L
Londoner
Guest
That sounds perfectly plausible to me. My argument really was with @otjm who seems to believe that every Japanese person killed could justifiably be considered to be a combatant.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
GKMotley
Guest
I think that was a loose use of the term. But I could see that idea.
G
GKMotley
Guest
The next phase of the bombing campaign, with an increase in B-29s to around 1900, some additional ancillary stuff, was a concentration on the 180 cities with over 30,000 population, more conventional bombing, HE and incendiary, and a focus on transportation networks. A target population of over 5 million, directly and increased starvation and depredations, from the destruction of the transportation net. Business as usual, until surrender. And, of course, DOWNFALL.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
We had backed the Japanese to their islands, and we had a history already in place through the islands taken that surrender (per each island) was not something they would do.
Whether it was through a (long) conventional bombing campaign or through the invasion, island by island (for which preparations were basically in place) one can argue ad infinitum as to which was the “better” approach.
Was “every last person” a combatant"?
Let’s ask the question another way: if the military, after how many battles through the Pacific estimated that a) bombing (conventional) alone would not win the war - that was why we were prepared for the invasion - and b) we had reasonable estimates of how many losses we would suffer (1,000,000), who do you think among the Japanese was going to cause that great a loss?
The military’s estimate was based on experience of the recent campaigns, the near total rejection of the idea of surrender on the part of Japanese, the fact that on Okinawa the Japanese had mobilized about 1,780 middle school boys ages 14 to 17 into front line troops (about half of which were killed, including suicide bomb attacks against tanks and in guerrilla attacks), the losses we took in the 80+ days of action (at least 75,000) and the Japanese losses (somewhere between 84,000 and 117,000, including drafted Okinawans wearing Japanese uniforms.
I guess I have to ask: have you ever been in the military and in or part of combat? People seem to have this idea that women don’t fight, in spite of the fact that we have women combatants (and I specifically refer to women pilots flying other than transports); we found we were facing women carrying and using weapons and using them in Vietnam.
Would every woman and child in Japan find some means of killing or wounding the invading force? No. But we were more than somewhat familiar with the willingness of the Japanese to use suicide attacks; out of the approximately 3,800 kamikaze attacks during the war, 1500 were during the 80+ days of the Okinawa action. To say it another way, the closer we got to the islands of japan, the more suicide attacks were made.
(Continued)
Whether it was through a (long) conventional bombing campaign or through the invasion, island by island (for which preparations were basically in place) one can argue ad infinitum as to which was the “better” approach.
Was “every last person” a combatant"?
Let’s ask the question another way: if the military, after how many battles through the Pacific estimated that a) bombing (conventional) alone would not win the war - that was why we were prepared for the invasion - and b) we had reasonable estimates of how many losses we would suffer (1,000,000), who do you think among the Japanese was going to cause that great a loss?
The military’s estimate was based on experience of the recent campaigns, the near total rejection of the idea of surrender on the part of Japanese, the fact that on Okinawa the Japanese had mobilized about 1,780 middle school boys ages 14 to 17 into front line troops (about half of which were killed, including suicide bomb attacks against tanks and in guerrilla attacks), the losses we took in the 80+ days of action (at least 75,000) and the Japanese losses (somewhere between 84,000 and 117,000, including drafted Okinawans wearing Japanese uniforms.
I guess I have to ask: have you ever been in the military and in or part of combat? People seem to have this idea that women don’t fight, in spite of the fact that we have women combatants (and I specifically refer to women pilots flying other than transports); we found we were facing women carrying and using weapons and using them in Vietnam.
Would every woman and child in Japan find some means of killing or wounding the invading force? No. But we were more than somewhat familiar with the willingness of the Japanese to use suicide attacks; out of the approximately 3,800 kamikaze attacks during the war, 1500 were during the 80+ days of the Okinawa action. To say it another way, the closer we got to the islands of japan, the more suicide attacks were made.
(Continued)
O
otjm
Guest
(continued)
An estimated 40,000 were killed in Nagasaki and 80,000 in Hiroshima; and an additional 210,000 in the bombing campaigns over other Japanese cities. Arm chair moralists can continue to insist that we were morally wrong to bomb the cities, that we should have accepted the Japanese desire for a negotiated peace rather than an absolute surrender, but none of them seem interested in volunteering to be the front line troops who have to go in and take territory inch by bloody inch. Far, far fewer Japanese died than would have died had we not dropped the two bombs, a point that those who protest the loudest seem not to care.
How many Japanese would have been killed if we had had to go in, island by island? Our estimates were 1,000,000 US casualties; would it have been 1,500,000 Japanese? 2,000,000? 2,500,000? After Okinawa, Japan passed a law that children 15-18 would be enlisted. They had already been used in suicide attacks; do you really think that women, as well as recruited young boys would not have been used in further suicide attacks if we had invaded the islands?
An estimated 40,000 were killed in Nagasaki and 80,000 in Hiroshima; and an additional 210,000 in the bombing campaigns over other Japanese cities. Arm chair moralists can continue to insist that we were morally wrong to bomb the cities, that we should have accepted the Japanese desire for a negotiated peace rather than an absolute surrender, but none of them seem interested in volunteering to be the front line troops who have to go in and take territory inch by bloody inch. Far, far fewer Japanese died than would have died had we not dropped the two bombs, a point that those who protest the loudest seem not to care.
How many Japanese would have been killed if we had had to go in, island by island? Our estimates were 1,000,000 US casualties; would it have been 1,500,000 Japanese? 2,000,000? 2,500,000? After Okinawa, Japan passed a law that children 15-18 would be enlisted. They had already been used in suicide attacks; do you really think that women, as well as recruited young boys would not have been used in further suicide attacks if we had invaded the islands?
G
GKMotley
Guest
Rhetorically, under the ketsugo plan for national defense, the Japanese were speaking of 20% of the Home Islands population as casualties. Which would have been around 14 million. Likely the effort would have collapsed before that point. Any estimates of casualties, either future, or past, are estimates at best. Save for the two bombs. We have an accurate count of those: 2.
As to your last sentence, that was basically to be the role of the civilians, in the invasion.
I am in general agreement with your logic, though there is the distinction between a combatant and a potential combatant.
As to your last sentence, that was basically to be the role of the civilians, in the invasion.
I am in general agreement with your logic, though there is the distinction between a combatant and a potential combatant.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
Agreed.
I have no doubt that the issue of the two bombs will be debated far off into the future. Sadly, the vast majority of the debate will be done by people who know next to nothing of any aspect of the war in the Pacific, and likely those who never heard directly the drums of war.
I have no doubt that the issue of the two bombs will be debated far off into the future. Sadly, the vast majority of the debate will be done by people who know next to nothing of any aspect of the war in the Pacific, and likely those who never heard directly the drums of war.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Sadly, it has been so, as I have observed, for many years.
I never heard the sound of the guns, though I followed the flag for 20 years.
As I read your comment, thank you for your own service.
I never heard the sound of the guns, though I followed the flag for 20 years.
As I read your comment, thank you for your own service.
O
otjm
Guest
I think GKMotley answered each one of the comments you listed. I am not the historian he is, but one commentator at the end of World War 1 said that because of the negotiated peace, we would likely be at war again in 25 years. It took a bit less than that for everyone to start all over again.
There is wisdom in the comment that he who fails to learn from history will repeat it; as to WW1 and WW2 following almost on its heels truer words were never spoken. Japan wanted to bring things to a stop; but they wanted it on their terms. And their terms would have left a nation that to this day has failed to acknowledge its actions, and in particular those which occurred prior to Pearl Harbor.
Those who were directly responsible for the decision to not accept Japan determining what it would or would not accept appear to have had a clear understanding of these points and demanded that unconditional surrender was the only option.
I know I am never going to convince you of much of anything having to do with that war, just as I will never convince some of my class mates from college seminary over the justness or lack thereof of the Vietnam war; they either became conscious objectors (3), went to jail (1) or to Canada (1) while several of us (including me) enlisted or were drafted. And as I noted, My Lai was an aberration; Calley was clearly guilty and should have had a more severe punishment, but he was the sacrificial goat; Medina should have suffered at least as much punishment if not execution as a war criminal, but he skated.
And none of that will ever convince me that the war was not a just war. I have trod that ground not in theory but in reality.
And back to WW2, I don’t expect to change your opinion. I have been down this route, both over WW2 (as I noted, both my dad and stepdad were part of the force waiting to invade the islands) and over Vietnam, and I have repeatedly found that for every fact I put forth, those opposed will search for facts to try to support the reverse. So, ultimately, the matter is decided individually often (most often?) by something far deeper in the individual than facts, and I do not begrudge that deeper matter.
There is wisdom in the comment that he who fails to learn from history will repeat it; as to WW1 and WW2 following almost on its heels truer words were never spoken. Japan wanted to bring things to a stop; but they wanted it on their terms. And their terms would have left a nation that to this day has failed to acknowledge its actions, and in particular those which occurred prior to Pearl Harbor.
Those who were directly responsible for the decision to not accept Japan determining what it would or would not accept appear to have had a clear understanding of these points and demanded that unconditional surrender was the only option.
I know I am never going to convince you of much of anything having to do with that war, just as I will never convince some of my class mates from college seminary over the justness or lack thereof of the Vietnam war; they either became conscious objectors (3), went to jail (1) or to Canada (1) while several of us (including me) enlisted or were drafted. And as I noted, My Lai was an aberration; Calley was clearly guilty and should have had a more severe punishment, but he was the sacrificial goat; Medina should have suffered at least as much punishment if not execution as a war criminal, but he skated.
And none of that will ever convince me that the war was not a just war. I have trod that ground not in theory but in reality.
And back to WW2, I don’t expect to change your opinion. I have been down this route, both over WW2 (as I noted, both my dad and stepdad were part of the force waiting to invade the islands) and over Vietnam, and I have repeatedly found that for every fact I put forth, those opposed will search for facts to try to support the reverse. So, ultimately, the matter is decided individually often (most often?) by something far deeper in the individual than facts, and I do not begrudge that deeper matter.
E
Elf01
Guest
Seems like an admission that the bombs were more about getting the terms the US wanted than getting a surrender.Japan wanted to bring things to a stop; but they wanted it on their terms.
And if the terms for WW1 had been less harsh on Germany Hitler may never have come to power.I am not the historian he is, but one commentator at the end of World War 1 said that because of the negotiated peace, we would likely be at war again in 25 years. It took a bit less than that for everyone to start all over again.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Neither does the use of the bombs, being WMD.
RCs should always affirm the teaching of the RCC, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.
RCs should always affirm the teaching of the RCC, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.
G
GKMotley
Guest
That would depend on whether he was listening, when I told him, a year or so ago.I think GKMotley answered each one of the comments you listed. I am not the historian he is, but one commentator at the end of World War 1 said that because of the negotiated peace, we would likely be at war again in 25 years. It took a bit less than that for everyone to start all over again.
Your quote was from General Pershing. The point was well in the minds of the generation conducting that doing it all over again.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
An unconditional surrender, in the shortest peroid of time, with the smallest loss of life, to avoid the negotiated treaty ending WWI, and to do what the same unconditional surrender was imposed on Nazi Germany for, to make it clear that the Japanese had lost and that we were going to take charge and restructure their country, to extirpate the system of imperial Shintoism, and transform it into a form of contemporary democracy, stripped of its militarism.
Which we basically did.
Which we basically did.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
There was no surrender; my understanding is they knew the terms, effectively rejected them, and wanted to negotiate other terms.Seems like an admission that the bombs were more about getting the terms the US wanted than getting a surrender.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) otjm:
There is the issue that both Germany and Japan at the end of the war were given unconditional terms. And neither country has attempted similar war acts since. Pershing’s words were, to put it politely, prescient.
Well, you can take that up with General Pershing; others will say that if the terms had been harsher, Hitler would not have had the leverage to start the second war.And if the terms for WW1 had been less harsh on Germany Hitler may never have come to power.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
The best I can suggest is that you do a thorough study of the Japanese culture and mindset prior to and during the war.
And how exactly do you propose that the women and children were to be given this “opportunity to surrender”? Psyops was active during the war. There was no mass uprising against those who were scripting the Japanese plans. I would leave it to historians if there were even minor uprisings, but I have my serious doubts they will find or have found any. Japan was not a democracy.
In all seriousness, I invite any comment as to how the US could have conducted the war against the home islands in any effective manner. I suspect neither you nor anyone else can posit any real world alternatives.
You may wish to re-read GK Motley’s post wherein he details the buildup of the Japanese in preparation for the US assault on the home islands.
And how exactly do you propose that the women and children were to be given this “opportunity to surrender”? Psyops was active during the war. There was no mass uprising against those who were scripting the Japanese plans. I would leave it to historians if there were even minor uprisings, but I have my serious doubts they will find or have found any. Japan was not a democracy.
In all seriousness, I invite any comment as to how the US could have conducted the war against the home islands in any effective manner. I suspect neither you nor anyone else can posit any real world alternatives.
You may wish to re-read GK Motley’s post wherein he details the buildup of the Japanese in preparation for the US assault on the home islands.
G
GKMotley
Guest
The Potsdam Declaration was released 26 July. The Japanese reply was that they would treat it with mokusatsu , kill with silence: ignore. As Max Hasting said (RETRIBUTION) throughout the war, the Japanese took no notice of the relationship of the state of the war at a given time, and their ability to control the end of the war. There was always the concept of the decisive battle, to change the tide. They began to attempt to structure conditions under which they would “surrender” (that is, end the war. The war/hardline faction of the Shaiki Senso Shido Kaigo held to 4 (originally 5) conditions, the more realistic negotiation group held to one. The correct answer was “none”. As the Japanese ambassador to Moscow repeatedly told the Japanese Foreign Minister. Surrender. Now. Or follow the road of ashes.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) otjm:
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Of all the books I could recommend, I always start with Frank/DOWNFALL: THE END OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE EMPIRE. It’s essential. I’ve given away 3 copies. And have had readers report they understand.
Anyone wanting a suggested reading list, raise hands. I’ll include the best, and some wrong (more or less) titles. Books are your friends, far more than key-clicking.
Anyone wanting a suggested reading list, raise hands. I’ll include the best, and some wrong (more or less) titles. Books are your friends, far more than key-clicking.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
Your conviction that the USA’s creation of a civil war in Vietnam amounted to a “just war,” discredits your entire post. The Viets wanted, above all, to be free of French enslavement and to be free of warfare. At the end of WW II, with the French Colonial army evicted from Vietnam, the Viet Minh and Ho Chi Minh, were able to give their country both of those things. Truman stabbed these allies of the USA in the back when he refused to recognize the new Vietnamese government and ordered the US Merchant Marine to transport French troops to Vietnam. These are the facts, and I challenge you to deny them.I know I am never going to convince you of much of anything having to do with that war, just as I will never convince some of my class mates from college seminary over the justness or lack thereof of the Vietnam war; . . .
And none of that will ever convince me that the war was not a just war. I have trod that ground not in theory but in reality.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Please see:Of all the books I could recommend,
Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath by Paul Ham
Nagasaki: Life After Nuclear War by Susan Southard
Sachiko: A Nagasaki Bomb Survivor’s Story by Caren Stelson
Also with regard to the morality of dropping the atom bomb on Japan, I will pay close attention to what His Holiness Pope Francis has said and not so much to what anonymous bloggers have written.
U
undead_rat
Guest
As I have said before, if Truman had until waited a few weeks after the Russian declaration of war and if he had not allowed the Japanese leaders to believe that Hirohito might not be arrested, tried, and executed, the the use of the A-bomb on Japan and that country’s subsequent surrender would be proof that the use of these weapons had induced that surrender.
The deployment of nuclear weapons on Japan, mixed in as it was with the Russian invasion and with Truman’s suggestion that the Emperor might survive, makes it impossible to prove that it actually was these bombs that persuaded Hirohito to order his people to surrender.
The deployment of nuclear weapons on Japan, mixed in as it was with the Russian invasion and with Truman’s suggestion that the Emperor might survive, makes it impossible to prove that it actually was these bombs that persuaded Hirohito to order his people to surrender.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.