not a student of history, but of international relations so my knowledge of history is limited mostly only to that which is useful to the study of international politics.

 

[irishmarine]

good conversation and debate. you all seem to be knowledgable on this subject. but let me give you a little of the enlisted sides view. war is hell for both sides. it doesnt matter who starts it but all sides lose in the end. there are mothers at home who lose thier sons andhusbands. when japan attacked us at pearl harbor it was a calculated and precise strategy. that bombed and attacked early on a sunday morning when nobody was up and active. why did they do that? because they knew that america was eventuaslly going to get into the fight and that we had the only navy who could challenge them at sea. personally i feel the government knew alot more about pearl harbor then they led to belive. they did what they felt they had to do and so did we when we dropped the bomb. my grandpa was at guadalcanal and iwo and said they were the most stubborn fighters ever seen. great warriors i believe is how he described them. they fight until none are breathing. and even as they die they throw grenades. we dropped the bomb i believe to flex our power to the world, to include japan and the ussr and to make japan surrender without a full scale invasion the definitly would have cost another million lives easily. the cutting off of the lines theory is not realistic because do you know how long it would have taken for them to starve out? years. and what were we gonna do? just have our guys sitting on boats and islands waiting for another two years after the fighting was over? do you know what bordom does to marines or soldiers? we would have lost another thousdand because of stupidity between them. bored military and weapons dont mix.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

war is hell.

 

[GO IRISH!!!]

good conversation and debate. you all seem to be knowledgable on this subject. but let me give you a little of the enlisted sides view. war is hell for both sides. it doesnt matter who starts it but all sides lose in the end. there are mothers at home who lose thier sons andhusbands. when japan attacked us at pearl harbor it was a calculated and precise strategy. that bombed and attacked early on a sunday morning when nobody was up and active. why did they do that? because they knew that america was eventuaslly going to get into the fight and that we had the only navy who could challenge them at sea. personally i feel the government knew alot more about pearl harbor then they led to belive. they did what they felt they had to do and so did we when we dropped the bomb. my grandpa was at guadalcanal and iwo and said they were the most stubborn fighters ever seen. great warriors i believe is how he described them. they fight until none are breathing. and even as they die they throw grenades. we dropped the bomb i believe to flex our power to the world, to include japan and the ussr and to make japan surrender without a full scale invasion the definitly would have cost another million lives easily. the cutting off of the lines theory is not realistic because do you know how long it would have taken for them to starve out? years. and what were we gonna do? just have our guys sitting on boats and islands waiting for another two years after the fighting was over? do you know what bordom does to marines or soldiers? we would have lost another thousdand because of stupidity between them. bored military and weapons dont mix.

Great post!

I totally agree with your opinion that the US Government knew much more about the plan to bomb Pearl Harbor than they led on. The popular sentiment was very against US involvement in the war at that time, so something needed to be done to "draw" us in. Some argue that the government knew about the Japanese plot and that is why all our aircraft carriers were out to sea at the time of the attack.

I also agree with the fact that cutting off the entire island of Japan would have taken many years. It would have exposed US forces not only to boredom, but also to other factors in what was a very hostile and tumultuous part of the world in the late 1940's. Many people forget that just a few years after the end of WWII, the communists took over China (in 1949), the Korean conflict began (June 25, 1950) as did the communist uprising in Vietnam (the French were ousted in 1954). If the US had still been occupying areas around Japan at that time, how would we have avoided being drawn in to more conflicts much sooner than we already were? We had no business being an occupying force in that part of the world after WWII.

 

[NeuteredDoomer]

In my opinion as an amateur historian
...

OK

You amateur historian.

I haven't reached any conclusions yet...

 

[notredomer23]

Well most historians would say that if we invaded Japan atleast 300,000 deaths and as many as a million wounded. I think we did the right thing

 

[WabashFalcon]

Just got this done teaching this exact thing to my kids.

As a historian, a high school teacher, and a human, I think that the atomic bombs were a necessity. Look at what happened when we went isalnd hopping. Iwo Jima was a death trap. For a little square piece of land, we lost thousands of Marines against an undersized Japanese force.

I have read that people think that the reason we dropped the nukes was to save American lives. That is true. What you are not taking into account, however, is the compounded millions of Japanese soldiers, men, women, and children that would have fought the foreign invaders to the death.

The Japanese had always been a profoundly pround people. Adhering to the warrior code of bushido, surrender was never considered to be an option. Thus, if we did launch Operation Olympic from Okanawia, we would have lost (a projected) million troops. Yet, we are not taking into account how the Japanese would fight for every inch of land.

Much like Hitler did in the waining days of his evil empire, the Japanese would have armed the smallest of chidren, the sickest of old men, and all possible women. Surrender was never an option. Is is documented that if we did invaded the Japanese mainland, the Japanese would have used a "scored Earth" defensive strategy. As we would advance, they Japanese would set fire to everything: homes, fields, livestock, in an attempt to not only hinder our pace, but to deprive us of anything we could forage from the occupied territory.

Additionally, if the Japanese felt defeat was near, they would have committed ritualistic suicide than be captured: the ultimate dishonor according to the code of bushido. There are documented cases of Japanese soldiers jumping off of cliffs, pulling the pins on grenades and pressing them to their temples, and turning their final remaining rounds onto themselves. Additionally, women and children would follow suit. No one was safe from this honorable way to die.

Finally, even after we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, numerous members of the Japanese military wanted to continue to fight even though they were now doing so on multiple fronts. If we didn't use the bomb, we would have ended up capturing a land devoid of all of its inhabitants who would have either died in combat or committed suicide.

I would rather see 200,000 dead than 4-6 million.