THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP discussion
ARCHIVED THREADS
>
What do you think of the decision to drop the Atomic bomb?
Dj wrote: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unique only in the devastation caused by a single bomb. The fire raids that were being conducted were doing as much if not more damage to the cities of Japan. If the At..."
I like your answer, Dj.
My father was an 18 year old destined to fight in an attack on the islands of Japan, but fortunately ended up doing occupation duty in Japan. Whenever topic came up, like Smithsonian incident, all he would say is "Thank God for Harry S Truman". His more detailed explanation to me was that as horrible as the destruction and death caused by the atomic bombs, it was better than the alternative.
Good news is that a nuclear weapon has not been used (to our knowledge) as an act of war since Nagasaki.
For a good discussion of this check out Dan Carlin's podcast Logical Insanity http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hh...
Rory Gallagher wrote: "My father was an 18 year old destined to fight in an attack on the islands of Japan, but fortunately ended up doing occupation duty in Japan. Whenever topic came up, like Smithsonian incident, all ..."I think that other then tests the only use of an Nuclear Weapon has been in a construction project. Those crazy Russkies.
Betty wrote: "I agree, DJ. In my book, there is no difference except for the number of planes between the A-Bomb and the Fire Bombing of cities like Dresden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_......"
I wasn't even talking about Dresden, which was a somewhat minor event, other than it has become the poster child for firebombing in general. I was trying to keep it in the field of Japan, LeMay was running out of cities to target since the raids had leveled so many of them. I recalled reading that a part of the reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thought to be safe is that they had been removed from the standard targeting lists.
'Bomber' Harris and Spatz may have talked about bombing Germany out of the industrial age, LeMay on the other had was coming quite close to doing in in regards to Japan. B29s carried bigger bomb loads, Japanese cities were much more susceptible to fire bombing and it was getting to the point that the Bombers could fly unescorted to their targets since they only had to worry about minimal air resistance and spasmodic Flak over the target. It was Douhet's vision writ in bright colors of red and orange.
There is a very good movie that shows some of what it would have been like to live through that from the Japanese side. It is called "Grave of the Fireflys". I found it very difficult to watch and still I recommend it freely.
The question not asked by most of the posts on this thread is WHY did Japan have to be invaded? Even the most cursory review of WWII shows that Japan was no threat to anyone by this point. Who cares if they surrender or not?Makes me believe that the real reason the US needed a surrender ceremony was so that politicians could justify the whole bloodbath and sweep away any serious debate about the conflict with victory parties.
Robert Leckie makes surprisingly reserved comments on the question of the bomb. I find this very fascinating for a survivor of Guadalcanal and Peleliu.Helmet for My Pillow: From Parris Island to the Pacific
Dan wrote: "The question not asked by most of the posts on this thread is WHY did Japan have to be invaded? Even the most cursory review of WWII shows that Japan was no threat to anyone by this point. Who ca..."From my readings I can find no serious debate on the issue of war with Japan at the time. Japan, unlike Germany, had attacked the United States. While it wasn't their intention, they had done it before a formal Declaration of War and thus it was seen as a treacherous act by the US public.
There was no way any Politician in the US could justifiably state that they were going to let Japan off the hook after we had demanded Unconditional Surrender from Germany.
No Japan had to surrender for the war to end it was as simple as that.
The fact that Japan had fought to nearly the last Man in so many places was the thing that allowed Japan to Unconditionally Surrender with provisos. Or in short to actually Surrender Conditionally. We wanted it done without the massive loss of life we were estimating that would be included and Truman (as well as the Big Mac Attack) didn't want the Russians to be able to claim any part of Japan for Occupation. So they were much more willing to accept Japanese Conditions in regards to the Emperor for example without quibbling about it.
Coming off the experience of Okinawa - only two months before the decision to drop the bomb, I don't think Truman could not have not dropped the bomb. If an invasion had taken place and the casualities were remotely in the scale of Okinawa, Truman would have been impeached, if it became know he had a weapon the could have made the invasion moot.
What means are ethical in war? Well, it is actually quite simple: Whatever means promise the least of harm as a final result are ethical. The only problem is that it is not always easy to make such a prediction.Was the involvement of the U.S. in WWII a "good war" (including the atomic bombs)? I am neither a politician nor a war strategist, so I cannot answer for any specific actions (like for instance the dropping of the atomic bombs) But in general, I would say yes. As horrible and insane war is, I don't even want to think of it where the world would be now if Hitler and his axis had prevailed.
An old German proverb says: "Es kann der Froemmste nicht in Frieden leben, wenn es dem boesen Nachbarn nicht gefaellt." (= "Even the most pius cannot live in peace, if this does not please his evil neighbor.") This means: It takes two to keep peace, but it only takes one to make war.
Some very good points being raised by members discussing this issue. I have always felt that many more Allied POW's and civilians under Japanese occupation would have died if the war continued and Japan didn't surrender as soon as she did.
I think World War 2 was a turning point in how wars are fought and the dropping of two Atom Bombs is something of a smoke screen. Would we be asking the same questions if the US had created the same damage, death and destruction using conventional bombs? Who knows.
Tom wrote: "I think World War 2 was a turning point in how wars are fought and the dropping of two Atom Bombs is something of a smoke screen. Would we be asking the same questions if the US had created the sam..."Just as a point of reference. The Fire Bombing raids on Hamburg caused more damage than Dresden.
The Fire Bombing Raids conducted by LeMay on Japanese cites did in fact cause more damage and cost more lives than the Atomic Bomb Drops.
The Atomic Bombs were a shock due to their being single weapons that caused the destruction as opposed to Bombing Fleets causing the damage.
Perhaps if the Atomic Bombs weren't dropped we would be talking about the fire bombings of cities like Kyoto, Nara, Tokyo and others. If anything the only real thing that was proved by it all was that Douhet, and those that followed his teachings, was wrong Nations cannot be brought to submission merely with the use of Air Power.
I do agree that WWII especially the dropping of the A-Bombs did change the status quo. NO Major power has gone to war with another since. So how we slaughter each other in the name of National Politics has changed. Now it is either war by proxy or big powers trying to stomp on smaller ones (with mixed results.
Dj wrote: "Tom wrote: "I think World War 2 was a turning point in how wars are fought and the dropping of two Atom Bombs is something of a smoke screen. Would we be asking the same questions if the US had cre..."The more I know about WWII, the more convinced I am that the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan was the right one. The shock value was essential to make (let) the Japanese surrender. It is hard to imagine the horrific results of an invasion, had that been required.
>>Dan wrote: "The question not asked by most of the posts on this thread is WHY did Japan have to be invaded? Even the most cursory review of WWII shows that Japan was no threat to anyone by this point>>Dan, good question. Take a listen to another "Dan"--Dan Carlin's Logical Insanity and let me know what your thought on his podcast is regarding logical insanity. He traces the horrific evolution of bombing of civilians to the logical and seemingly only option to use the atomic bomb. Personally I don't think he went back far enough in history---from Elam to Carthage to most of the battles the Israelites fought from Pharaoh's Egypt to get to the land of Canaan, they were battles of extermination, or forced dispersal of the inhabitants. Sherman said it best---War is Hell.
So to your point, the Japanese launched an attack on the US and War wouldn't be over until they surrendered ---and in mid 1945 they showed no indications of surrender, despite many requests. Okinawa, Saipan, Tarawa, Philippines, kamikaze attacks, demonstrated an all or nothing suicidal nature foreign to western culture of fair play and treating war almost as a game--shoot until you are out of bullets, surrender, yell "Geneva Conference", and all is forgiven. To this day we in the Western Culture have difficulty comprehending suicide vests and hijackers flying planes into buildings, just as Romans had no clue why early Christians would choose death by lions over drinking a glass of wine in Bacchus' honor.
The Japanese held many islands, had troops still fighting in the Philippines, and controlled a good portion of Asian continent even after the Soviet onslaught of August 9-12th. Many of their prisoners and those still under the Japanese heel would disagree to your point they held no threat to anyone.
The Japanese were working on deadlier suicide planes and torpedoes to attack the besieging US fleet. Firebombing, starvation? Most definitely "working" in killing Japanese, but surrender without invasion would require a significant portion of the Japanese population to die before the Emperor or the powers that be would consider surrendering. Crazy? By western and most 21st century standards, absolutely!!
But crazy is by its nature incomprehensible. Why would Hitler, even with Soviets marching into Berlin, not use the chemical or biological weapons the Germans surely possessed? He claimed the German people betrayed him, and fought to the end, so hard to see him doing it out of sympathy for Germans caught in retaliation attacks. Only rational thing I can chalk it up to is his own experience being gassed in WWI. (sorry, another topic).
Getting back to Japan--the atomic bomb worked because it was so much more horrible than all the horrors of war. It convinced the Japanese to surrender(along with nudge from Soviet offensive) and allow occupation of the home islands(not just about Emperor's role to another's point).
Fact is, atomic weapons were used in 1945. They became nightmare made reality. Cooler heads have prevented their use from time to time, but imagine if we had used it in Tora Bora when OBL was pinned down, or in Vietnam, or the Soviets in Afghanistan or Russians in Chechnya?
Would it have made Iran and North Korea escalate their programs or give them up? Would it have made the terrorists lose all support or gain sympathy as martyrs?
Question shouldn't be why was Atomic Bomb dropped(it was), nor whether its use gave us 60 years without war on scale of either world war(it did). The question should be, should a power like the US or Russia or India or Pakistan or China or Israel use the bomb in a select limited single use like Hiroshima, to have same horrifying effect, and demonstrate resolve of major nations to use it, thereby creating another sixty years of fear induced peace? Or do we wait around until Al Qaeda or another terror group or regime going down in flames(ex. North Korean people's revolt against the current regime) sets off a dirty or less sophisticated nuclear (or chemical or biological) weapon?
While we are all here to discuss the wonderful and the horrifying stories of WWII, we should also take what we study and learn from WWII and apply it forward to the hard questions facing us today.
As always, no offense intended to anyone(except Al Qaida members!), so please don't take offense as none intended. If you disagree, please post as I completely respect all opinions and please post without calling me any of the names reserved solely for evil, sadistic crazy drivers who have nerve to cut you off in traffic or even assigning me the same circle of hades Dante set aside for telemarketers and members of US Congress.
Thank you!
Rory
Rory Gallagher wrote: ">>Dan wrote: "The question not asked by most of the posts on this thread is WHY did Japan have to be invaded? Even the most cursory review of WWII shows that Japan was no threat to anyone by this p..."Very perceptive analysis, Rory. As to applying lessons learned to the future, I believe it was Alice (in Wonderland) who said, "It's a strange memory that only works backwards."
Good discussion folks with some interesting and well-reasoned and articulated views. My own post was in number 27 so I won't add further to that but I have oft wondered had the Eastern Front and the Western Allies' campaigns have stalled in 1944/45 meaning a delay of unknown months possibly years would a bomb ever have been dropped on Germany?
My own view is no.
Although it would only thankfully ever be conjecture, it poses in my mind a supplementary and rather divisive question: What differences would have been applied to the decision making criteria and how would the US have approached it with its allies and other nations?
For example would they have dropped it before they did so on Japan; how would they manage their own and their allies troops' and neutral and un-liberated countries exposure; and would dropping on Japan first make Nazi leaders consider differently surrender (I suspect not looking at how Germany was ravaged at war's end); or would the threat of having used it in Japan have the German armed forces and local population look to turn against the regime.
Geevee wrote: "Good discussion folks with some interesting and well-reasoned and articulated views. My own post was in number 27 so I won't add further to that but I have oft wondered had the Eastern Front and..."
Interesting question, Geevee. I won't pretend to have any significant insights to apply here, but I do know--based on my conversations with Gen. Oscar Koch--that many, many German regular army officers cooperated extensively with the Allies upon capture. The reason? They expected Hitler to fight to the death, knew that Germany was defeated, and wanted to do anything they could to help shorten the war and perhaps spare their homeland further death and destruction.
Geevee wrote: "Good discussion folks with some interesting and well-reasoned and articulated views. My own post was in number 27 so I won't add further to that but I have oft wondered had the Eastern Front and..."
I think that at that point it would have made no difference where they dropped in relation to the Nation they were fighting with.
In general the US wasn't at all sure of the destructive power of the bomb, only that they had been told that it would be massive.
One difference between using it on Germany and Japan would have been the fact that with Germany, they really would have only needed to drop one. With Germany if you cut off the head, ie Hitler a peace could have been arrived at. With Japan that wasn't assured to be the case.
Also with Japan you had to drop two no matter what the case might be, whereas with Germany, on on Berlin and get rid of Hitler you can hold the second one off. With Japan you have to drop the first to prove you can and the second to show that it wasn't a fluke and that we were willing to do it again.
So with being able to go the Germany first route, it would most likely have been one on Berlin, and then moving the second to Japan and dropping it there.
After all the B-29s were ready. The only question would have been would they have been able to hit the target?
The B-29s were flying ultra high altitude bombing raids against Germany and they were somewhat ineffectual. Due to the fact that they were caught up in the well I forget the name of it off hand, but it is an air current that goes around the world at those altitudes and was something that no one really knew existed at that time, but it was carrying the bombs off target.
That being the case they would have had to bring the B-29s to a regular altitude for bombing runs putting the plane in danger of being attacked or hit by Flak. Making it more of a assassination run then a blow everything up run. The losses amongst the Air Crews would have been immense since they would have been high enough and moving away fast enough to escape the Blast Wave of the bomb the way they had in Japan. So with losses on the ground as well as among a number of the air crews, it wouldn't have gotten all of them caught up in the wave, it might have proven to be something that the Allies might have been reluctant to use a second time.
Ah so many variables it almost makes the head spin.
Interesting question, Geevee.I am listening via audible on my commute both the Last Lion (Manchester and Reid) and Churchill's Milestones to Disaster (alternating between the two) and I get the impression Churchill would not have hesitated to drop the bomb on Germany if it had been produced in England instead of America. After the Blitz, he probably would not have too much opposition among his countrymen. Likewise Stalin probably would not have hesitated, and been happily hailed a hero by his people without any encouragement of the NKVD needed.
As for America, mostly untouched by Germany, and with significant German-American demographic, I find it very unlikely Roosevelt or Truman would have had given the go ahead, or if they had, if they would have been viewed as positively.
Japan, different culture, different race, far away, unknown, and had attacked Hawaii--"without declaration of war". Germany, besides some U-boat attacks earlier in the war, was mostly on defensive against US and there was not same level of hatred against the European "distant cousins".
To your question, would dropping bomb on Japan inspired a recalcitrant Nazi regime to overthrow Hitler and surrender? Or would it inspire them to utilize their chemical and biological weapons? Remember, after July 20th, the ones who had any guts left to make that move to remove Hitler were too far removed from positions of power.
To spin off your question, and add to the infinite what ifs raised---how would Stalin have viewed its use on Germany by America? Pull back from Berlin? Feel cheated out of revenge on Germany?
Rory
I think that it would have been used since a weapon to hand was one that was used, during that time. Very few people had any real idea how powerful the Nuclear bombs would be. It is always one thing to hear that it will be a hundred times more powerful than such and such type of bomb, but altogether another thing to see the effects of such a thing in reality. As for Stalin, I think that he would have kept driving on Berlin, maybe to the exclusion of his other projects even after the Bomb had been dropped. Another item of knowledge that was lacking at the time (although with less real reason that the above) was what effects the radiation left behind would have on people. Remember not long after the US was dropping bombs within visual range of soldiers.
Dj wrote: "Betty wrote: "I agree, DJ. In my book, there is no difference except for the number of planes between the A-Bomb and the Fire Bombing of cities like Dresden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_o..."
My book, The Me-262 Stormbird has some its and pieces of my interview long ago with LeMay. He was a very interesting man.
Rory, Dj and Robert, thanks for the thoughts and humouring my "what-if" post. I find these questions interesting because policy and strategy is in essence an articulation of a man's or men's view points and in my question above it would drive some interesting behaviours/decisions as you all suggest; Rory I agree with your post No 70, and Dj yours of 71 on effects is quite correct to my mind too.
Therefore with policy and strategy being set and developed though cooperation (e.g. Yalta) and events at a military level, those decisions would also depend on the bounds each leader was encumbered with.
So for example Roosevelt/Truman and Churchill had congress/parliament and electorates to answer to, plus public opinion. Stalin who could not understand the consideration of either leader for public opinion, or that Churchill was one day war leader and the next in opposition due to a general election, would certainly have considered things differently, and so may well have acceded to the dropping of a bomb on Germany but oddly how would he play that back to public opinion in the USSR as a Russian military triumph when the bomb and delivery mechanism would have been American?
Rory Gallagher wrote: "Interesting question, Geevee.I am listening via audible on my commute both the Last Lion (Manchester and Reid) and Churchill's Milestones to Disaster (alternating between the two) and I get the im..."
Your views are very interesting, and you also raise very interesting questions. Mind you, the idea that a nuclear bomb could have been dropped on Germany sends shivers down my spine as I lived there (50 km north of Munich) during this time.
I am neither a historian nor a military expert, but I think that it is rather safe to say that NOTHING would have succeeded to cause Hitler to be overthrown(after July 20th). Security was tightened, and the system was "bomb-proof".
Operation Olympic, the planned Allied invasion of Japan, was estimated to result in up to one million Allied casualties. If I were President Truman, and given this information, I would drop the bomb.
I am with you Manray9, as bad as it was I still think it had to be done but you may find some very good arguments presented here by members to the contrary which is always good for discussion.
If you have read anything about the Japanese conduct of the war you will know that Japanese military down to the individual soldier was determined to fight to the death. In battle after battle in which they had no chance to win the individual soldier fought to his death. When the battles were finally at an end the Japanese commanding officer committed suicide every time. The psyche of the overwhelming majority of the Japanese population was to never surrender. Major cities including Tokyo were firebombed into total destruction and thousands more were killed than the number of deaths resulting from the two atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In spite of these terrible losses and devastation to the Japanese economy, surrender was not in the minds of the leaders. It was only after the second bomb was dropped that surrender was considered. Without the A-bomb it would have taken millions of American service men and tremendous military resources to invade the Japanese homeland. Surely the casualties on both sides would have been extraordinarily high and unacceptable. It is regrettable that bombs had to be dropped, but unfortunately it was necessary under the circumstances to prevent further loss of life. There was no way to end the war without the Japanese surrender. If the U. S. had backed off after Okinawa was secured, the Japanese military, with Hirohito's blessing, would have remained in charge. Their effort would have been to rebuild their capability and they would have continued to kill Americans. People who believe the bombs should not have been dropped are ignoring the circumstances which impelled their use.
A very good argument for their use James, besides the servicemen on both sides who would have lost their lives there is also the POW's and civilians in Japanese occupied areas that would also suffered horrendous casualties if the war dragged on.
message 79:
by
Geevee, Assisting Moderator British & Commonwealth Forces
(last edited Sep 13, 2013 01:03PM)
(new)
James wrote: "If you have read anything about the Japanese conduct of the war you will know that Japanese military down to the individual soldier was determined to fight to the death. In battle after battle in ..."A viewpoint I share James - my only addition to your post, and I am not being picky by any means - would be that not only many American personnel but also British (including Indian/African units) and Australian, Canadian and New Zealand air, naval and army troops would have been involved in either direct support of the US, such as the British Pacific Fleet, or as part of a wider invasion force.
I agree with most on here that to not drop the bomb would only lengthen the war. It had to be done, disgusting as the results are.What I do not agree with was the systematic atomic testing in the pacific for years afterwards by Nuclear superpowers. These islands and atolls have been destroyed permanently by these tests, and the request by islanders for compensation has so far been largely ignored. This is unacceptable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7...
Kenneth wrote: "I agree with most on here that to not drop the bomb would only lengthen the war. It had to be done, disgusting as the results are.What I do not agree with was the systematic atomic testing in the ..."
I completely agree.
That wasn't testing, that was trying to kill Godzilla. Well at least according to the newest movie of my favorite Monster, that was the reason for it. (Sorry for the lack of actual response, but couldn't resist.)
Kenneth wrote: "I agree with most on here that to not drop the bomb would only lengthen the war. It had to be done, disgusting as the results are.
What I do not agree with was the systematic atomic testing in the ..."
Dj wrote: "That wasn't testing, that was trying to kill Godzilla. Well at least according to the newest movie of my favorite Monster, that was the reason for it. "
hey spoiler alert !
I do not even believe this argument. Both targets for the atomic bombs were military industrial targets, and the Japs were warned beforehand to surrender or they would suffer their fate. Tojo and the high command would not accept, because they would lose face. The second bomb was dropped when the Imperial Japanese High Command refused still to surrender. I would have dropped a third just for good measure. I interviewed Curtis Lemay who created the firebombing strategy, and I knew Paul Tibbets who dropped the first bomb, and also Chuck Sweeney who dropped the second. All 3 heroes in my book.
I have posted this before and Memorial Day is an appropriate time to reiterate: If I were Truman and my military experts came to me and said -- "The Japanese continue to refuse to surrender. We can implement Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan, which may cost 1.0 million Allied casualties or we can drop this bomb. What are your orders?" I would have dropped it.
I'd always read the Allies had run out of meaningful military targets.The saying then was 'Golden Gate by '48'. The men heading to the Pacific hoped to return after another 3yrs of carnage.
carl wrote: "Just met an old Marine last night...His battalion was designed to be the first wave of..."When the bloody battle of Iwo Jima ended on March 26, 1945 my friend USMC Col. Scales, the last living battalion commander, stated as you mentioned, the Marine Corps was in full preparation to invade the Japanese mainland. The first bomb dropped August 6th and the second on August 9th killing many, but saving many more lives.
Like Manray9 I've posted on this before and for humanity it was a dreadful outcome but the war was in itself a dreadful event. In dropping two bombs it ended the war saving not just many Americans lives but many Australians, British, Canadian and Indian troops - my grandfather who fought in North Africa with 4th Indian Div, my great uncles serving in Italy and Burma and with the RN had all been told by their respective senior officers that they would have taken part in any invasion on Japan. After 6 years of war they ended their long, arduous and bloody hard active service because the bomb ended Japan's fight.
Geevee wrote: " saving not just many Americans lives but many Australians, British, Canadian and Indian troops..."and Japanese.
My view is the same as Geevee's with the added comment that the quick ending of the war by the use of the bombs also saved many allied POW's and indigenous civilian populations under Japanese control.
For what? The book or the movie? Cause what I just tossed out for the movie is in the trailer, I haven't seen the movie yet. LOL. carl wrote: "Dj wrote: "That wasn't testing, that was trying to kill Godzilla. Well at least according to the newest movie of my favorite Monster, that was the reason for it.
"
hey spoiler alert !"
Also there is always the argument that doing it once could have been a fluke. And like you said the Japanese were given a heads up on what was on the way, the fact that they didn't believe it the first time and drug their feet before the second is a matter of record. You can only do so much and it is war. Generally speaking you don't tend to assume that your enemies aren't going to hit you with their biggest stick if they can. I still hold that the Atomic Bomb(s) saved lives. Both American and Japanese. The Navy and the Air Force were turning most of Japan into a wasteland and were killing both military personal and civilians at a truly prodigious rate. Add to that the starvation rate that could be expected from any sort of long term siege of that type and an invasion that would have made Okinawa look almost like Sunday in the Park...well even from a vantage of this far down the line I say drop the bomb. Hell do it as many times as it takes. I don't think that the Atomic Bomb won the war, sort of like the last point doesn't really win a Basketball game. But it put the last nail in the coffin.
Colin wrote: "I do not even believe this argument. Both targets for the atomic bombs were military industrial targets, and the Japs were warned beforehand to surrender or they would suffer their fate. Tojo and t..."
Dj wrote: "Also there is always the argument that doing it once could have been a fluke. And like you said the Japanese were given a heads up on what was on the way, the fact that they didn't believe it the f..."The firebombings killed more than the A-bombs. What's worse -- being nuked or fried? I don't think it matters.
How someone dies really only matters to the living. For the dead, well dead is dead. Manray9 wrote: "Dj wrote: "Also there is always the argument that doing it once could have been a fluke. And like you said the Japanese were given a heads up on what was on the way, the fact that they didn't belie..."
An interesting point and in some of its points very accurate. Although it still seems to overlook a major point in the 'saving lives' argument I put forward. While in general the point of bombings saving more of the attackers lives than the defenders, is somewhat debatable, it does have the ring of truth. (for a counter point to that assertion, see Monte Cassino where the bombings helped the defenders more than the attacker by a large margin.) You even pointed out that two-thirds of the Japanese military death's were due to starvation and illness. Of course this is most likely looking at Japanese left to wither on the vine as their islands were by passed. However this was also happening on the Japanese home islands, but on the scale of both military and civilian deaths.
LeMay (not a fan by the way) was scratching off 'military' targets, read Japanese Cities, as he fire bombed them pretty much off the face of the map. The US Navy was sailing around the Japanese Home Islands with impunity and shooting at anything that looked like it was still intact. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were only viable targets because they had been taken off LeMay's list of targets with the express purpose of leaving them as possible A Bomb targets, otherwise they would have already been set ablaze enough to warm even Bomber Harris' cockles. LeMay was in fact doing to Japan all that Harris had hoped to do to Germany and then some.
So instead of dropping the A Bomb(s) and ending the war in weeks, and before an actual invasion we hold off and invade instead either due to some moral arguement working (highly doubtful at that point in the war) or maybe they can't get the bomb put together right. (somewhat more likely).
So instead of ending the war sooner, it drags on for months more. The Russians would have very likely been able to take all of Korea, but it would have taken them more time to be able to force landings onto the Japanese Northern Islands, and that is suggesting that the US Navy allowed it to happen.
The US Navy and the B-29s continue to try and blast the Japanese cities to rubble destroying anything like infrastructure. The Battles make Iwo Jima and Okinawa look tame by comparison, with the death toll soaring to astronomical numbers of both military personal and civilians. (Remember on Iwo Japanese civilians would jump to their deaths as opposed to being rescued/captured by US Service Men.) And all the while starvation and illness are running rampant throughout the Home Islands, due to the affect of the US Navy and Air Force turning the Nation into a rubble heap.
I stand by my assertion that ending the war more quickly, even at the cost of dropping Atomic Bombs saved thousands of Japanese lives, not just Americans, and in the long run, may even have saved Japanese culture as an entity that is living and not just remembered in history books.
Travelin wrote: "Well, I'm posting at 7am from Greece, after a night of not really sleeping, about a topic without much emotional attachment for me. But anyway.
Japan's military seems to have been in ruins and mak..."
Some very good points made here folks and I am glad that each member has been very constructive and polite in their posts considering the topic, which can be very emotive for some people, well done.
It is always better to stay polite in discussions like this or you tend to loose the point you are trying to make and only cause bad feelings. That is fairly useless in the long run. 'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Some very good points made here folks and I am glad that each member has been very constructive and polite in their posts considering the topic, which can be very emotive for some people, well done."
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Good point Dj!"Travelin wrote: "Well, I'm posting at 7am from Greece, after a night of not really sleeping, about a topic without much emotional attachment for me. But anyway.
Japan's military seems to have been in ruins and mak..."
I like your points, and I tend to agree with them. With the common agreement that the bombings stopped the war, a war that was pretty much run for the Japanese anyway, it seems to be a nice thing to believe when I believe the US wanted to try these out on a live target. If it stops the war, bumps the US up to the top of the league table, and makes Moscow shut up and take note, then it's a win-win-win situation. I don't believe the wellbeing of the Japanese populace was ever an issue. And while Japan were still at war with the US, why would it be?
Dj wrote: "For what? The book or the movie? Cause what I just tossed out for the movie is in the trailer, I haven't seen the movie yet. LOL. "
hehe, i meant the movie, i've seen the Godzilla trailers, i guess i haven't heard them.
THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP
Books mentioned in this topic
Mission to Tokyo: The American Airmen Who Took the War to the Heart of Japan (other topics)The Rising Sun: The Decline & Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-45 (other topics)
A Torch to the Enemy: The Fire Raid on Tokyo (other topics)
Inferno: The Firebombing of Japan, March 9-August 15,1945 (other topics)
Whirlwind: The Air War Against Japan, 1942-1945 (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Paul Ham (other topics)Paul Ham (other topics)
Paul Ham (other topics)
Paul Ham (other topics)
Stephen Harper (other topics)
More...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_...