Rick Reuben wrote:Saying as you are that the Japanese 'had it coming' just means that you are willing to sink to their level of atrocities to get revenge.

Dr. Venkman wrote:Three "asshat"s in one post. That's like a record, right? Dickface.

Marsupialized wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:Saying as you are that the Japanese 'had it coming' just means that you are willing to sink to their level of atrocities to get revenge.

Dropping giant bombs on a city and instantly evaporating a few hundred thousand people is much, much less an atrocity than any number of things the Japanese were doing to people on a regular basis.
The Japanese acted absolutely ruthless and evil towards pretty much everyone they came across, doing just horrible unspeakable things unchecked for years and years. If they wanted to be treated humanely themselves when it was them on the receiving end they should have treated others that way.
Look at the way they fought the war and tell me that I should be at all concerned that they weren't coddled when it was their time to pay for what they'd done. They had no pity for anyone when they were in the position of power.

RR wrote:It was unnecessary to bring the war to an end.

Skronk wrote:The japanese military were the ruthless ones. We dropped the bombs on civilians. How's that justified?

The main findings of revisionist scholarship coincide with those of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, which concluded (in a widely quoted statement) that: "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." Now, since there is no doubt that Russia would have entered the war on 15th August 1945, it would seem probable on the basis of that conclusion that a surrender could have been achieved even more quickly than this. And since the planned invasion by ground would not have occurred before 1 November 1945 (it was scheduled for the Spring of 1946), the claim that the bomb saved 500,000 lives that would have been lost in such an invasion doesn't seem to be supportable.

A second document, declassified in the Seventies, is a War Department study on the 'Use of Atomic Bomb on Japan' written in 1946. It found that "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." Even an early landinglanding on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu would have been only a 'remote' possibility, while the full invasion of Japan in the spring of 1946 would not have occurred.

In fact, the belief that it was totally unnecessary to use the atomic bomb on Japan's cities was shared by Eisenhower, who records telling Stimson that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bombs was completely unnecessary" and by Admiral William D Leahy, who opined that "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 late June, Japanese Army leaders called a meeting of the Supreme Army Council for the Direction of the War and relayed a very gloomy assessment of the growing internal dissent and the destruction of the wartime economy. In fact, the previous year, the US War Department intercepted a message dated 11 August 1944, in which it was stated that Foreign Minister Shigemitsu had instructed Ambassador Sato to see if Moscow would assist a negotiated peace. In all of Japan's communications with Moscow seeking mediation, in fact, it was never asserted that only a favourable armistice would do. What was asserted, and what continued to be the case until the end, was that surrender would not be unconditional.

***

A 12 July message, intercepted just before Potsdam, showed that the Japanese emperor himself had decided to intervene to attempt to end the war. In his private journal, Truman described it as the "telegram from [the] Jap Emperor asking for peace." By 17 July, an intercepted cable showed Foreign Minister Togo express the surrender terms thus: "If today, when we are still maintaining our strength, the Anglo-Americans were to have regard to Japan's honour and existence, they could save humanity by bringing the war to an end." However, "if they insist on unconditional surrender, the Japanese are unanimous in their resolve to wage a thorough-going war."

***

As Secretary of State-designate Byrnes explained, "our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe". At this time, the US had been experiencing some difficulty persuading Russia to accept its terms, particularly an independent Poland. By 28th July, Byrnes, according to the diary of Navy secretary James Forrestal was "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."

***

As soon as a successful test was made, Walter Brown, Byrnes' press secretary, records the Secretary of State saying that he was hoping that the bomb would press Japan to surrender and ensure that Russia would not "get in so much on the kill". He describes the minutes of the Interim Committee which recommended the bombing without warning (all the important documents are included in a lengthy appendix), showing that the leadership was intent on assuring not only a profound impact on the Japanese government, but also a salutary effect on relations with the USSR.

Minotaur029 wrote:

RR wrote:It was unnecessary to bring the war to an end.

I must drive home the point I made yesterday...the Japanese war council voted 5-4 to bring the war to an end, even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think one or two of the pissed off "4's" needed to be physically restrained. The Japanese were training their civilians for an American invasion...women, kids, etc. You can see the footage of angry women training with large pointed sticks.

I'm not sure that simply showing Japanese leaders the bomb's power would have been enough. Then again, supposedly the Japanese were considering surrendering to the Soviets instead of the Americans... this could be another reason we dropped those bombs...

Skronk wrote:The japanese military were the ruthless ones. We dropped the bombs on civilians. How's that justified?

Even neglecting the fact that Japan was training its own civilians to ruthlessly cut down American invaders, it is a fact of modern war...since the time of Sherman's "March to the Sea" in the American Civil War...that armies/military leaders understand that waging a war against an opposing nation's civilians is waging effective war against that nation and its armies. The civilians supply and support the army/the war effort...and in a war of attrition, you fight the whole country.

Do NOT selectively quote me here. All the above being said...just because effective modern warfare (in an WWII attrition-type war) means waging war on civilians does not make waging war on civilians moral, honorable, or right...but war itself is horrible...which is why countries should never get into them in the first place.

(Except of course, World War II. Hitler and the fascists had to be stopped).