Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I proclaim that the people that were the ones to decid to call the shot to have a bomb dropped on Japan well there families should bare the punishment and public reticule and humility for at lease a dozen generations. That should be a sufficient punishment. This kind of punishment would make those son of bitches that we refer to as the "power elite" really think twice before they make a dumb move like dropping a nuke. Then again we need to know the names and faces of every single shoot caller in the crime ring that makes up the world "power elite" before we can hold them to there crimes against humanity.

At 2/11/13 02:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This is why I say the idea can neither be proven or disproven, as there are fact on both sides. The army may have been storing a great deal of food, but there wasn't much food to begin with. Most of the food was imported, and by that time there was nowhere else for them to import from. There was some army in Jyushuu for the invasion, but the size of that army is heavily in question.

It can't be proven definitively, but we can be reasonably certain that Japanese resistance would have been great. Japan had enough supplies to field hundreds of thousands of soldiers and had months to prepare for a ground invasion. No US casualty estimate of the time ever suggested that the fight would be less intense than the invasion of Okinawa, which witnessed substantial US casualty rates. US losses would have been well over 100,000 men even by conservative estimates. That's in addition to the hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians who would have been killed or wounded during intense ground fighting.

That was the army, not the civilians. he civilians committed mass suicides and did not fight. Also, watching a rock hundreds of miles from home get pounded is quite different from watching your actual home get ravaged.

I'm guessing you're referring to Okinawa. The Japanese enlisted thousands of Okinawans to fight, and it was only when defeat was imminent that they forced large numbers of civilians to commit suicide. In any case, it was pretty clear that the Japanese government did not want its people to suicide honorably but to fight to the death. People who had not already been conscripted, like women, were trained in hand-to-hand combat and forms of guerilla warfare.

There was huge pressure from the people to stop the war. The only people who didn't want to end it were the fascist party, and because they didn't care about the people and had control over the Emperor, the war went on.

They wanted an end to the war, obviously, but they didn't want a full surrender and American occupation. The public reaction to the Japanese surrender was shock and disbelief, not "thank god they've come to their senses."

Not one of those actually involved (namely Truman and his closest advisors) have ever said it was unnecessary.

They are trying to avoid two things: admitting to the World they committed a horrible atrocity by mistake, and admitting to themselves that they did such a horrific act without justification. Those two obstacles make me highly inclined to believe they would say whatever they could to save face and conscience.

Why would that even come to their minds? There was never any reason for them to believe it was a mistake or to think that there wasn't any justification. Obviously they didn't make the decision lightly, but why assume that they would regret it?

The fascists didn;t want to surrender, but the people wanted it extremely bad. There's still a high level of bitterness among the families of Nagasaki about the Showa Emperor not surrendering.

Sure, it's easy for them to say that now after their military culture had been completely destroyed and the deception of its leadership exposed. That doesn't mean that prior to the bombings, they were perfectly willing to put themselves at the mercy of a nation whose soldiers were said to be just as bad the Mongols.

The Japanese were only willing to agree to a surrender that allowed their existing government structure to remain in place with few changes and escaped any sort of occupation by US forces.

But they were willing to surrender.

That's not a surrender! The US and Russian goals were one in the same: unconditional surrender. There was speculation on the American side that making some provision about the emperor would be enough to bring about peace, but the Japanese never made that clear. It wasn't as if the Japanese said "we'll agree to a complete surrender if only the emperor remains as a figurehead." The only concrete peace offer they made was a pledge to disarm themselves and give back captured territories (which they were about to lose anyway) in exchange for no occupation or tribunals. After that was rejected, there never was any concrete counter-offer; cables from their ambassador to Switzerland, through which all communication took place, show that he was never given any real proposal to make.

In any case, the militarists in control of the emperor's council and of the legislature were gambling everything on a last-ditch defense of Japan to bring about a stalemate that would prevent any unconditional surrender, emperor or no, from taking place.

People whining in this thread about how innocent people died, nukes shouldn't be used, bla-bla. People have to die for a war to be won, as war is just another tool of diplomacy. If a citizen has to die to save maybe many more, then why the hell not?

Let's not forget if we hadn't of dropped the atomic bombs, we may of had to invade Japan, and estimations conclude that nearly 200,000 would of died on the shore landing in I think Tokyo or whatever? Not to mention having to go house-to-house throughout the country against resistant Japanese country men. The atomic bomb destroyed spirit, and ultimately helped.

At 2/11/13 06:36 PM, Frenchchef wrote: Let's not forget if we hadn't of dropped the atomic bombs, we may of had to invade Japan, and estimations conclude that nearly 200,000 would of died on the shore landing in I think Tokyo or whatever? Not to mention having to go house-to-house throughout the country against resistant Japanese country men. The atomic bomb destroyed spirit, and ultimately helped.

While I can't say for certain that I agree with the details considering that there was no invasion of the Japanese mainland, in large part, I do agree that the A-bombs were the most effective tool to force an unconditional surrender of Japan. There was many within the Japanese ranks who wanted to surrender, but they were largely ignored, because of the widespread fear of American invasion/occupation and what would happen to the psyche of the Japanese people as a whole.

The powers that be in Japan scoffed at America when they had the chance to surrender after Nazi Germany fell in May 1945, and they ended up paying the price for their arrogance. Even after one bomb, they did not officially surrendered, and even after the second one, it took about a month after that bombing for them to finally give up, in which the people were shocked and dismayed, but in retrospect, most of their lives were spared because of the bombings.

Without the bombs, there is no telling what Japan would have looked like now, much less in 1946, when the American and possibly a Soviet invasion of the Japanese mainland, where the casualties on both sides would be far higher, and the chance that Japan would be split, just like Korea is now.

I apologize in advance if I present a skewed view on this question. I think that President Truman, upon notification of the successful Trinity test while he was at the Potsdam conference, felt compelled to use the bomb for several reasons.

Truman knew that without the bomb, there had to be an invasion and possibly a prolonged war. The constant rate of US casualties in the Pacific was allegedly what concerned Truman the most, and using the bomb presented an attractive alternative which could both minimize (American) casualties and end the war quickly. Remember that LeMay had lead bombings of most major Japanese cities for quite some time, and the prospect of sparing Japanese civilians had already dropped far down on the priority list. I think there were conflicting views in the US command of when Japan would surrender if bombing was continued or an invasion was carried out.

Another factor was the fact that the Soviet Union was looking to invade Japan following their victory on the other European front. Before the bomb was known to be working, the US had sought a joint invasion with the Soviet Union to minimize American casualties, something which changed rapidly once the bomb was known to be working. Using the bomb could both stop the Soviet Union from invading and therefore limit its influence in post-war Japan, but also put the US in a better diplomatic situation with the Soviet Union by displaying such a terrible weapon.

Truman also needed to justify the tremendous costs of the Manhattan Project which developed the bomb. He knew that having such a weapon, which had cost the US significantly, and not using it would create problems with the US Congress and tensions with the general populace. Allowing more American casualties while having a unused alternative which could potentially save American lives and end the war would not fare well with the US people.

In summary, I would conclude that Truman above all wanted to minimize US casualties. It is difficult to determine how much factors such as improving the diplomatic situation with the Soviet Union, justifying the development costs or appeasing the American people played in, but they all probably constituted important but less crucial priorities. After knowing about the success of the Trinity test, Truman allegedly never considered not using the bomb, and ordered its use only a few days later.

My own perspective, if I may share it, is that I am grateful that the war ended quickly and casualties were limited. The dehumanizing by Americans of Japanese and vice versa which was very well developed in 1945 likely contributed significantly to Truman's deprioritization of sparing Japanese lives. I am also grateful that the Soviet Union never invaded the home islands. The conflict between Japan and the US was most regrettable, but luckily we have maintained positive relations and mutual prosperity in the wake of such a difficult time.

I hope that you have no tensions stemming from the war and that we all can get along well despite sharing such a negative past.
Mari

Whether or not they deserved it is completely irrelevant. Japan was determined to fight to the last man and despite the fact that a nuclear explosion causes MASSIVE devastation and scars the land for decades and perhaps even centuries to come, Japan refused to wave the flag. It was obvious that they had lost the fight and that the States didnt want to drive them to complete extinction, so they took measures that were extremely drastic and inhumane, but necessary. Granted a mass-bombing wouldve been equally as effective and wouldve caused less enviromental destruction, but they probably wanted to prove their military prowess and show the world just how much power they had despite their refusal to take part in the war prior to Pearl Harbor being assaulted.

I am not going to say they deserved the bomb because nobody deserves such a thing. But given the fact that it prevented a more violent invasion of Japan, prevented the USSR from invading Japan, and ended the misery going on in China it was the best possible outcome.

At 2/11/13 06:26 PM, adrshepard wrote: It can't be proven definitively, but we can be reasonably certain that Japanese resistance would have been great. Japan had enough supplies to field hundreds of thousands of soldiers and had months to prepare for a ground invasion.

There would have no doubt been resistance. I'm not arguing there wouldn't have been. I'm saying there is evidence that put serious holes into the supposed ferocity and depth of that resistance.

They wanted an end to the war, obviously, but they didn't want a full surrender and American occupation. The public reaction to the Japanese surrender was shock and disbelief, not "thank god they've come to their senses."

The people just wanted an end. They no longer had any homes and were starving, so bad that it took a matter of years after the war to get a sufficient amount of food in. The will of the Japanese people was about as broken as it could be.

Why would that even come to their minds? There was never any reason for them to believe it was a mistake or to think that there wasn't any justification. Obviously they didn't make the decision lightly, but why assume that they would regret it?

I know there wasn't any reason at the time (as the evidence shows that even the top brass had the incorrect numbers of what was going on in Japan and weren't in the know about the broken will of the Japanese people). I am saying that hindsight is 20/20. They could look back and see that maybe the same result likely could have been achieved with patience instead of either the bomb or an invasion. However, that thought would require admitting that they vaporized a hundred thousand people and condemned generations of people to genetic abnormalities on a possible error. We humans are very adept at denial when it comes to saving our conscience. That adeptness leads me to take the statements of the decision makers with a very large grain of salt.

Sure, it's easy for them to say that now after their military culture had been completely destroyed and the deception of its leadership exposed. That doesn't mean that prior to the bombings, they were perfectly willing to put themselves at the mercy of a nation whose soldiers were said to be just as bad the Mongols.

They already were at the mercy. Their government had taken most of the healthy young men and sent them to die. They had taken most of the people's goods by force for the war effort. Most of their homes had been burnt to the ground by Allied bombing raids (which were more deadly than the A-bomb). Their food supplies had been cut off by Allied air and Naval superiority. The Japanese people had little left to give and little will to give it. Would some have fought to the death? Absolutely. Would the entire country? Not a chance in Hell.

In any case, the militarists in control of the emperor's council and of the legislature were gambling everything on a last-ditch defense of Japan to bring about a stalemate that would prevent any unconditional surrender, emperor or no, from taking place.

And they were gambling with capital they didn't have. By the SUmmer of 45 the only people in Japan who were wanting any conditions were the fascists. The people's condition was ceasing the bombings and allowing them to rebuild and return to a normal life. They also hoped they might get some help with the war related famines.

You seem to equate the fascist leadership with the people. By the end of the war, those two groups couldn't have been further apart. The biggest reson the people didn't overthrow the fascists is that they couldn't. They were starving, short on tool, and homeless. Just as they didn't have the strength or will to fight the Allies, they didn't have the strength and will to fight the fascists.

At 2/12/13 06:02 AM, Nithael wrote: fact that a nuclear explosion causes MASSIVE devastation and scars the land for decades and perhaps even centuries to come, Japan refused to wave the flag.

Id like to clarify that I doubt Japan actually knew what was coming or that it would leave a near permanent mark on the land, but still fighting to extinction against an unstoppable tide might be noble and brave, but in the long run not all that intelligent. I for one am happy Japan conceded since without Japan, we wouldnt be anywhere near our current level in technological advancement.

At 2/13/13 12:27 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I'm sorry Camarohusky the facts just don't support the anti bomb agenda some people have. Including official statements to the cabinet and documented coup efforts to stop the government from surrendering well after the bomb was used.

The will of the Japanese people could have arguably been broken surrender, unless you were there we can't argue that point. Even more so when everyone involved seemed to think they were ready to keep fighting on the Japanese side.

Well thats the problem, the Japanese have always been defiant even in the face of death, and have always been willing to die for the fight. I honestly believe that if a nuclear strike hadnt taken place and the will of the japanese hadnt been broken, they wouldve fought to the last man and been completely extinguished.

The other option was more fire bombing cities and a possible invasion. You don't have the luxury of just trying to starve an entire nation out into unconditional surrender while they continue to kill POWs enmasse. And honestly you want to justify the cost of a continued naval blockade until they "gave up?" patience? honestly, Russia was not waiting, so why do you think patience on our side would work?

While im sure the states couldve easily starved Japan considering that USA not only had a much larger industry than Japan, but had only just joined the war and were completely untouched. Of course Russia has always been a military rival of America and I wouldnt be suprised if they wanted to test the bomb in live action to see if it truly granted them military superiority over Russia, but the point is that in the long run it did help us since if it hadnt been used, Japan wouldnt have given in and would most likely have been eradicated.

But I'd like you to either argue with me on them knowing the bomb would/wouldn't work or concede the point.

There wasnt really any way to know if the bomb would work in the way it was supposed to or not, but considering the chemicals they used they mustve known it would be massively destructive and that it was far more powerful than any other weapon to date.

At 2/13/13 12:27 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I'm sorry Camarohusky the facts just don't support the anti bomb agenda some people have. Including official statements to the cabinet and documented coup efforts to stop the government from surrendering well after the bomb was used.

You're falling into the same trap adr is. The fascists were not the people. It only takes a government to keep a war on, but it take a people to fight it. The people didn't have much fight in them anymore. Stop looking at the figureheads, they did not speak for the Japan at the time.

The will of the Japanese people could have arguably been broken surrender, unless you were there we can't argue that point. Even more so when everyone involved seemed to think they were ready to keep fighting on the Japanese side.

Unless you were there you can't argue that they all would have fought to the death. That's terrible logic. That would invalidate damn near every historical fact we know.

The quickness with which the Japanese people embraced the US occupiers is STRONG evidence that they did not have the will to fight for an extended period of time. The Japanese people treated the Allied army the exact same way the French and Dutch did: as liberators. Is that the act of a people who would have fought to the end? We have good examples of how people willig to fight to the end treat their occupiers. Japan is the opposite of these.

The other option was more fire bombing cities and a possible invasion. You don't have the luxury of just trying to starve an entire nation out into unconditional surrender while they continue to kill POWs enmasse. And honestly you want to justify the cost of a continued naval blockade until they "gave up?" patience? honestly, Russia was not waiting, so why do you think patience on our side would work?

Again, you're falling for the soldier=the people fallacy that adr is. The POW camp runners were soldiers for long periods of time and were often fascist volunteers. They and their actions do not reflect upon the average Japanese person in Honshu.

But I'd like you to either argue with me on them knowing the bomb would/wouldn't work or concede the point.

They knew it could work, they did not know that it would work. Hell, what percentage of stupid WWII bombs were duds? 10-20% If the simple stuff was that fallable, the possibility of one (of ONLY TWO) A-bomb, a very sophisticated technological machine, failing was high enough to change their strategy on using them.

At 2/13/13 10:49 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Of course they didn't, but they don't need to. Look at other countries Iran doesn't need popular support to stay in control. That example is proven numerous times throughout history. And please consider the fact that the soldiers were being much better fed compared to the rest of the population.

Staying in control and leading a battle to the last man are two extremely different things.

Not really, because that isn't history that is theory. And you honestly don't need everyone to fight to the death to make the death toll too high.

All history is theory. It is a story put together from pieces of primary evidence, which in this case supports that the country was not ready to fight to the last man, and may have been a relatively soft target. Much of history attempts to piece together the mood and emotions of a people without any primary evidence directly stating so, and without anyone of the historians being there.

Also, I can gurantee you that the source from which I learned modern Japanese history is a hell of a lot more qualified than where you're looking (wikipedia).

Well actually there was alot of bitterness and strife following that period in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan#Impact_of_t he_occupation
Rape was also a concern.

The SCAP reports indicate otherwise. (Yes, I have read them. Originals.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima
I don't honestly feel that way, but every

The civilians were evacuated off of Iwo Kima long before the battle began, so this has about zero to do with anything here.

Um like I said before Trinity.

You do know the difference between "could" and "would", right?

And you can't honestly compare the quality and effort put into the Atomic bombs vs normal bombs.

And if the stupid unsophisticated bombs that merely required collision to go off had a relatively large dud problem, why would the A-Bomb makers think there wouldn't be a likly dud chance in a bomb that requires a comple reacion to be started by an altimeter? The more moving parts the higher likelihood of failure. The A-Bomb was a supercomputer compared to the dumb bomb's compy 64. Having only been successfully used ONCE, the makers were not confident that the bomb would work when used, so they turned down the chance to merely have a demonstration, as a failure there would have severe consequences.

I personally am glad the bomb was dropped on Japan; mainly because had the war gone on, there would have been a lot more casualties, and things wouldn't be the way they are. Besides, without Japan, someone else also said that we would be nowhere near the technological level we are now. Had the Soviets occupied Japan, it would have been bad, bad, BAD news all around...

At 2/13/13 03:31 PM, Ceratisa wrote: I hope you aren't talking about a Japanese source, you should name your sources. Wikipedia links its sources back and you can easily see who wrote what. Historians disagree with you. But you know what, I think you went off on me before for never backing up what I said.

Prof. Ken Pyle. He started the leading schlarly journal of Japan and Japnese History, and has his own think tank regarding East Asia. He was the head Japanese History professor at the University of Washington and is considered one of the lead in the field of modern Japanese history.

I cannot provide any internet sources as the majority of the information was recieved via lecture, and that which was in print is not on the internet, or at least I have not yet found it. (Even just 8-10 years ago, the internet was a terrible source for anything more than basic information on a subject).

Aren't you kind of cherry picking government analysis by reading an Allied report in regards to that. But modern day theories to back up your other points?

What do you mean? I use the SCAP reports to detail how the Japanese people actually were reacting to the American Occupation.

Please tell me what you think that the Japanese citizens would have done during an Allied invasion? I'm honestly interested in your theory. Because the information they had suggested that there would be fierce resistance from the native population.

Some would have fought. Some would have comitted suicide. Many would have hid. Many would have surrendered.

And you know the difference between already seeing a successful test and being untested right?

Trinity was successfuly in laboratory conditions and with no real consequences for failure. Also, just because they knew the bombs mechanics could work, didn;t mean they knew that the specific bomb would work when needed. This is precisely why the idea for a demosntration/threat was abandoned. As if the bomb failed to go off during such a demonstration, which was likely seeing how new and sophisticated the technology was (one test doesn't make an infallable machine), the Allies would look weak and the Soviets and Japanese would be emboldened.

How much do you want in weapon testing? How many more bombs after Trinity would have been needed for you to be satisfied? Most weapon issues are revealed after seeing combat. But no, it was very likely to work because they had already successfully tested the same device.

The completely depends on what you're looking to test. If you're merely looking to test whether such a bomb can be set off and what it would do, one is good. If youre looking to test whether the bomb will successfully go off a certain percentage of times (say 90-95%), 1 test is hardly sufficient.

As I am saying they needed assurance that the bomb would have a certain success rate, they couldn't take a single test as definitive.

Fricken Trinity.

Trinitiy was NOT tested in combat conditions. Trinity was set on top of a tower and detonated. It was not tested by dropping it out of an airplane and seeing if the altimeter would work at the right elevation and so on. That's moot to any point I am making though, as the demonstration for USSR and Japan would likely have been on a tower as well.

I Dont maybe meh

At 2/12/13 11:35 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

They wanted an end to the war, obviously, but they didn't want a full surrender and American occupation. The public reaction to the Japanese surrender was shock and disbelief, not "thank god they've come to their senses."

The people just wanted an end. They no longer had any homes and were starving, so bad that it took a matter of years after the war to get a sufficient amount of food in. The will of the Japanese people was about as broken as it could be.

You don't understand. They had more than enough supplies to put up serious resistance and had conscripted hundreds of thousands of men to defend the homeland. Not once in the entire Pacific campaign did Japanese soldiers ever surrender en masse, even when they were practically starving and running out of supplies. The soldiers who were there would have fought to the death and inflicted terrible casualties, regardless of whether or not it ever came down to the Japanese woman carrying a bamboo spear.

In any case, the militarists in control of the emperor's council and of the legislature were gambling everything on a last-ditch defense of Japan to bring about a stalemate that would prevent any unconditional surrender, emperor or no, from taking place.

And they were gambling with capital they didn't have. By the SUmmer of 45 the only people in Japan who were wanting any conditions were the fascists. The people's condition was ceasing the bombings and allowing them to rebuild and return to a normal life. They also hoped they might get some help with the war related famines.

The people's condition didn't matter. The militarists had effective control of the country, and Japanese soldiers weren't about to turn on their commanders in some massive uprising.

They were starving, short on tool, and homeless. Just as they didn't have the strength or will to fight the Allies, they didn't have the strength and will to fight the fascists.

But the military did. The militarists were fully prepared to sacrifice civilians in order to support one last effort to force the allies to a truce by inflicting casualties at a landing. You don't seem to be addressing that point, as though all the casualty estimates of an invasion were based upon the ferocity of the elderly or children who would attack US forces.

dont you people think they tried diplomacy ? tha japanese high command refused, and a land invasion would've left just as many people dead, but a part of them would have been american soldiers. im not saying americans are more worth as humans, but its understandable for the president to act in such a way.

Put it this way Japan did not deserve getting A bombed anymore than NYC deserved 9/11 ! think about that one.

At 2/15/13 07:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Put it this way Japan did not deserve getting A bombed anymore than NYC deserved 9/11 !

Put it this way, your comparison skills are as atrocious as your grammar. Never mind that you even dare to compare a complete sneak attack to the A-bombs in which we gave more than fair warning to is deplorable and wrong. The Japanese civilians may not have deserved the fate of the atomic bomb, but you can not say that Japan didn't had it coming for their own hubris and scoffing at the chance to surrender.

At 2/15/13 10:27 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 2/15/13 07:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Put it this way Japan did not deserve getting A bombed anymore than NYC deserved 9/11 !

Put it this way, your comparison skills are as atrocious as your grammar. Never mind that you even dare to compare a complete sneak attack to the A-bombs in which we gave more than fair warning to is deplorable and wrong. The Japanese civilians may not have deserved the fate of the atomic bomb, but you can not say that Japan didn't had it coming for their own hubris and scoffing at the chance to surrender.

You seem to put innocent people in the same level of accountability as the sadistic war mongers whom unfortunately are also the shot callers. I will ignore your incessant trolling for now but please limit the personal attacks as it makes it seem like you have nothing solid to debate with. Also read over the forum rules.

At 2/15/13 10:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/15/13 10:27 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 2/15/13 07:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

You seem to put innocent people in the same level of accountability as the sadistic war mongers whom unfortunately are also the shot callers.

That's war, innocent people get caught in the crossfire. I don't like it as much as the next person, but it is what it is. Also do consider that the Japanese were doing worse things to a lot more people in occupied Asia than we did with the bomb.

Also read over the forum rules.

Perhaps you should read the rules yourself before you accuse others.

At 2/15/13 07:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Put it this way Japan did not deserve getting A bombed anymore than Pearl harbor deserved an ambush ! think about that one.

fixed it, massive burn for japan lovers.

At 2/16/13 01:58 PM, laughatyourfuneral wrote:

At 2/15/13 07:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Put it this way Japan did not deserve getting A bombed anymore than Pearl harbor deserved an ambush ! think about that one.

fixed it, massive burn for japan lovers.

True, we didn't deserve Pearl Harbor; which is why we served Japan their asses on a silver platter not once, but TWICE. Besides, the A-Bombs dissolved the air of arrogance within the Japanese Imperial Army. Needless to say, we humbled their sorry asses.