Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 21st, 2011, 12:49 PM   #541

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

Quote:
First, pretending that any contender at any war (especially such a fierce one as the Pacific WW2) attempted any measure "to end the loss of life" on the enemy would be either incredibly militarily absurd or extremely naively hypocritical (admittedly, it could be both).
Ah yes, the "they were monsters" approach. Really?
Quote:
Aside from that, we must entirely agree.

In fact, you may remember that in a previous related thread the vast majority of posters (and not just Americans) most enthusiastically voted for nuking Japan if such measure would have saved even just one single American life ..
I must have missed that thread. Anyway, I look at the total loss of life, not just one side, when I say the bombs saved lives.
OpanaPointer is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 21st, 2011, 12:56 PM   #542
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
Ah yes, the "they were monsters" approach. Really?
Not exactly sure what you may mean; do you consider absolutely all armies "monsters"?

A bit extreme, but you may have a point ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
I must have missed that thread. Anyway, I look at the total loss of life, not just one side, when I say the bombs saved lives.
The thread was quite explicit; "saving one Japanese life" was not even an option ...

In any case, such an option would have been nonsensical and utterly self-contradictory, IMHO.
sylla1 is offline  
Old June 21st, 2011, 01:05 PM   #543

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Not exactly sure what you may mean; do you consider absolutely all armies "monsters"?
I was referring to the idea that Truman and Co. dropped the bombs to have some fun or see what happened, etc. I hear it all the time.
Quote:
A bit extreme, but you may have a point ... The thread was quite explicit; "saving one Japanese life" was not even an option ...

In any case, such an option would have been nonsensical and utterly self-contradictory, IMHO.
And I missed that thread. From what you've said, it proves that a lot of people on both sides have unrealistic opinions.
OpanaPointer is offline  
Old June 21st, 2011, 01:12 PM   #544
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Border of GA and AL
Posts: 7,890
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerWolf View Post
Sorry but I don't believe (without polemic vein) that the use of atomic bomb was needed and legitimate. The allies wanted solely to avoid a huge bloodless by the scheduled Operation "Downfall" and to launch a strong message to Soviet Union.
Well at the time there were three reasonable options to end the war.

1. Naval Blockade
2. Invasion of the Japanese Home Islands
3. Use the Atomic Bomb


At the time, 1945, the American public was tired of the war. Once Germany surrendered anti-war fever skyrocketed. Truman had to find a way to end the war quickly with the least amount of casualties possible.

Now a naval blockade would have taken the longest. There were two main reasons why this was written out, though. One was that it would have taken way to freaking long. I believe that some Japanese official, or general, said that "You'd have to kill 90% of Japanese for Japan to surrender." It was something like that. If a naval blockade had been chosen, anti-war riots would have grown in size and in frequency. The other reason was because of Kamikaze planes, boats, scuba divers, etc. These people were a very real problem and the Navy did not want to lose men this way. Especially after the Battles of Leyte Gulf, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima.

Another option, but by far the bloodiest, was to go ahead with X-Day and Operation Olympic. Just the words "by far the bloodiest" was not acceptable for Truman if the atomic bomb could have been used successfully.
Qymaen is offline  
Old June 21st, 2011, 01:32 PM   #545

larkin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,676
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
Ah yes, the "they were monsters" approach. Really?

I must have missed that thread. Anyway, I look at the total loss of life, not just one side, when I say the bombs saved lives.
All due respect, but the wars of uniformed armies and invasion forces in light of modern devastating weaponry may be a thing of the past. (million dollar drone missile to kill one suspect is a symptom)


When I wrote my two posts, I evaded the original question by not even taking a position on whether the bombs should have been used or not.. The fact is that it happened.

What happened in August of 1945 may be foundation of how these bombs will be used in our time or in the future..

Elements in the Pentagon are actively trying to rationalize situations where the use of these weapons can be acceptable for use today.

Congress approved the President to be able to use nuclear weapons in a "pre-empted attack" (First strike capability) This bill was slipped through without a peep from our elected representatives.

In 2008 a nuclear armed B52 left from North Dakota to Texas. The original news stories said that it was a mistake to send armed nuclear weapons over US air space and reprimands would be made to correct the situation. Since the end of the Cold War I hadn't heard much talk about US nuclear arms until this story.. I considered it an intentional leak as if to say, "We still got'em and we can use'em." The veiled threat was aimed at Iran.. .

OpEdNews - Article: Was That Nuclear-Armed B-52 Flight Destined for Iran?
larkin is offline  
Old June 21st, 2011, 01:33 PM   #546
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
I was referring to the idea that Truman and Co. dropped the bombs to have some fun or see what happened, etc. I hear it all the time.
That's not what I said nor what Mr Truman ordered.
The executive order for the use of the nuclear weapons as soon as they were available and the metereological conditiones allowed it had already been given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
And I missed that thread. From what you've said, it proves that a lot of people on both sides have unrealistic opinions.
It's actually this thread http://www.historum.com/war-military...ing-japan.html

Last edited by sylla1; June 21st, 2011 at 03:18 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old June 21st, 2011, 02:20 PM   #547

botully's Avatar
With the Ball People
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Amelia, Virginia, USA
Posts: 3,442

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
that the Japanese was fighting so "fanatically" because they saw no reason to surrender when their chance to survive was anyway zero.
And by that argument of mine, your argument, that millions of GIs and japanese civilians would have died during an invasion is becoming doubtful.

We could stay on topic, if these GI behavior wouldn't be denied or palliated.
Point one is invalid. The Japanese military forbade capture or surrender. Note that capture was considered the same as surrender. You were dead to Japan if captured, even involuntarily. It was the military culture that kept Japanese from surrendering in numbers, and it was military culture that caused them to fight fanatically to the death. Note Tulagi, where the Japanese resisted to the death. This was the first American offensive. Find me the stories of Americans killing prisoners that predate Bataan and Tulagi. (also note that someone can be a POW without surrender, capture works as well)

How is that doubtful? You haven't proven anything. You just ignore the effect of the military culture.

No one has denied GI behavior. By your definition of war crime, everyone, Japanese and American, are guilty of the same war crime. Yes or no?

Quote:
I know some japanese cases, that is true, but the main cases of this were committed by US and British navy. I know even a German case, U 852, the captain and the doctor were executed as war criminals after the war. Yours too?
Source? I have never heard of anyone making the claim that the Japanese did it less.

Quote:
With the same argumentation I can as well excuse Le Paradis or Malmedy or others. So where will it end?
Exactly. Now you are starting to understand. After Malmedy many Americans swore they would never take an SS prisoner. Another war crime, to you.
Was Malmedy in response to GIs killing prisoners?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by botully
You really need to read about the psychology of killing in combat. You clearly don't appreciate the emotions men experience and how it affects their civilian sensibilities.
And this is only an excuse for GIs. Do you explain and excuse Japanese crimes in the same way?
It depends on what you call war crimes. Working men to death months or years after surrender, no it doesn't excuse it. Beating or starving men, no it doesn't excuse it. I may be horrified to hear of Japanese capturing a Marine on Iwo Jima and torturing him to death, but I can't judge it a war crime, because of what I said above. You cannot insert civilian sensibilities into combat. It is futile and naive. War is killing, and those who attempt to place neat brackets around different circumstances do not understand that. War is brutal, violent killing, not a civilized duel.
Combat infantrymen understand that to get mercy you show mercy. A guy who holes up in a cave for hours machine gunning all who approach, who then throws his hands up in surrender when his ammo runs out, will most likely be killed. Sorry pal, if you wanted to live, you shouldn't have shot at us. Another war crime, to you.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by botully
Your premise is invalid, Japanese fanaticism cannot be blamed on the Americans. It was part of their military culture.
again, read Fergusson and Weingartner
They deny this, do they?
Here is what one source says, according to you:
Quote:
-An analysis of the british historian Niall ferguson states, that in 1943 a secret US intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would...induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese
Quote:
-Ferguson states that the ratio of KIA and POW in 1944 was 1:100. That same year efforts were taken by the Allied high commanders to suppress "take no prisoners" attitudes
Quote:
-US Richard Strauss said, that frontline troops intensivly hated japanese military personnel and were not easily persuaded to take or protect prisoners
Quote:
Allied soldiers often deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered
None of these discuss why. You need to ignore why, or your premise is invalid.
Most telling is this quote, italics are mine:
Quote:
-Ferguson suggests that it was not only the fear of disciplinary action or dishonor that deterred german and japanese soldiers from surrendering. More important for most soldiers was the perception that prisoners would be killed by the enemy anyway, and so one might as well fight on.
Note Americans had this perception as well, with equal reason.

Quote:
But my knowledge about the japanese army and my japanese is unfortunately limited.
You have no trouble making bold claims about Japanese military culture.

You claim kamikaze was rumor. Source?
Quote:
There were 170 kamikaze groups with theoretically 12 aircrafts. You had the absolute air superiority. I suppose a lot of it is just rumor, like our Werewolf that was widely a myth too
I cite suicide weapons, you dismiss them with this:
Quote:
germans had suicidal troops too and committed suicide as well, even if seppuku is not part of our culture. You pretend as if it is a Japanese hobby to commit suicide.
Then claim you said this:
Quote:
And again. i did not said that Europeans or here germans had the same culture of suicide. And I as well agreed, that the bushido or what people thought it is, had influence on their fighting.
Here you imply only Americans commonly killed prisoners. Source?
Quote:
But again, how ever you appreciate the Bataan-march, it was no excuse for the common killing of Japanes POWs
Your definition of war crime is not shared by everyone, and by no one who understands combat.
Quote:
I only call those GIs war criminals, who shot POWs at the front line and those who killed them on the transport.
And finally your bizarre conclusion:
Quote:
that the Japanese was fighting so "fanatically" because they saw no reason to surrender when their chance to survive was anyway zero.
And by that argument of mine, your argument, that millions of GIs and japanese civilians would have died during an invasion is becoming doubtful.
So.....
The Japanese fought fanatically because of American brutality therefore they would not have fought fanatically if the Home Islands were invaded.

Last edited by botully; June 21st, 2011 at 02:26 PM.
botully is offline  
Old June 21st, 2011, 03:06 PM   #548
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
I most certainly do think they were a threat, and so do most of the people who have studied the Japanese military situation. Remember, they're fighting a defensive battle. The rule is defense is to offense as three is to one. So we needed three times as many troops as the Japanese on Kyushu to have an even battle, and guess what, we thought there were about half the number that was really there. Even with that, you have figure that ~75% of the Japanese defenders would have died, or over 562,000 fighting men. AND there would have been the civilian casualties. Civilians were NOT to be evacuated, they were ordered to fight. Whether they did or not, civilians don't fare well in a combat environment. Mobility would not have been an issue, they would have fought and died where they were stationed pre-invasion. No tactics needed if you just have to fight when the enemy presents himself.
3:1, yes, of curs. It is long ago, but if I remember back to my old times at the academy, the US even prefer 5 or 6:1. But that is just theoretical nonsense. we have shown the world, that this is absolutely unimportant. The Wehrmacht attacked Poland with a ration of 1,6 to 1 at men, 2:1 at aircrafts and tanks 3:1, we defeated the French and the BEF with an ratio of 1.3:1 on men, artillery 1:2, tanks 1:1.5 and aircrafts 1:1.3 and if we look to Russia with an ratio of 1:2 on men, tanks 1:4, aircrafts 1:4 and artillery 1:5. The number of troops is absolutely unimportant if you don't know how to use them.
For Operation Olympic you had 14 US divisions for the mission in South kyushu and faced 7 japanese divisions there, 7 further divisions in the North. The Japanese were badly equipped and ammunitioned. They had no air support and your navy was able to destroy every support from Honshu and Shikoku.
From there you could absolutely controll the Japanese air room.
So your situation for Coronet would have been even far better. here your 25 planned divisions were planned to take the Kanto-plains. Again we would have the same situation. Your airforce would have had suppressed any hostile air missions, had destroyed the hostile artillery, your navy had supported the mission from the sea.
But at that time, the Soviets would have been there as well. For August storm they had 1.5 million soldiers available, 28,000 artillery, mre than 5,000 aircrafts and nearly 4,000 tanks.
The Japanese resistance would have been broken down immediately.
beorna is offline  
Old June 21st, 2011, 03:19 PM   #549

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
3:1, yes, of curs. It is long ago, but if I remember back to my old times at the academy, the US even prefer 5 or 6:1. But that is just theoretical nonsense. we have shown the world, that this is absolutely unimportant. The Wehrmacht attacked Poland with a ration of 1,6 to 1 at men, 2:1 at aircrafts and tanks 3:1, we defeated the French and the BEF with an ratio of 1.3:1 on men, artillery 1:2, tanks 1:1.5 and aircrafts 1:1.3 and if we look to Russia with an ratio of 1:2 on men, tanks 1:4, aircrafts 1:4 and artillery 1:5. The number of troops is absolutely unimportant if you don't know how to use them.
For Operation Olympic you had 14 US divisions for the mission in South kyushu and faced 7 japanese divisions there, 7 further divisions in the North. The Japanese were badly equipped and ammunitioned. They had no air support and your navy was able to destroy every support from Honshu and Shikoku.
From there you could absolutely controll the Japanese air room.
So your situation for Coronet would have been even far better. here your 25 planned divisions were planned to take the Kanto-plains. Again we would have the same situation. Your airforce would have had suppressed any hostile air missions, had destroyed the hostile artillery, your navy had supported the mission from the sea.
But at that time, the Soviets would have been there as well. For August storm they had 1.5 million soldiers available, 28,000 artillery, mre than 5,000 aircrafts and nearly 4,000 tanks.
The Japanese resistance would have been broken down immediately.
The people who have actually studied the situation, such as Walker (you should read him, he's very much pro-use of the bombs), and Richard B. Frank, John Ray Skates, et al., are very sure that the bombs were the least deadly alternative among those available. Until you can refute them you don't have a case.
OpanaPointer is offline  
Old June 21st, 2011, 03:23 PM   #550
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473

You ignore my sources or perhaps i should say the english and american sources on and on and the absolutely impudence is to ask me for sources for my statements, allthough I repeated and quoted them on and on.

So my definition of war crimes is wrong. If I understand you correct, then there are laws for war existing, like those of geneva, but in a battle they find no use, because in a battle situation everything is different

What i can see is, that for you war crimes can just be committed from the enemy. You can murder, torture, rape too? but everything can be excused. that is ridiculous.

And as I can see, nothing has changed today.
beorna is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
atomic, bombing, bombs, hiroshima, legitimate, nagasaki, needed, proposed, wwii



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How come it took 2 atomic bombs? tedkaw War and Military History 42 April 15th, 2012 01:07 PM
Why were the atomic bombs dropped? OpanaPointer War and Military History 63 January 9th, 2011 08:51 AM
Should the U.S. have dropped atomic bombs on Japan? jduster American History 218 December 1st, 2010 05:28 AM
WWII - The Atomic Bomb Historical101 American History 90 January 12th, 2010 07:47 AM
No atomic bombs PADDYBOY Speculative History 13 January 30th, 2009 06:26 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.