|
| Thread: WWII : Who Saved The World |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted February 04, 2004 08:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Your last post is full of speculations, he would have done that, which would have caused this
Excuse me, but they were full of historically recorded information and logical conclusions based on such, not some vague assumption that is neither supported, nor proven by common history books, or historians. I'll be forgiven for taking their word I think.
Quote:
With all those number and stuff it does look impressive and scientific, but those ARE NOT THE FACTS
Now you're insulting my intelligence. They are quite firmly grounded in facts, and if you are permitted to waffle on about what terms you believe the Japanese would accept, I'll be damned if you'll condemn my points for the obvious reason that the facts do not agree with, or support your conclusion.
Quote:
It’s no more than a play-out of historical pattern of events, which actually never happened
But it is based on a logic that did happen, unlike your points on the surrender that are both poorly supported by historians which is not. Nor did they surrender before the bombs, are we to automatically rule out before considering this to be true simply because it didn't happen? No, we consider it on it's merits, as I would expect you to consider the information forwarded on their merits, not discard them because they blatantly disprove much of what you have tried to claim.
Quote:
based on a book which was written by some American guy who gives his best to justify the gravest crime in the history of humanity, the biggest number of murders in one single moment caused by one device and country.
Ostrich again. You have no idea what the book was, or about do you, but assume... It was about alternative histories by a number of historians, and presented quite a balanced view overall. What it did do though was show that waiting months for Japan to come to the surrender table or even contact the Americans as opposed to some go-between was not going to work in the slightest. Invasion wasn't going to work either, nor was starvation or bombing.
That's before I point to the fact that you are talking with 50 years of hindsight and a considerable bias to begin with on the issue of America. You automatically trust the information on the Japan-Russia link without question, yet dismiss a whole mass of factual information against your points. Whatever you do or don't think of the situation in 1945, you simply were not there, nor were you in the position of having to make that choice. No, you assume from your heavily biased stance the worst of the americans and then come up with half thought out logic to support it, backing it with a sheen of morality in order to compare me to some warmonger for disagreeing.
That and the fact that one the sole occaision I've asked you to give a basis for your claim (that of the 10s of thousands in US reports) you failed to even reply shows that you really have no basis for throwing accusations around about no factual information.
That and I find your choice of the gravest crime a ludicrous one. Firstly one event killing many is to be a concern, but the situation is important. Secondly crimes over a period are worse than in a moment as it indicates a lack of will to change the course or reconsider. Thirdly, I can think of dozens of warcrimes that killed more than the bombs. Hell one raid in Tokyo killed 100,000, why not leap up and down about that?
Quote:
The facts are: we have an already defeated, demoralized Japan, only wanting to retain the emperor
Did they forward this to america before the bomb? No.
Could the Americans trust the nature of the evidence for this given that it came from their enemy's contact with a country the Americans were growing mistrustfull of? No.
Was Japan demoralised? The very idea is debateable at the very least, so maybe
Was the whole of the main body of the Japanese government willing to accept these terms. Sorry, but absolutely not, and despite what you may think, they ruled Japan, not the Emperor alone.
I'm afraid your facts are a blatant distortion of reality. Then you assume the Americans were even aware of most of this, something you would need to prove, not assume.
Quote:
and a victorious, encouraged US, wanting to end the war as quickly as possible, with no more lost American lives, not taking care about foreign innocent people.
Or alternatively a US ignorant of what the hell Japan was doing exactly, unsure of her Ally in Russia and worried about the civilians of the far east. Remember the Russians made nearly twice as many Japanese nationals dissapear in Manchuria as died in the bomb. A news flash would be that more would have died had Russia continued to occupy such land, and/or Japan. Now tell me they didn't care about the country.
Quote:
When Japan surrendered in August they DID retain the emperor, although with much diminished powers but that was nonetheless the goal of the Japanese, to keep the emperor no matter the cost, because he was divine for them.
That was not the only condition that ensured the preventing of Japan retaining her beligerant attitude. For your information you have ONE sole piece of factual proof to show this was the case. On the other hand, the Japanese government's own Archives show that the ruling council were not prepared to only accept this condition. The council held more political and military power than the emperor. The proof is larger, their power was more, I know which I would consider better evidence.
Quote:
And don’t give me that invasion crap, cause Japan wanted to get better surrender terms, not to fight against an invasion.
Totally wrong. Japan prepared for three months in 1945 Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). Unaware of the existence of the atom bombs, the Japanese military presumed that the Americans would invade to seek an end to the war quickly. They mustered forth 2.9 million men in the homeland alone and placed troops at strategic points on Kyushu where they expected the Americans to attack (indeed they sucessfully predicted 2 of the landing areas planned in Olympic). The Japanese converted over half of their remaining 10,000 planes into suicide planes, hardly a tactic designed for anything but immediate defense. They also moved their forces with emphasis on Kyushu and Tokyo.
Further to this, allow me to point you to the post-war testimony of Prime Minister Suzuki, someone I assure you would know of what was happening in the end days of Japan's war. He testified that the military leaders of Japan remained devoted to continuing the war for as long as they believed that the Imperial Army and Navy could ulitmately conduct the "decisive battle" against the US invasion. He also confessed that the military only considered unconditional surrender after the bombs, but afterwards had a way of "saving face", they were able to claim that they had been beaten by supernatural forces (the atom) and not a human influence.
Of course, you will no doubt console yourself with the thought that your single shred of evidence in the Russia-Japan link outweighs all of this I guess won't you? That's right, feel free to leave the discussion now that simple factual information shatters the basis for your claims into a million pieces. I don't think highly of someone though that can't handle their opinions being proven wrong and has to complain that the other is unproductive.
Quote:
Their most important term was to keep the emperor, which was granted in the actual “unconditional” surrender. No such offer has been offered before. Had it been, they would’ve surrendered.
Totally misleading. The military felt it more important to save face and not be put on trial, the emperor was not the sole power source in Japan then. Even so, it was still the responsibility of Japan to properly communicate their offer to the right source, the US, not drop hints to Russia. Besides this, the conditional surrender hints that terms are to be discussed, arguments would continue, whilst meanwhile Russia would not be amused in the slightest and probably wouldn't be that interested in conditional surrender either.
Quote:
And this is exactly why they don’t use nukes for military purposes. Military gains compared to civilian losses, no matter which city you nuke, would be insignificant.
Depends on the situation.
Quote:
Don’t you even try to convince me that the intention of the bombs were military targets! It’s ludicrous!
Errrrr? I said the dropping had a military value, namely I meant that it stopped the need for invasion or other things. I did not say they were military targets there. Which they were btw, they were part of a country in total war, they were a legitimate target, just like Germany bombing London was legitimate.
Quote:
I should remind you that intentionally killing civilians in war is rigorously punishable by international law
I'll choose to wave international law on the basis that other options available would have killed more.
Quote:
(which Americans don’t respect or subdue to, but that’s another topic)
This just proves my point about your blatant bias causing you problems when presented with an argument that does not conform to your pre-conceived notion of what American motives are.
Quote:
And who gave YOU the right to judge that all those people were in support of their government.
I'm just assuming that if 2.9 million of them were seemingly quite happy to be serving in the army, virtually the entire population didn't seem to rebel at the idea of being in the militia and the fact that their population didn't seem to raise objections to their leadership would give a hint that they were not entirely against the continuation of the war, if only to give the Americans a bloody nose.
Quote:
And that’s a justification to kill them all?
Nope, never said it was justification to kill them all, just that it justified bombing them or whatever else until they saw sense and surrendered properly. Just saying that the responsibility for the deaths lies at more doors than those of Trueman
Quote:
Even if they did, so much from freedom to choose who you support. If it’s not the Americans, kill them all.
Oh dear, have you heard of the term strawman argument? Forgetting for a moment of course that I'm British, so I hardly am likely to support your laughable end statement there.
Quote:
You are absolutely right. The most powerful countries have always been imperialistic towards smaller countries, allies or not. At least, you, as an American, admit that.
That doesn't make the bomb unjustified though, nor have I said that America was not acting out of personal interest, nor have I claimed that the choice was solely one to save lives. I have said that it was no doubt partly to put the russians off quite often though.
And frankly, I have added much factual information and evidence to my posts recently to show you some proof for what I claim. You on the other hand have based your claims on one single shred of evidence over the surrender and some vague facts about losses. Whilst my arguments might not have changed, the basis behind them, and the support for them from facts has increased. I suspect that in reality it is this you are leaving because, as my information to support my claims grows you cannot continue your points without flying in the face of both logic and proveable information.
By all means, console yourself with not having to defend your remarks and with the knowledge that you are superior to me because I feel it was justified. You are though ignoring that I have justified why I take that opinion, and proven such a stance. I'm sure though that you might be able to convince yourself enough that I am a warmonger to enable yourself to ignore the faults in your own points.
Hell I don't have problems with people who after all the facts still feel they might have chosen to wait for Japan to surrender, but they should be aware that the consequences were very much there, and deadly. I don't even have that much problems with the stance that dropping the bomb was wrong. I do though have problems with people who try and justify those stances with badly thought through logic and facts that are simply wrong. Oppose the bomb on moral grounds by all means, but your claims about it being more costly than other options, or that the only reason for dropping it was a selfish one and you can garuntee that I'll be pointing out my problems with it.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted February 05, 2004 02:40 AM |
|
|
As much as I didn’t want this to develop into rewriting facts from a book, I’m forced to it. And as much as I didn’t want to drag this discussion on and be boring to the other members, I’m forced to it. I thought you’d back up and ease down a bit, but you just had to quote my entire post (as till then) and instead of making new arguments, you kept on speculating. And for your last one, there’s a new characteristic also – insults!
“That's right, feel free to leave the discussion now that simple factual information shatters the basis for your claims into a million pieces. I don't think highly of someone though that can't handle their opinions being proven wrong and has to complain that the other is unproductive.”
HA, HA, HA!!! I tried to leave out the boring factual information and just offer the arguments, unlike your boring copying of the entire book, but I’m gonna have to do that too, just for you, British fellow, or else I’m an ostrich, right? OK, then, so be it. Rest of you guys, don’t read this post!
In July 1944, Japanese military leaders acknowledged: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower: “During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”
William D. Leahy, a five-star admiral, served as Truman’s chief of staff, chaired both the World War II U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined American-British Chiefs of Staff: “…The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.…
“…In being the first to use it, we … adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
President Nixon: “General Douglas MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants.…”
General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, commander of the U.S. Army Air Forces; Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet; Admiral William Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet; Curtis LeMay, Army Air Force major general and commander of the 21st Bomber Command; All these American military leaders, also as the above mentioned, have expressed their views that the bomb drop was unnecessary, because they all thought Japan was already defeated and about to surrender.
The US broke the code and had access to all messages the Japanese were sending to their embassies around the world through cable. They KNEW that Japan wanted to put an end to the war.
“Could the Americans trust the nature of the evidence for this given that it came from their enemy's contact with a country the Americans were growing mistrustfull of? No”
Clearly yes. You misunderstood me here. Those leakage infromations were from the Japanese officials to the Japanese ambassadors, not the Russians.
“Was Japan demoralized? The very idea is debateable at the very least, so maybe.”
“Then you assume the Americans were even aware of most of this, something you would need to prove, not assume.”
So, now that you have the proof, the answer would be YES, right?
Before the alternative with the bomb existed (that is before the New Mexico testing), there were other alternatives to end the war:
- offer the Japanese pride-saving terms, such as they would not remove or put the emperor on trial.
- if this solely didn’t work, and many experts of the time believed it would, then a combination of the assurances and an attack from USSR in Manchuria would surely do the job. That’s why the US until the Potsdam Conference mobilized all their efforts to bring USSR into war against Japan.
A post-war top secret internal War Department study, based on the April intelligence material, stated: “The Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.”
The study also said Russia's entry in August into the war “would almost certainly have furnished this pretext, and would have been sufficient to convince all responsible leaders that surrender was unavoidable.” It also said that an initial November landing had been only a "remote" possibility and that the full invasion of Japan in the spring of 1946 would not have occurred.
“But it is based on a logic that did happen, unlike your points on the surrender that are both poorly supported by historians which is not.”
It seems to me, that this is not “poorly supported”.
However, after the bomb was successfully tested, all these options were terminated, not because they wanted to save more Japanese, but because they wanted to save much much less Americans, and keep the Russians off the Far East. From that point on they turned their efforts to delay the Russian attack. So, the dates of the bombs (6 and 9 August) and the Russian attack (8 august) are no coincidence. The US willfully dropped the bombs as early as possible, just to keep the Russians away from Japan.
Secretary of War Stimson: “…history might find that the United States, by its delay in stating its position, had prolonged the war."
Furthermore, the assurancies about the Emperor were deliberately removed from the Potsdam Declaration (signed prior to the bombs) by Truman in the last moment. Explain that! This surely meant that the Japanese won’t surrender. The crucialness of the assurances can be even more proven by the fact that even though 2 bombs had been dropped, Japan still didn’t surrender until those assurances were given.
It was decided assurances about the emperor not to be issued until the bomb test. Without the Manhatten Project, ironically, the war might have ended even before August 1945! (claim of Martin Sherwin, historian at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts)
Even if the nukes had to be dropped (which I do not agree completely, but anyway) a purely military target (a naval base) should have been hit first, or at least the residents of the target-cities should have been warned to evacuate, so that the morbid power of the new weapon could have been demonstrated. This also didn’t happen. It was a coward attack directed to innocent women, children and elderly people (the men were off to fronts).
Ill points from the last post:
“Nope, never said it was justification to kill them all, just that it justified bombing them or whatever else until they saw sense and surrendered properly.”
Oh, yes, huge difference!
“Which they were btw, they were part of a country in total war, they were a legitimate target, just like Germany bombing London was legitimate.”
Again, you can see the similarities between Germany and USA. “It’s legitimate to kill civilians in war.” I should remember that, thank you.
“He testified that the military leaders of Japan remained devoted to continuing the war for as long as they believed that the Imperial Army and Navy could ulitmately conduct the "decisive battle" against the US invasion.”
But, he’s talking about US invasion, which would have happened no matter what (including nuking all of Japan) if assurances were not given.
“Remember the Russians made nearly twice as many Japanese nationals disappear in Manchuria as died in the bomb.”
You are talking about the Russo-Japanese War (beginning of 20th century), right? The Russians never killed even one tenth the number of civilians the bombs did.
“Thirdly, I can think of dozens of warcrimes that killed more than the bombs. Hell one raid in Tokyo killed 100,000, why not leap up and down about that?”
And have I ever justified bombing of civilian locations?! NO, but rather carefully planned strategic bombing.
“That and the fact that one the sole occasion I've asked you to give a basis for your claim (that of the 10s of thousands in US reports) you failed to even reply shows that you really have no basis for throwing accusations around about no factual information.”
If you wanna die to know that, OK: “If an invasion had proved necessary, U.S. military experts estimated that in the worst case, the number of American deaths would have run in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands.” (J. Samuel Walker - author of Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan (1997))
Quote:
“Even if they did, so much from freedom to choose who you support. If it’s not the Americans, kill them all.”
Forgetting for a moment of course that I'm British, so I hardly am likely to support your laughable end statement there.
But, just because you are British, you are very likely to support that one, because it’s about supporting Americans, and you British are best at it.
“That's before I point to the fact that you are talking with 50 years of hindsight and a considerable bias to begin with on the issue of America.”
Yes, I do have a considerable bias towards American policy. Furthermore, not just American, but all powerful countries (including Britain, esp. in 19th century) who think they can do everything.
“Whatever you do or don't think of the situation in 1945, you simply were not there, nor were you in the position of having to make that choice.”
Oh, excuse me. And how old are you? 90! Oh, you are an American official from WW2? I see! (you sure sound like one)
Look, pal, conclusion: Neither you or me cannot tell how things were going to be if the bombs hadn’t been dropped. It’s all speculation. But one thing’s for sure: Maybe, so many innocent people didn’t have to die, had the Americans given chance to the other alternatives I mentioned (wait for the Russians, give assurances). Why didn’t they do this? Is it because the bombs were decisive? No, Americans themselves said they were unnecessary. Then, why didn’t they left the Nukes as the last alternative?
I’ll tell you why (I already did, but..). They only cared about their ass, and nobody else’s. Why would they spare 200,000 Japanese civilians, when they can keep the Soviet influence off the Far East and save few Americans, and the outcome for them is still the same? Plus, the public opinion was in support.
I do hope this is the end of the debate. I don’t think we should be pain in the s for others. It’s not who has the last word, it’s who has the best word.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 05:26 AM |
|
|
Allow me to point you out the following:
MacArthur: I have no idea what part of his isanity MacArthur came up with that quote from, but I assure you he very much DID support nuclear weapons use on civilians. This was the policy that he was fired for during Korea when he demanded the right to atom bomb communist North Korea. That doesnt sit with the quote now does it? Want to know why I suspect he opposed it then? Well the little fact that he was due to command Olympic and him being a primadonna probably annoyed the hell out of him when he was denied the right to glory... This is shown also in his downplaying of potential losses during meetings with Truman, he wanted to invade Japan, it's hardly suprising that he would then oppose the bomb in 1945 albeit temporarily as he had no problem with it less than a decade later...
Quote:
HA, HA, HA!!! I tried to leave out the boring factual information and just offer the arguments, unlike your boring copying of the entire book, but I’m gonna have to do that too, just for you, British fellow, or else I’m an ostrich, right? OK, then, so be it. Rest of you guys, don’t read this post!
I don't see anything boring with backing up an argument with some facts.
Quote:
In July 1944, Japanese military leaders acknowledged: "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success.”
When, where, and to whom would this be? Can you please then tell me why the archives of the council meetings (alll but one of the members of whom were military commanders themselves or retired ones) shows absolutely no evidence of this? Surely if this was the case it is to be presumed that it would have been discussed at the highest level.
Which it wasn't otherwise it would be in the archives would it not?
Quote:
The US broke the code and had access to all messages the Japanese were sending to their embassies around the world through cable. They KNEW that Japan wanted to put an end to the war.
Then I presume you can tell me that they found dozens of such messages rather than the singular one you've so far offered. I mean if it was just one, how on earth should they expect to know that it wasn't some speculatory issue, especially since the Japanese government had not officially approached ANY of the allied governments. Are the allies expected to be mind-readers? How would they know if it was not misinformation? I mean I'm going to assume that if they broke all their codes, surely more than one solitary message would be available to prove this?
Quote:
So, now that you have the proof, the answer would be YES, right?
Uhmm, no, you've yet to prove decisively that the Japanese were not preparing to repel the expected US invasion, which they were. You've only offered a small piece of evidence that they were prepared to surrender also, as opposed to the situation in the Japanese war council which is saying the exact opposite.
Quote:
if this solely didn’t work, and many experts of the time believed it would, then a combination of the assurances and an attack from USSR in Manchuria would surely do the job. That’s why the US until the Potsdam Conference mobilized all their efforts to bring USSR into war against Japan.
Now around this period I'm going to introduce you to the following:
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm#japrus2
The document refers to something called "magic" (which may be the same as your code-breaker thing, I dunno enough about it) and Ultra intercepts. I direct you very specifically to the following:
Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries, just before the Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, about behind-the-scenes negotiations between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito's blessing, had met with the Russian ambassador to Tokyo to propose a new relationship between the two countries. Japan proposed to carve up Asia with the USSR . According to the Magic Diplomatic Summaries of July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador: "Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world...." The Magic Summaries further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan's militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans.
and
On July 25, Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki announced to the Japanese press that the Potsdnm declaration was to be Ignored." Meanwhile, the Magic Summaries revealed that Tokyo was demanding that Moscow accept a special envoy from Emperor Hirohito, presumably to cement the deal offering to divide Asia between Japan and Russia while Moscow brokered a Japanese surrender with the U.S. and Britain that would be acceptable to Tokyo.
Now I don't know if this is 100% true what Kirota was planning. I do know that Russia probably did not take it seriously because she had privately agreed to attack Japan around 90 days after Germany fell. What I do know though is that if this information was passed to Truman, you can be assured that it would worry the Americans considerably. Not only was the notion of a negotiated surrender against allied policy, in this case there was an outside chance that it could lead to a Russian/Japanese alliance. Even the possibility of it would be enough, combined with Japan's lack of approach to the western allies to place doubt in their minds as to the real reason for Japan's possible surrender on terms.
Now ignoring all that for a moment, the Japanese didn't seem in the least bothered by the notion of Russian expansion, after all they all but abbandonned militarily Manchuria to defend Japan. Whilst it's possible that Russian invasion could have forced a peace, given what later occurred in Germany and Eastern Europe, I'm hard pressed to figure out why Japan being overrun, even partly by Russia, then remaining post war would be a good peace deal and future for the country. We're talking a military here who many of whom committed ritual suicide in 1945 rather than be shamed by surrender, hardly the types to surrender if they still felt capable of defending against invasion, a fact proven by their continuous planning for such an event.
Quote:
A post-war top secret internal War Department study, based on the April intelligence material, stated: “The Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.”
That's quite amusing, but unsupported by any imperial government records. Hard to see how it counts as proof when the Japanese archives don't even contain documents showing that the council felt that way.
Quote:
The study also said Russia's entry in August into the war “would almost certainly have furnished this pretext, and would have been sufficient to convince all responsible leaders that surrender was unavoidable.” It also said that an initial November landing had been only a "remote" possibility and that the full invasion of Japan in the spring of 1946 would not have occurred
That, as you are oh so fond of pointing out is called speculation. That and the initial landing (assuming you mean Kyushu) would cause more deaths than any atomic bomb makes that whole point off...
Quote:
It seems to me, that this is not “poorly supported”.
Lets see the evidence shall we as offerred. We have:
1) A code broken indicating Japan MAY surrender, but certainly not on terms acceptable to the allies.
2) Some report done during the war which claims that Japan might have surrendered anyway and especially if Russia was involved.
3) Speculation of Allied commanders that Japan was close to surrender.
4) Feel free to add here.
To which I will reply:
1) Terms the Japanese knew in advance. Suggesting conditions on their surrender they knew in advance would be pointless. Furthermore, this one code-breaker must be balanced against the total lack of evidence from archives in Japan to support it.
2) Japan was possibly scheming with Russia, Russia was hardly trusted at that stage by the US, Japan still had not come forward to seriously propose an ending.
3) Speculation is just that, how could they be sure? Perhaps Truman felt that since the Japanese were not actually coming forward, that the speculation was unfounded.
Quote:
However, after the bomb was successfully tested, all these options were terminated, not because they wanted to save more Japanese, but because they wanted to save much much less Americans, and keep the Russians off the Far East. From that point on they turned their efforts to delay the Russian attack. So, the dates of the bombs (6 and 9 August) and the Russian attack (8 august) are no coincidence. The US willfully dropped the bombs as early as possible, just to keep the Russians away from Japan.
You say that like Russia occupying Japan was a good thing. Need I remind you of the results of Eastern Germany, and the losses the Japanese suffered in Manchuria? Ironically, even if your claim is the total reason for the US action, you then argue against yourself. Russian occupation of 1 Japanese Island alone would be likely to cost more than the Atom bomb. Oh and I might also point out to you though that the bombs most certainly did NOT stop russia. Fighting in Manchuria finally died down on 1st September 1945. That was 11 days after the surrender announcement by the emperor. It may have cowed them somewhat, but the US dropping the bomb did not exactly bring Russia to an emergency stop.
Quote:
Furthermore, the assurancies about the Emperor were deliberately removed from the Potsdam Declaration (signed prior to the bombs) by Truman in the last moment. Explain that!
I'd guess at two reasons, firstly, perhaps suspecting through ultra (above) the Russians were involving themselves he wished to insist on unconditional surrender to foil Russia's plans. Assuming that's wrong it would be my guess that since Truman had no earthly way of knowing that Japan wanted to insist on the emperor for certain he had decided that since WWII was clearly going to be won sooner or later by the allies he had decided that Japan has no right to impose terms.
Quote:
This surely meant that the Japanese won’t surrender
Truman and co would have no way of knowing this for certain to be fair.
Quote:
The crucialness of the assurances can be even more proven by the fact that even though 2 bombs had been dropped, Japan still didn’t surrender until those assurances were given.
It was decided assurances about the emperor not to be issued until the bomb test. Without the Manhatten Project, ironically, the war might have ended even before August 1945! (claim of Martin Sherwin, historian at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts)
Interesting, but probably not true. I'd like to see what said historian believed the terms of such an agreement would be.
Quote:
Even if the nukes had to be dropped (which I do not agree completely, but anyway) a purely military target (a naval base) should have been hit first, or at least the residents of the target-cities should have been warned to evacuate, so that the morbid power of the new weapon could have been demonstrated. This also didn’t happen. It was a coward attack directed to innocent women, children and elderly people (the men were off to fronts).
As has been pointed out to you by wolfman, one of the cities was a naval base. Informing the enemy of the plan is suicide, you think Japan would simply allow such a thing without attempting to shoot the plane down? Such an idea is a little niave I'm afraid. Then I would like to remind you that in 1945 Japan, these "civilians" were more militia members, not civilians, armed and preparing for an invasion should it occur. Then I should point out to you that of those that died in Hiroshima, up to 20,000 were either slave labour, or soldiers. The front at this time did include Japan, the cities were not totally devoid of military personnel.
Quote:
Oh, yes, huge difference!
Glad you agree  If terms offered are obvious, results of refusing said terms are obvious and the country STILL refuses to accept them, then the blame at least partly resides with the country (japan in this case) also for not contemplating their future correctly.
Quote:
Again, you can see the similarities between Germany and USA. “It’s legitimate to kill civilians in war.” I should remember that, thank you.
Oops, not what I meant at all. It's legitimate to bomb civilian areas should they have industry or military targets there. That's part of total war, this is not the 18th Century after all. If for some bizarre reason a city in Germany for example contained no soldiers, no industry and no bases for the armed forces, just houses and people, I would be very adamantly against bombing it. On the other hand, since in total war, to end it you must defeat the enemy, you must therefore strike at his military and industry. This involves striking at cities. I don't like it, I can live with the fact that it had to happen though.
And please don't assume that because I linked one German policy with one American one that this justifies your holocaust-atom bomb argument, it does not in my eyes. I used germany, I might as easily have used the UK. Strawman arguments are getting you nowhere.
Quote:
But, he’s talking about US invasion, which would have happened no matter what (including nuking all of Japan) if assurances were not given.
More fool the Japanese government and people then.
Quote:
You are talking about the Russo-Japanese War (beginning of 20th century), right? The Russians never killed even one tenth the number of civilians the bombs did.
Nope. I'm talking about the invasion Russia launched on the 8th August 1945 into manchuria and continued fighting there until September 1945. I'm unsure how long they remained there, but I do know that by the end of their occupation, 376,000 Japanese soldiers or Civilians were dead or permanently missing. If you wish to forward alternatives to the bomb, Russia controlling more land is certainly NOT a good one.
Quote:
And have I ever justified bombing of civilian locations?! NO, but rather carefully planned strategic bombing.
Which in WWII was nigh on impossible due to the nature of Europe and the nature of planes. It simply was not an option for the allies.
Quote:
If you wanna die to know that, OK: “If an invasion had proved necessary, U.S. military experts estimated that in the worst case, the number of American deaths would have run in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands.” (J. Samuel Walker - author of Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan (1997))
I don't wish to be terribly pedantic, but the study I mentioned at least had the benefit of offering why it came to that conclusion, unlike this one. I would be truly intruiged to know how they came about that figure, how they justify such outrageously low statistics without first blasting Japan into the stone age for example.
One other point I mentioned, one book which contained similar claims to much of this I heard someone describe as woefully innacurate. I'll be honest, I don't know why, or if it's the same book/based on the same sources, so right now I'll try and find out, in the meantime, at best I'd say unless the "tens of thousands" can actually prove that such a figure is logical somehow, that this figure is fantasy.
BTW this Leahy you quoted, in the link I offered it mentions the following:
But according to documents I have uncovered, a conference to discuss pre-invasion casualties was held at the White House on June 18, 1945, between President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From the Pacific, Gen. Douglas MacArthur submitted rather optimistic casualty estimates. This caused Adm. William D. Leahy, Truman's military advisor, to take charge of the session. Based on the experience at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Leahy predicted that in an invasion of Japan, 30% to 35% of U.S. soldiers would be killed or wounded during the first 30 days. Truman obviously understood what Leahy said. The president remarked that the invasion would create another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other. The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed.
So whatever his thoughts on Japan, he was quite blatantly against the invasion, and also quite blatantly in disagreement with the idea of tens of thousands.
Quote:
But, just because you are British, you are very likely to support that one, because it’s about supporting Americans, and you British are best at it.
Strawman again.
I'm sure if you ask Wolfman, or Bort for their impression of me being "pro-american" you'd get some interesting replies. I have been called many things before, but never pro-american! Apparently if I look at the facts before me and disagree with your outlandish point of view I am now "pro-american".
"You British"? How kind of you to throw us all into one simple generalisation! I wasn't aware you knew all there was to know about the British and could accurately tell how we respond to points about WWII. What you can't seem to grasp is that I have looked at the same evidence as you and come to a different conclusion. It has absolutely nothing to do with my nationality, or who dropped the bomb.
Quote:
Yes, I do have a considerable bias towards American policy. Furthermore, not just American, but all powerful countries (including Britain, esp. in 19th century) who think they can do everything.
Moral for countries and their people then, do not get into a total war with a country capable and willing to do what it needs to in order to end the war sucessfully. Even so, you find time to believe that I am pro-american, and this is my reason for supporting the bomb, and yet at the same time openly admit that you start from an anti-american stance before you looked at the situation. Whom is more likely to be looking at the whole picture then?
Quote:
Oh, excuse me. And how old are you? 90! Oh, you are an American official from WW2? I see! (you sure sound like one)
No, you're right I wasn't, nor was I making that point either in fact. On the other hand I'm at loathe to arbitarily hand out conclusions about American and specifically Truman's motives without actually having some evidence to hand to back it up. Unfortunately until now you have been quite adamant in claiming you know full well the US/Truman's motives.
Quote:
Look, pal, conclusion: Neither you or me cannot tell how things were going to be if the bombs hadn’t been dropped. It’s all speculation. But one thing’s for sure: Maybe, so many innocent people didn’t have to die, had the Americans given chance to the other alternatives I mentioned (wait for the Russians, give assurances).
Wait for the Russians: More dead risked by allowing Russia to occupy land, not a good idea methinks.
Give in to more Japanese terms/Assurances: Why? Japan was not showing any official signs of surrender anyway, why should the allies lessen their stance if their original stance was not good enough to begin with?
Quote:
Why didn’t they do this? Is it because the bombs were decisive? No, Americans themselves said they were unnecessary. Then, why didn’t they left the Nukes as the last alternative?
SOME americans say they were unessecary. Not all, and not all of those party to Ultra information either. Truman had to make a decision, with some saying they were, some saying they were not. Since no signs officially emanated from Japan, the indications were they were not. Why did they use the nukes? Well nothing else seemed to drag Japan into talking officially for one.
Quote:
I’ll tell you why (I already did, but..). They only cared about their ass, and nobody else’s
I can assure you that they probably were quite concerned that Japan's future would be lessenned if Russia occupied it. I imagine that played on their minds since Russia was no longer entirely trusted. But of course this may be discounted as it fails to fit your preconcieved notion of American policy. Sounds awfully to me like before you even studied the entire topic of the bombs you decided that the decision was a selfish one. That kind of bias is just very sad to see.
Quote:
Why would they spare 200,000 Japanese civilians, when they can keep the Soviet influence off the Far East and save few Americans, and the outcome for them is still the same?
Uhmm well if they did otherwise, some more would have died under Russian control... and with tensions growing, I doubt they wanted Japan divided like Germany eventually was.
Quote:
I do hope this is the end of the debate. I don’t think we should be pain in the s for others. It’s not who has the last word, it’s who has the best word.
Why quit when I'm enjoying myself?  When you do manage to disprove some of the points I made such as the council attitude or the casualty figures then maybe you'll get close to actually having a good word. Until then I see no reasoning in your posts other than to become totally anti-american that would cause me to even begin to believe your version is the entire truth.
I will though try and find out about that book and if it has the same sources as the one that was discredited or not.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
zonekill
Adventuring Hero
Wiedzmin
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 09:17 AM |
|
|
It was the weather that stoped the Huns
Quote:
On that subject though, want to know the only country who had troops fighting in pretty much every front in Europe of WWII? That would be Poland, their troops fought nearly everywhere.
History repeats itself?
IMO the wearther in battles in Moscow and Lenningrad help the allies to win the war. Isn' it?
____________
The Preacher
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 10:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
IMO the wearther in battles in Moscow and Lenningrad help the allies to win the war. Isn' it?
If Germany would grasp Leningrad they would win the war because there was above 30% of military plants and the Baltic fleet which could proceed under german control.
OMG privatehudson you wrote so much that may to publish your book "My own view on WW2".
Quote:
I don't even have that much problems with the stance that dropping the bomb was wrong.
If tomorrow Bush will say that America have to bomb Iraq, Afganistan or any other because they threat US, would you think same? He can proof anything for american and british without the proofs. No doubts.
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 11:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
IMO the wearther in battles in Moscow and Lenningrad help the allies to win the war. Isn' it?
If Germany would grasp Leningrad they would win the war because there was above 30% of military plants and the Baltic fleet which could proceed under german control.
OMG privatehudson you wrote so much that may to publish your book "My own view on WW2".
Quote:
I don't even have that much problems with the stance that dropping the bomb was wrong.
If tomorrow Bush will say that America have to bomb Iraq, Afganistan or any other because they threat US, would you think same? He can proof anything for american and british without the proofs. No doubts.
Quote:
Svarog: Oh, yeah! The communist demons were sure going to invade the West if it was not the bomb that spooked them. Americans saved the world, once again!
When "communist demons" invented the bomb 2 years later why they did not go to invade the West? Overmind stopped them? That "communist demons" also liberated Yugoslavia. How you may to say "Americans saved the world"? That "savers" can not stop fire closely near you in Kosovo. Surely you are angry with "communist demons".
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 07:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If tomorrow Bush will say that America have to bomb Iraq, Afganistan or any other because they threat US, would you think same?
Nope, not in the slightest. I'd be adamantly against such a thing.
Quote:
When "communist demons" invented the bomb 2 years later why they did not go to invade the West?
Well first you've misread his comment, which was intended sarcasm, but ignoring that...
The simple answer would be the West's position conventionally had improved beyond all measure from 1945, and secondly, the West would have more bombs by then. Russia would need to wait until she had a signifigant lead in the arms race.
Quote:
That "communist demons" also liberated Yugoslavia.
They also occupied and supressed the whole of Eastern Europe wherever they could for 30+ years... That and they also point blank refused to support the Polish uprising in Warsaw out of fear that it would lead to an independent Poland after the war. That act condemned many brave polish partisans to death whilst the red army watched from nearby. Whilst I don't consider russians or communists "demons" I do consider the notion of them occupying more land than they did to be a bad thing.
Quote:
How you may to say "Americans saved the world"?
Uhmmmm, lets think on topic for a moment, without them Russia might have fallen for one. With them the war lasted much less and Germany under Hitler may have continued for much longer. I consider that saving or part saving the world.
Quote:
That "savers" can not stop fire closely near you in Kosovo
I hardly think it fair to judge WWII effects of a country on the actions it took some 50 years on, that's just silly 
Quote:
Surely you are angry with "communist demons".
Sadly not really true, on the other hand I do happen to be quite aware that Russia was run by a maniac with precious little care for either his country or people and don't consider Russia occupying other countries to have been a good thing in the slightest.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 07:59 PM |
|
|
|
damn..does someone except PH and the other dude actually read this thread anymore?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 08:21 PM |
|
|
I'd guess so since two others have answered in the last 24 hours
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 08:26 PM |
|
|
Lets hope, that in time..
we will learn to
resolve our conflicts
peacefully
we will learn to
give up something
that we treasure
for a stranger
we will learn to
work together
to survive
And we´re on our way
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 10:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As has been pointed out to you by wolfman, one of the cities was a naval base.
I wasn't sure you read what I posted. I thought it was just buried in the thread.
Quote:
I'm sure if you ask Wolfman, or Bort for their impression of me being "pro-american" you'd get some interesting replies. I have been called many things before, but never pro-american! Apparently if I look at the facts before me and disagree with your outlandish point of view I am now "pro-american".
PH, pro-American? Yes, and dArGOn is Bill Clinton... We are on the same side for once, PH, it doesn't feel right.
I have to agree that it is an outlandish argument he is putting forth. Anyone who disagrees with him is suddenly pro-American, where did American mean to drop bombs in WWII? If you look at the facts, and yes these are the facts, your argument just fell apart. Nagasaki was not a city full of civilians, the Japanese were not about to surrender, just scan through all that stuff PH posted. He didn't make this stuff up.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 11:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I wasn't sure you read what I posted
I always read what you say, I just don't always think it's right
Quote:
We are on the same side for once, PH, it doesn't feel right.
As I said, I've come at this from a relatively unbiased standpoint and come to one conclusion that it was justified. I'm glad you came to the same. What I'm currently trying to impress on this gentlemen is that the conclusion he has drawn is in a great deal based on faulty logic and/or information. I'm perfectly fine with someone like consis, because facts or otherwise, his opposition to the bomb is purely spiritual, fair enough. On the other hand Svarog's is mainly based around unsubstantiated facts and quite intruiging logic.
I guess if it doesn't feel right you must be having a rare moment when you have atuned yourself to my perfectly logical sense my friend
Quote:
I have to agree that it is an outlandish argument he is putting forth.
Indeed, and like most revisionist arguments, outlandish claims need outlandishly good and copious evidence
Quote:
If you look at the facts, and yes these are the facts, your argument just fell apart. Nagasaki was not a city full of civilians, the Japanese were not about to surrender, just scan through all that stuff PH posted. He didn't make this stuff up.
Of course I make it up! I'm so blatantly pro-american and such a warmonger that how could this be the true story? I mean I have SUCH a record for promoting war above all else don't I Wolf?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 11:32 PM |
|
|
You better believe it.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 11:41 PM |
|
|
Aye, there must be what 82 pages in which been quite often accused of:
Anti-American Bias
Being a Peacenik (or similar)
Anti-Semetism
And a number of other things too. It makes me laugh to be accused of being a warmongering pro-american given there's 82 pages to say otherwise here....
(at least 82)
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 11:44 PM |
|
|
I do believe dArGOn compared you to Hitler once in there, PH.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 05, 2004 11:45 PM |
|
|
I believe I covered that in Anti-Semetism
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2004 11:17 AM |
|
|
I was under impresion that I read whole 82 pages ,and I can`t remember where did the anti-semetism remark occured
Does anyone remotely remember what page it was ?
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 06, 2004 03:19 PM |
|
|
Although, I offered proofs about my claims, you now doubt their credibility. And you keep forcing me to give the same arguments over and over again (the very same from the first post). I’ll try to restrain from answering and repeating myself, but you provoke me so much that you leave me no choice.
“Meanwhile, the Magic Summaries revealed that Tokyo was demanding that Moscow accept a special envoy from Emperor Hirohito, presumably to cement the deal offering to divide Asia between Japan and Russia while Moscow brokered a Japanese surrender with the U.S. and Britain that would be acceptable to Tokyo.”
Rubbish! Do you expect us to believe that Russia was going to ally with Japan, when no historical accounts say that? Given the pre-war hostilities between those countries and the fact that just about a month later from your supposed date when the negotiations took place, USSR declared war on Japan, your claim sounds ridiculous. Even if there had been such attempts from the Japanese side, that doesn’t mean USSR were considering it.
“Oh and I might also point out to you though that the bombs most certainly did NOT stop russia.”
But, that doesn’t mean Russia wouldn’t have stopped the bombs. I’m not saying Russia should have occupied Japan. All I’m saying is the Allies should have waited for the attack on Manchuria (which was not Japanese territory!!!), which happened anyway, and see if that was somehow able to make Japan surrender. They certainly did not.
“I'm unsure how long they remained there, but I do know that by the end of their occupation, 376,000 Japanese soldiers or Civilians were dead or permanently missing. If you wish to forward alternatives to the bomb, Russia controlling more land is certainly NOT a good one.”
I strongly doubt that number, since I haven’t found anything similar to that. Even if it’s true, Russia occupied Manchuria, in spite the fact that the bombs were dropped, so not dropping them wouldn’t have proven any worse for Japan, than it already did.
“Assuming that's wrong it would be my guess that since Truman had no earthly way of knowing that Japan wanted to insist on the emperor for certain he had decided that since WWII was clearly going to be won sooner or later by the allies he had decided that Japan has no right to impose terms.”
Yes, and he just decided that it’s better to kill 200,000 civilians, rather then save the emperor (which actually happened after the bombs!). He well knew that Japan would insist on the emperor and without him they would even get ready for an invasion to defend “their god” (that’s what they did and that’s why they did it). He knew they considered him to be a god, and even if he didn’t, that’s no excuse for not giving the offer which might have saved many people. Good leaders decide grievous decisions, only when they have no other options left.
“Truman and co would have no way of knowing this for certain to be fair.”
I agree it’s partially the Japanese fault for not coming forward (maybe because they had no idea what was about to happen to them), but that doesn’t release Truman from the responsibility to make that offer. And they had huge indications.
“Why? Japan was not showing any official signs of surrender anyway, why should the allies lessen their stance if their original stance was not good enough to begin with?”
How about, to save 240,000 lives? Is that good enough reason for you?
“Then I should point out to you that of those that died in Hiroshima, up to 20,000 were either slave labour, or soldiers.”
Maybe, and the rest of 180,000 were what?
“Oops, not what I meant at all. It's legitimate to bomb civilian areas should they have industry or military targets there.”
Oops, not what you said at all. You said:” I did not say they [civilians] were military targets there. Which they were btw, they were part of a country in total war, they were a legitimate target.”
“Sounds awfully to me like before you even studied the entire topic of the bombs you decided that the decision was a selfish one. That kind of bias is just very sad to see.”
Oh, no! Sorry! It was a very generous thing the Americans did there, dropping those bombs. Oh, how I wish my country was the lucky one!
I have a bias towards big-country policies, because of their past actions. You can’t accuse me that I was not objective with this issue, but after being objective I concluded that it just fits in with the whole scheme of imperialist decisions. And to tell you the truth, I’d be really surprised if USA decides anything, not guided by their own interests only.
“When "communist demons" invented the bomb 2 years later why they did not go to invade the West? Overmind stopped them? That "communist demons" also liberated Yugoslavia. How you may to say "Americans saved the world"? That "savers" can not stop fire closely near you in Kosovo. Surely you are angry with "communist demons".”
If you had read my post or at least the context it was written in, you would have known that I was being ironical here. Otherwise, I agree with your points, CB_Duke.
And you two, keep supporting each other, but try to support that with arguments.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 06, 2004 06:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
“Oh and I might also point out to you though that the bombs most certainly did NOT stop russia.”
But, that doesn’t mean Russia wouldn’t have stopped the bombs. I’m not saying Russia should have occupied Japan. All I’m saying is the Allies should have waited for the attack on Manchuria (which was not Japanese territory!!!), which happened anyway, and see if that was somehow able to make Japan surrender. They certainly did not.
Why would they care if Manchuria was attacked? You said yourself, it was not Japanese territory. This was total war, not some walk through the park. People die in war, did you not know that? Japan in some respects was just as bad as Germany in the war, as far as treatment of prisoners.
Quote:
Good leaders decide grievous decisions, only when they have no other options left.
Like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman…?
Quote:
How about, to save 240,000 lives? Is that good enough reason for you?
How would not dropping the bombs save lives? There would be an invasion, more people than that would have surely died on both sides.
Quote:
Oh, no! Sorry! It was a very generous thing the Americans did there, dropping those bombs. Oh, how I wish my country was the lucky one!
I have a bias towards big-country policies, because of their past actions. You can’t accuse me that I was not objective with this issue, but after being objective I concluded that it just fits in with the whole scheme of imperialist decisions. And to tell you the truth, I’d be really surprised if USA decides anything, not guided by their own interests only.
I’m sorry you were not part of the “lucky ones” then, it would have made your day.
You just said you have a bias, then go on to say you were objective? I thought it was funny anyway… You have not been objective, you ignored the military targets that were affected by the bombs. You assume the Soviet Union would not occupy Japan when that’s what the USSR did at that time, occupy countries. You don’t seem to mind what the USSR did, but wasn’t the USSR imperialistic and a big country? With “big-country” policies?
And yes, stopping a WORLD war is only a US interest. It wouldn’t benefit society at all.
Quote:
And you two, keep supporting each other, but try to support that with arguments.
That’s funny, I thought that’s what we were doing…
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 06, 2004 08:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Although, I offered proofs about my claims, you now doubt their credibility
Actually, I'm not sure either way, but they remind me of some on another forum which a member there said was based on a book full of errors and ill thought out points. I did say I would investigate this and come back to you, I did not say I would discount them automatically. I do though think that when one or two loose pieces of evidence point to one thing, but whole piles of evidence point to another, the proof that you offer is limited in the least.
Quote:
you keep forcing me to give the same arguments over and over again (the very same from the first post).
That would be because you have no real way of denying what proof is offerred to you.
Quote:
Rubbish! Do you expect us to believe that Russia was going to ally with Japan, when no historical accounts say that?
Err no, I did myself say that I have no idea if it's true or not, but it is my belief that the Russians played the Japanese for fools, buying time to strike east. On the other hand you expect others to believe that Japan was preparing to surrender when nothing but one decoded message says it too, so I turn the tables, yours is no better.
Quote:
Given the pre-war hostilities between those countries and the fact that just about a month later from your supposed date when the negotiations took place, USSR declared war on Japan, your claim sounds ridiculous. Even if there had been such attempts from the Japanese side, that doesn’t mean USSR were considering it.
Oh look, that was my point! I said:
do know that Russia probably did not take it seriously because she had privately agreed to attack Japan around 90 days after Germany fell
I've already forwarded the theory that Russia was not taking it seriously. I even said they weren't taking it seriously, because I don't think they were. What I DO think and what I also said more importantly, was that in an America increasingly paranoid about Russia, this kind of problem would be magnified and believed no matter what.
Quote:
But, that doesn’t mean Russia wouldn’t have stopped the bombs. I’m not saying Russia should have occupied Japan. All I’m saying is the Allies should have waited for the attack on Manchuria (which was not Japanese territory!!!), which happened anyway, and see if that was somehow able to make Japan surrender. They certainly did not.
Common allied belief and observation of Japanese military ethics showed that more often than not, Japanese officers considered surrendering to a human opponent shameful. One of the things that persuaded so many to surrender was the fact that the reason was down to supernatural influences, the bomb. Waiting for the russians is akin to dooming one nation after another to being overrun by their benevolent influence in an attempt to save another. Whatever happens, someone looses.
And Manchuria was not part of Japan it's true, but it was a Japanese protectorate, with over 2 million Japanese people there, so would they care about loosing it that much? I'd guess at no.
Quote:
I strongly doubt that number, since I haven’t found anything similar to that. Even if it’s true, Russia occupied Manchuria, in spite the fact that the bombs were dropped, so not dropping them wouldn’t have proven any worse for Japan, than it already did.
Well the figure was out of the book. the wiesenthal centre quotes 600,000 (civilian and military) fell into Russian control as prisoners, of whom it says "most" were never seen again. By "most" I will assume it means at least half, which is not far removed from the 376,000 is it? And still more than the number who died in the bombs.
Not dropping them wouldn't have proven worse? Manchuria was the begining, how otherwise would America have diverted Russia from her imminent invasion of North Japan? all she had to do was overrun Sakhalin to continue. Hardly a difficult job given the odds. Not dropping them would have delayed any surrender terms and left Russia with no reason NOT to invade Japan. I assure you that would have proven worse for them.
Quote:
How about, to save 240,000 lives? Is that good enough reason for you?
They offerred such earlier, refused. Seemed no point continuing if Japan was stone-walling American offers.
Quote:
that’s no excuse for not giving the offer which might have saved many people. Good leaders decide grievous decisions, only when they have no other options left.
At potsdam an offer was made. No reaction. The simple truth is that Japan made no attempt to surrender or even consider allied offers. This is btw against a background of, despite your attempts to show otherwise, the imperial council's OWN RECORDS have shown that the members would reject such an offer anyway. Your point is a useless one, whatever the allies offere about the emperor, 3 of the 6 council members felt that was not enough. 3 out of 6 might have accepted, but the system did not allow 3 out of 6 to make the decision of that scale. It would have had NO effect.
Quote:
I agree it’s partially the Japanese fault for not coming forward (maybe because they had no idea what was about to happen to them), but that doesn’t release Truman from the responsibility to make that offer. And they had huge indications.
What indications? A broken code that may or may not have been disinformation? A message that thanks to Ultra may have had sinister motives behind it? Lets look at the indications that they would not surrender shall we? You have dubious messages from ultra clouding the issue, no forthcoming Japanese offers of talks, Japanese mobilisation, preparations to repel invaders, and the overall Japanese attitude to surrender. Suddenly the issue isn't so clear is it?
And Japan WAS aware of the potential results of refusing the US offer, I quote you:
This was the situation on July 26 when the U.S., Britain and China issued the Potsdam Declaration to Japan to surrender unconditionally, "The alternative," said the declaration, "is complete and utter destruction."
Whatever the method, Japan knew for sure that refusal would end in destruction. To refuse meant to accept the consequences. To refuse indicates the felt they could handle the consequences. They were wrong.
Quote:
Maybe, and the rest of 180,000 were what?
People of a country refusing to surrender. This is not a child's game, don't pretend for a moment that Japan would have blinked before doing the same had they the chance. Someone looking to kill maximum casualties could have picked bigger cities, or Tokyo for cultural influence.
Quote:
Oops, not what you said at all.
I confirmed what I meant as the previous remark was unclear. Get over it, my intention was to show that in a total war, it is impossible to fight without harming the country you are fighting. To do so you hit industry and military. To do that you must, more often than not hit civilians also. It's a shame, but it's reality.
Quote:
Oh, no! Sorry! It was a very generous thing the Americans did there, dropping those bombs. Oh, how I wish my country was the lucky one!
Sarcasm is truly the lowest form of wit, you seem to be proving this. I never wanted to say the Americans were being generous, just that they chose the best option they felt they had in front of them to end the war.
Quote:
I have a bias towards big-country policies, because of their past actions. You can’t accuse me that I was not objective with this issue, but after being objective I concluded that it just fits in with the whole scheme of imperialist decisions. And to tell you the truth, I’d be really surprised if USA decides anything, not guided by their own interests only.
You're very much NOT objective here. Firstly you only accept supporting proof that agrees with your conclusions, and yet cannot offer solid reasons why the said proof is wrong, you merely dismiss it as "too high". You dismiss solid evidence like the council records because they disagree with your conclusions, and yet allow a message that you should know full well came from a source the allies would mistrust.
You always play up casualties the bomb caused, yet severely play down the potential losses Japan would suffer in any other solution, despite the fact that you can neither refute nor debate the logical links that lead to such losses. You quote Generals badly such as McArthur (without thinking why they might say such comments) simply because the quote suited your needs. You act like you can understand the motives of Truman when clearly your knowledge of some of the information he had to hand is limited. You also only use those quotes from people that support your statements, ignoring when the same people also argue against your other points.
You have no answer to the lack of Council moves towards peace terms acceptable to the allies, indeed you ignore it totally as it refutes your claims that Japan's military commanders wanted to end the war with just one condition. You ignore Japan's preparations for continuing the war despite knowing that the knowledge of this alone could be enough to persuade Truman that they were not considering peace.
You blithely expect that Russia would be a better option, ignoring the effect Russia had on countries it occupied which have been pointed out to you. And you claim that your judgement here is unbiased and based on the facts? I'd claim it's more based you searching for facts to prove your original point than it is you looking at the facts and then making a conclusion.
Quote:
And you two, keep supporting each other, but try to support that with arguments.
I'm afraid I have. What I'm awaiting is your scathing rebuttal of said arguments and evidence rather than ignorant denial of the facts presented. Facts don't go away because you don't like them and say they're "too low". Or that you can't find a source for them.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
