Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nihlus,

So, start mass executions of Wehrmacht and Imperial Army POWs that would really show them how tough we were.

JonSnow,

Deliberately targeting civilians was not okay when the Nazi's did it in the Blitz and with their terror V-1 and V-2 attacks. Nor was it okay when the Allies did it in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Nihlus,
So, start mass executions of Wehrmacht and Imperial Army POWs that would really show them how tough we were.
JonSnow,
Deliberately targeting civilians was not okay when the Nazi's did it in the Blitz and with their terror V-1 and V-2 attacks. Nor was it okay when the Allies did it in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Nor when Japan firebombed Shanghai and burned residential districts in one of the first aerial terror campaigns in 1932. While these actions preceded the Geneva conventions, the Hague conventions had been ratified by most of the beligerants years earlier,
so it was never considered "anything goes" and there's no consequences.

[aceluby]

Why do people ignore the fact that Japan was ready to surrender, with the only pre-condition that their leaders not be tried for war crimes?  I mean, if body count is what people are going on for decisions, why ignore the one saved the most lives?

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Ser Arthur Hightower,

It doesn't matter to the dead. However, it matters to the living because deliberately targeting civilian populations, as with the Nuclear weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and with the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, are clearly illegal under the laws of war set out in the Geneva Conventions.

Under your rational why weren't posion gas attacks fine to use during WWII?

 

You misunderstand me completely, I never argued the bombing was fine, simply that the nuclear weapons were no better or worse morally than the thousands of conventional bombs dropped on Tokyo, Berlin and Dresden by the allies and on Stalingrad and British and Chinese cities by the Axis.

 

Whilst I do believe the bombing of Hiroshima saved lives, for more would have died during an invasion, conventional bombing campaign or a blockade of Japan than died in Hiroshima alone. But I think the bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary as by that time the Japanese were almost certainly ready to surrender and the Soviets had just joined the fight against them.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

How is committing massive resources and manpower to slaughtering civilians 'reducing the enemy's capability'? If anything, it greatly reduces your capability to protect your civilians and/or counterattack. You don't have infinite bombs and bullets. 

 

There is a difference between deliberately targeting civilians for revenge/terror and 'accepting' high civilian casualties when attacking military targets.

 

Not to mention the great irony of this thinking. They terrorize our civilians, so we obviously have to retaliate because if we do the same to them, they will stop. Let's just pretend escalation of violence is not a thing, i guess.

 

It's like responding to a bully punching your friend by punching one of his friends. Great way to guarantee more of exactly what you're trying to stop.

 

Welcome to the industrial revolution; they got rather good at making bombs and bullets faster than they were using them, indeed for most military equipment it was skilled operators they were short of, not the actual equipment.

[Arakan]

Why do people ignore the fact that Japan was ready to surrender, with the only pre-condition that their leaders not be tried for war crimes?  I mean, if body count is what people are going on for decisions, why ignore the one saved the most lives?

I am not ignoring this.
Fortunately WW2 is becoming more of an historical event with each passing year which means better/more objective historical analysis.

In times of cold war there was not a lot of objective history in terms of WW2. This changes.

I mean it speaks for itself that almost no one in the West knows about the Manchurian Offensive of August 1945 and what effect it had on the Japanese military (the same American history completely exaggerates the Western Front 1944/45 while British historians KNOW EXACTLY where the war was won/lost).

I give it 10 years and it will become mainstream knowledge that the military necessity of the atom bombs was secondary and that after the horrendous defeat in Manchuria the Japanese military would have surrendered WITHOUT dropping the bombs.

People should stop read Cold War era history books and embrace the new. but still too much ignorance in this thread. We even saw idiotic dumbass statements, quoting Patton. Halleluja.

[DanteGabriel]

People should stop read Cold War era history books and embrace the new. but still too much ignorance in this thread. We even saw idiotic dumbass statements, quoting Patton. Halleluja.

 

Maybe you could tone down the talk about how dumb other people are after the whopper of an ASSumption you made that the US would have loaned the Soviets a navy to invade Japan with? We all have our biases and blind spots, but you seem to think you're immune to it, oh and stupid uneducated Americans, something something (except for Nimitz and whatever other Americans bolster Arakan's case -- they were always knowledgeable and correct!).

[Arakan]

 
Maybe you could tone down the talk about how dumb other people are after the whopper of an ASSumption you made that the US would have loaned the Soviets a navy to invade Japan with? We all have our biases and blind spots, but you seem to think you're immune to it, oh and stupid uneducated Americans, something something (except for Nimitz and whatever other Americans bolster Arakan's case -- they were always knowledgeable and correct!).

ASSumption...how grown up

I expressed myself wrong, sorry. English is not my first language. It was the Japanese fear of a Russian Invasion.

And quoting Patton as proof how the US could have beaten the Soviets post May 1945 is DUMB. no need to tone it down.

And I quoted Nimitz and Eisenhower (and others) as food for thought. Nothing more.

[Arakan]

And WHY is stating facts anti-American? I read US historians about WW2 and I read British historians about the same issue.

And the Brits are far far superior in objectivity. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

[DanteGabriel]

ASSumption...how grown up

I expressed myself wrong, sorry. English is not my first language. It was the Japanese fear of a Russian Invasion.

And quoting Patton as proof how the US could have beaten the Soviets post May 1945 is DUMB. no need to tone it down.

 

About as grown-up as your hectoring and smug lecturing to Americans has been. At least I'm training my fire on a single biased ignoramus instead of a whole nation.

 

Oh, so it was a challenge in speaking English that led you to believe that the US would loan the Soviets a navy to invade and occupy Japan? Because that's what you said when people asked about what ships the Soviets would use to mount your invasion -- that is, once you got past rolling your eyes at stupid American questions and were asked repeatedly to address the question.

 

Here are your exact words:

 

 

Ideally the US Navy would have supported those landing operations. And why not? It were the Americans who pushed Stalin to engage the Japanese ffs! In 1945!
 

 

That doesn't sound like a difficulty of translation to me, it sounds like a naively fundamental misreading of the strategic and political situation.

 

By the way, you keep harping on how swiftly the Soviet Manchuria campaign destroyed the Japanese forces, and that terrified Japanese high command. Was it your lack of expertise with English that led you to just totally ignore my point that a major reason the Japanese Kwantung forces collapsed so quickly was because they had already been mostly gutted in order to bring troops and resources home to prepare for the home island defense?

 

 

And WHY is stating facts anti-American? I read US historians about WW2 and I read British historians about the same issue.

And the Brits are far far superior in objectivity. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

 

 

It's not about what facts you state, it's about your assumption that every American you talk to in this topic is some moronic jingoist. Going back to your idea of the Soviet invasion of Japan, someone asked you the simple question, "With what ships?" And you followed up with a "Please..." and then asked if they were American. Why?

[Arakan]

Dante,

doesnt change the fact that the Japanese military command was shocked of how EASILY the Soviets destroyed the Kwantung Army.

The Manchurian Offensive was a strategic and tactical masterstroke. The Japanese military command didnt expect such swift curbstomp.

The defeat of the Kwantung army changed evth in the eyes of the Japanese Military leaders. It was the primary reason why Japan surrendered. From there one can speculate if the atom bombs where necessary from a Military pov. I say no. And Eisenhower agrees.

Anyway, it's the same stuff as with Overlord. It was Bagration which basically decided the war in Europe. Overlord was important but not decisive. Obviously in cold war era Bagration was downplayed by US histography, same as Manchuria Offensive. You deny that?

Fortunately, we have British histography.

[Arakan]

Dante,
I said several times now that I expressed myself wrongly. Should I kiss your feet to show you how sorry I am?

I got carried away. I explained myself afterwards several times. More than "sorry" I cannot say.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

The defeat of the Kwantung army changed evth in the eyes of the Japanese Military leaders. It was the primary reason why Japan surrendered.

 

 Did it cause them to conjure up some sort of phantom Soviet navy? Perhaps they needed to have their eyes checked.

[DanteGabriel]

Maybe you could just lay off the "stupid biased American" angle that informs every one of your posts. I don't think you'll ever get over your gushing fanboy admiration of the Unstoppable Red Army and their magical ability to hornswoggle the Americans into floating them into Japan, so one must choose one's battles.

[DanteGabriel]

 

 Did it cause them to conjure up some sort of phantom Soviet navy? Perhaps they needed to have their eyes checked.

 

No no, see, it was Nimitz who had worked out a deal with the Red Army to transport them to Japan for the invasion, because he was so impressed with how thoroughly the Red Army curb-stomped a depleted shell of an Imperial Army group that had spent the last dozen or so years raping women and bayonetting babies.

[Arakan]

But to play the counterfactual history game.

fact 1: it was the US who urgently demanded from the Soviets to engage the Japanese, post May 1945
fact 2: the Soviets did so
fact 3: after the annihilation of the Kwantung Army (plus the bombs), the Japanese surrender

counterfactual scenario: the Japanese dont surrender. The US have only one bomb left. So Invasion is necessary. What now? Stalin says: well my American friends, let me help you. Another 500k dead soldiers is ok for me. But I need your ships.

1. invasion must happen
2. US don't want too many dead US soldiers
3. The Russians are "more open" to casualties and offer their help in the Invasion
4. US says: yes or no?

A yes seems more probable than a no.

The Japanese feared a Soviet involvement and that pushed them to surrender.

[TerraPrime]

It takes a few months to make a bomb. Naval blockade of the main islands, then lob a couple atom bombs at Japan once every few months. I can't imagine it lasting more than a year or two, before there's nobody left on Japan to do anything other than to glow in the dark. 

 

If I were American leader at the time, that's what I'd do. Germany was already being split and shared by the Soviets. I wouldn't want them to have a stronger foothold in Asia.

[DanteGabriel]

1. invasion must happen
2. US don't want too many dead US soldiers
3. The Russians are "more open" to casualties and offer their help in the Invasion
4. US says: yes or no?

5. Soviets occupy Japan and turn it into a permanent Communist client state

A yes seems more probable than a no.
 

 

You missed a step. The step that makes it less likely that the US would have given a Soviet invasion naval support.

[Arakan]

Maybe you could just lay off the "stupid biased American" angle that informs every one of your posts. I don't think you'll ever get over your gushing fanboy admiration of the Unstoppable Red Army and their magical ability to hornswoggle the Americans into floating them into Japan, so one must choose one's battles.

Well, nothing to do with fanboyism. My two grandfathers fought both in the East and the West. And as all German veterans will tell you: the fight in the East was something on a complete different level. The willingness of the Red Army to "accept" casualties (for whatever reason) was simply not imaginable. One of my grandfathers fought in the Seelow Heights (his last major Engagement) and he could tell you stories.

[Arakan]

It takes a few months to make a bomb. Naval blockade of the main islands, then lob a couple atom bombs at Japan once every few months. I can't imagine it lasting more than a year or two, before there's nobody left on Japan to do anything other than to glow in the dark. 
 
If I were American leader at the time, that's what I'd do. Germany was already being split and shared by the Soviets. I wouldn't want them to have a stronger foothold in Asia.

Well that's a good point.

But there were deals. Like Greece/Austria=West. Hungary/Poland=East.

Obviously the US would only have "allowed" Soviet involvement after a deal which made it clear that Japan "belongs" to the US. Stalin was pragmatic.