Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 4th, 2013, 08:34 AM   #41
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,968

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey View Post
Well, are they really wrong, in a certain sense? Getting nuked does in fact make the Japanese nation rather special. At least until nuking people becomes a relatively commonplace activity in warfare...
They're right that their situation was unique and being nuked sounds like a good excuse to surrender without loosing face in my opinion, but they're not right in saying they could have withstood an allied invasion of the home islands.
constantine is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2013, 09:30 AM   #42

CivilWarHistoryBuff's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Small town, Mo
Posts: 16

Ironically without the nuclear munition more death would have occurred. A calculated invasion would have costed the lives of one million plus men not counting how many Japanese civilians that would have fought tooth and nail to stop the Allied invasion. This could have been the stage of the war where guerilla warfare would have been implemented. The invasion of Japan would more than likely succeed but at a staggering cost. Who knows if the Allies invaded Japan, they might not have been the technological wonder they are now.
CivilWarHistoryBuff is offline  
Old January 4th, 2013, 10:32 AM   #43
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,459

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
They're right that their situation was unique and being nuked sounds like a good excuse to surrender without loosing face in my opinion, but they're not right in saying they could have withstood an allied invasion of the home islands.
My experience is rather that they might claim to only ever have been nice and peaceloving, but the target of completely disproportionate US aggression, against which they clearly couldn't defend themselves, since they were so peaceful and nice...
Larrey is offline  
Old January 4th, 2013, 10:34 AM   #44
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,459

Quote:
Originally Posted by CivilWarHistoryBuff View Post
Ironically without the nuclear munition more death would have occurred. A calculated invasion would have costed the lives of one million plus men not counting how many Japanese civilians that would have fought tooth and nail to stop the Allied invasion. This could have been the stage of the war where guerilla warfare would have been implemented. The invasion of Japan would more than likely succeed but at a staggering cost. Who knows if the Allies invaded Japan, they might not have been the technological wonder they are now.
You haven't really read any of the back-and-forth of this thread, have you?
Larrey is offline  
Old January 4th, 2013, 12:32 PM   #45
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 471

I repeat, the ONLY reason that Japan surrendered was Emperor Hirohito convinced his military staff that to continue to resist was futile in the wake of nuclear weapons.

I've lived in Japan, taught there and been emmerced in Japanese culture.

What's not to understand?

President Harry Truman had no regrets authorizing nuclear weapons then or after he left office.

BTW, the incidiary (fire bomb) attacks on Japan cost far more lives that than the nukes. (fact)

Why are some of you sniveling now?

Dave W.

Dave W.
Dave W. is offline  
Old January 5th, 2013, 03:30 AM   #46
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,459

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave W. View Post
I repeat, the ONLY reason that Japan surrendered was Emperor Hirohito convinced his military staff that to continue to resist was futile in the wake of nuclear weapons.

I've lived in Japan, taught there and been emmerced in Japanese culture.

What's not to understand?

President Harry Truman had no regrets authorizing nuclear weapons then or after he left office.

BTW, the incidiary (fire bomb) attacks on Japan cost far more lives that than the nukes. (fact)

Why are some of you sniveling now?

Dave W.

Dave W.
You might have to specify who is "snivelling" here?

Why have you got your knickers in a bunch over it?
Larrey is offline  
Old January 5th, 2013, 08:15 AM   #47
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 471

Unless one has intimate knowledge of Japan and it's culture most of the speculations aired here a irrelevant.

Dave W.
Dave W. is offline  
Old January 5th, 2013, 08:34 PM   #48

pablo668's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Perth, Western Australia. or....hickville.
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave W. View Post
Unless one has intimate knowledge of Japan and it's culture most of the speculations aired here a irrelevant.

Dave W.
Is that what they call an appeal to authority/competency?

One doesn't have to have lived there or immersed ones self in the Japanese culture to have a relevant opinion of the subject matter. It does help in certain cases to gain an understanding of the events and possible outcomes, but being well read in the events an the chronology of the time should suffice.

The US had several other atomic bombs in on line to be dropped within a few weeks of the first two or three.

As I have stated in another thread, the bombs actually figure very little in the records of the discussions of the cabinet about surrender. I'm sure they were a consideration but I think it was a combination of events that finally made the Japanese surrender.
Hirohito himself stated a desire to end the war before the bombs were dropped and the Japanese govt was seeking talks through the Russians a couple months before Hiroshima.

The two bombs were dropped an the Russians declared war and invaded Manchuria before Hirohito took the unprecedented move of speaking during a cabinet session and asking for the members present to end the war.

The Emperor might have had supreme status in Japan but he didn't go about ordering things willy nilly. He was always expected to be the symbol of power but not to exercise it as such.
pablo668 is offline  
Old January 6th, 2013, 02:35 AM   #49

Naomasa298's Avatar
Bog of the Year
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 21,382

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo668 View Post
Is that what they call an appeal to authority/competency?
I think it's an appeal to experience.

Presumably one is also incompetent to comment on WW2 unless one actually lived through it.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old January 6th, 2013, 09:45 AM   #50
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 471

"Presumably one is also incompetent to comment on WW2 unless one actually lived through it."

Yes. Thank you that would be me born in 1937
Dave W. is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
fate, japan, nuclear, weapons


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No nuclear weapons AlpinLuke Speculative History 17 July 3rd, 2012 06:07 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.