EPTThe war was already over at that point and the Japanese high command were getting ready to surrender, especially since the Soviets had just entered the war. The psychological effect of the first atom bombs weren't as big either; people today fear it due to the constant upgrades there've been over the last 60 years, while the after-effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a harsh reminder, but back then this wasn't the case. It was just a big bomb, and neither side believed the other to be able to build a significant number.
Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 32
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sushiman
Sweden2691 Posts
The war was already over at that point and the Japanese high command were getting ready to surrender, especially since the Soviets had just entered the war. The psychological effect of the first atom bombs weren't as big either; people today fear it due to the constant upgrades there've been over the last 60 years, while the after-effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a harsh reminder, but back then this wasn't the case. It was just a big bomb, and neither side believed the other to be able to build a significant number. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On November 04 2008 11:36 Frits wrote: Well I was gonna say it depended on how much bombs they really did have at their disposal and how much they could produce in how much time. I guess in the end it was the best chance of success they had. Though Im still not convinced about the amount of communication after the first bomb, I know there was almost a coup but afaik this was aborted and the imperial general comitted suicide. The coup was not aborted. In fact, the coup ALMOST succeeded. I don't remember what Japanese unit it was but there was a specific Japanese unit who had saved the emperor from the coup. (Royal Guard was it? I'm writing this out of pure memory). And again, Truman publicly asked the Japanese Imperal Army to surrender right after the drop on Hiroshima was declared "successful". | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On November 04 2008 12:22 Choros wrote: They had already tested the atomic bombs in the nevada desert. There explosive might was so potent that the scientists who created it were horrified and advised Truman against their use. The war was over, Japanese forces in China had been crushed by the Russians, most pacific islands had been cleared. The Philippines had already been reconquered. The allies would have not incurred significant losses at all. Many Japanese generals were simply mad. The Emperor was determined to have peace and the Generals would have come into line imo. "They had already tested the atomic bombs in the nevada desert. There explosive might was so potent that the scientists who created it were horrified and advised Truman against their use." There was no way of telling whether dropping an atomic bomb from a B-29's height could have been successful. There are many more factors (real situation factors) that could have made the Atomic bomb a dud. The drop on the Alamo desert was a test and nothing more than a lab-created test. It is by no means an indication that it would work 100% in real life. "The war was over, Japanese forces in China had been crushed by the Russians, most pacific islands had been cleared. The Philippines had already been reconquered. The allies would have not incurred significant losses at all." Please refer to page 22 as to why the Japanese was far from being "beaten". This is a pure myth created in the 1960s by revisionists. Upon further research, you will realize that the Japanese Imperial Army was not beaten at all. "Many Japanese generals were simply mad. The Emperor was determined to have peace and the Generals would have come into line imo." Please reexplain this argument. They were "simply mad"? You don't kill the emperor because you're mad. You kill him to prevent a peace declaration being made publicly by the Emperor. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On November 04 2008 12:56 sYz-Adrenaline wrote: holy shit 31 pages O_O But No it wasn't Refer to page 22 and please tell me if it wasn't justified or not. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On November 04 2008 20:13 sushiman wrote: No. The atom bombs were dropped over civilian targets, partly to be able to study the effect it would have on victims after the war, which makes it all the more gruesome. The war was already over at that point and the Japanese high command were getting ready to surrender, especially since the Soviets had just entered the war. The psychological effect of the first atom bombs weren't as big either; people today fear it due to the constant upgrades there've been over the last 60 years, while the after-effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a harsh reminder, but back then this wasn't the case. It was just a big bomb, and neither side believed the other to be able to build a significant number. Please provide evidence where the Imperial Japanese Army was ready to surrender. Thanks. | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On November 04 2008 13:32 Lemonwalrus wrote: Maybe I was making it out to be fact when it is a controversial (although widely held) opinion, and for that I am sorry, but the point still stands. For the record I am sure that it is commonly regarded as a leading cause of world war two. Infact the then president of the United States disapproved of the treaty because he saw it leading to future conflict. | ||
|
Samurai-
Slovenia2035 Posts
Since people think things like pearl harbor couldnt be avoided or vietnam couldnt be won.. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ About the bombs being justified? I believe that weapons of mass destruction are never justified, whatever may be the reason.. And there is no way to believe american goverment about anything... They are lying to the people, who are blindly following them, for example, when you see the pictures of bombing of WTC, u must be a fool to believe it was an act of some terrorist.. or invasion of iraq etc.. All of these acts are showing that the more u lie and deceive, the more u gain, that is why i ll never support that weapons of mass destruction, that were used against japan, were justified.. | ||
|
Hydrolisko
Vanuatu1659 Posts
No it was not justified. No argument will penetrate that. You can't just go kill innocent civilians with the purpose of getting its government to surrender. Is it really that hard to see? | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On November 04 2008 11:22 Frits wrote: "The war was over, Japanese forces in China had been crushed by the Russians, most pacific islands had been cleared. The Philippines had already been reconquered. The allies would have not incurred significant losses at all." Please refer to page 22 as to why the Japanese was far from being "beaten". This is a pure myth created in the 1960s by revisionists. Upon further research, you will realize that the Japanese Imperial Army was not beaten at all. Two decicive battles effectively closed the war off, the battle of Leyte Gulf in the Phillipines cost the Japanese 10,000+ dead;4 aircraft carriers,3 battleships,8 cruisers,12 destroyers sunk (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf), in truth these carriers were little more than converted merchant ships (their decent carriers were lost earlier, at Midway in particular) but this was the nail in the coffin after this battle the Japanese fleet was incapable of fielding even a pathetic battle group. The Soviet Invasion of Machuria lead too 83,737 KIA 640,276 POW's for the Japanese whilst the Russian's lost around 30,000. (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm) In the aftermath of this the Japanese were totally incapable of any form of offensive military operations, they scarcely could not even defend the air space over their own country mainly due to severe shortage of trained pilots which was the main reason for Kamikaze missions, their pilots were incapable of anything else. The Japanese military was utterly crushed and their cities lay in ruins. It is true that they had on paper significant forces to defend the home islands but in practice the United States would have been able to defeat these ill equipped militia with ease. I have not read the page you refer too because I don't know what book your talking about so feel free to enlighten me. Apparently Hirohito had sent a letter to Washington offering surrender. In my opinion war could have been finished simply talking, not nuking. "Many Japanese generals were simply mad. The Emperor was determined to have peace and the Generals would have come into line imo." Please reexplain this argument. They were "simply mad"? You don't kill the emperor because you're mad. You kill him to prevent a peace declaration being made publicly by the Emperor. I have no idea why you mention killing the Emperor but I will explain this point as its really quite important and revealing. It all goes back to the decisive defeat of the Russian in the Russo-Japanese war. At that time Japanese soldiers were remarkably well behaved they treated prisoners very well, they did not kill civilians or do anything mischievous in general, in direct contrast to their conduct in the second world war, the transition from civility into madness can be traced. After the Japanese victory the Jap's took Korea as a province, their military occupying the area became known as the 'Kwantung army'. Meanwhile in Japan democracy was flourishing and the economy growing strongly. The Japanese political system had the emperor at the top, and the Government and the military were beneath. Critically the army did not see themselves subordinate to the Government rather they were loyal solely to the Emperor, and they would do whatever they felt was in the empire's interest and democracy was increasingly a thorn in their side, a system they had no loyalty toward. Over time the Kawntung army grew increasingly distant from the Government and mainstream Japanese society. This culminated in 3 things. The Kwantung army decided that they wanted to invade Manchuria, the Government said no but the army was not subordinate to them so they went ahead and did it anyway. Then over the course of numerous individual events the military took control of the Government itself, firstly there was attempted coups but they failed. Then they resorted to assassinations, infact over a ten year period there was around ten prime ministers, and almost every single one was assassinated, this happened in the 1920's. Slowly all the good politicians died out or shut up and eventually military men were elected and eventually during the late 30's every PM was a general and the destruction of democracy was complete. The 3rd thing was the full blown invasion of China. The Government said no but the army went ahead and did it anyway, and when they did this atrocities like the rape on Nanking took place (symbolic of the change from the honorable soldiers who went to Korea in 1904 and the in trenched diabolical fanaticism of those who emerged 30 odd years later). The generals and soldiers bred out of the Kwantung army were fanatical ideological zealots committed to a twisted ideology of dying for the Emperor, the superiority of the Japanese race etc etc. They ruthlessly killed anyone who dared speak out against them. Over time the Kwantung army grew worse and worse until they eventually succumbed to complete unadulterated madness. They also created a secret police force to enforce their brutal regime. However their commitment to the Emperor was absolute, if he actively said 'look we gotta surrender' as it appears he was doing, they would have had no choice but to do so (and if they don't like it go and kill yourself, as many infact did) Another thing the military did was high jack the education system teaching the youth the need to die for the emperor etc. This is a rather condensed version of the story so it will probably appear quite incomplete when you read it but yeah. (not what my source was basically mentions some of what I said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Army) Edit: Thought I might try to source my mass assassination of Japanese Prime ministers claim and I slightly over exaggerated here is the list: # Hara Takashi, (1921), Prime Minister of Japan # Hamaguchi Osachi, (1931), Prime Minister of Japan # Dan Takuma, (1932), zaibatsu leader # Inukai Tsuyoshi, (1932), Prime Minister of Japan # Takahashi Korekiyo, (1936), Prime Minister of Japan A very interesting chronology of the destruction of democracy in Japan can be seen herehttp://www.shikokuhenrotrail.com/japanhistory/showahistory.html this shows a full list of coups assassinations and attempted assassinations. | ||
|
hymn
Bulgaria832 Posts
I don't understand the logic of killing civilians because otherwise a lot of your soldiers will eventually die. That's what soldiers are for. Fighting. And that's also what civilians are not for. Fighting. They are just not used to it, you know? And also I imagine a lot of children died then too. This is IMO the worst part of the bombings. Wiping out children, knowing you will kill children with this horrible weapon and still doing it just comes to show the insanity of the US government back then. And done vs an isolated country that needed no invasion just blockage from everywhere... Doesn't make any sense to me. You just can not justify nuclear attacks. Can not! | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On November 04 2008 21:40 Samurai- wrote: People should watch ZEITGEIST... Since people think things like pearl harbor couldnt be avoided or vietnam couldnt be won.. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ About the bombs being justified? I believe that weapons of mass destruction are never justified, whatever may be the reason.. And there is no way to believe american goverment about anything... They are lying to the people, who are blindly following them, for example, when you see the pictures of bombing of WTC, u must be a fool to believe it was an act of some terrorist.. or invasion of iraq etc.. All of these acts are showing that the more u lie and deceive, the more u gain, that is why i ll never support that weapons of mass destruction, that were used against japan, were justified.. The United States did an oil embargo on Japan putting the Japanese in a position where they had two options 1) sit and wait whilst their economy was utterly crushed and their military immobilised, or 2) Strike hard and fast with everything they had. The United States knew the Japanese would react in the way they did, that is exactly what they wanted them to do. The United States then sent all their carriers and decent ships on military exercises and allowed Japan to sink a bunch of obsolete battleships. Their motives were clear, they wanted to take military bases across the pacific and take Japan as a client state, they then did exactly that. They wanted the Pacific but they knew that it needed to be clear they were the good guys, they were the victims, to gain sufficient popular support. And you can't say it didn't work. September 11 is a continence of the same thing but lets not go there. That's right guys the United States is no better (or worse) than any major power that has come before them personally I don't think this is to say the United States is utterly terrible or anything, it is simply being realistic. I do object to the blatant two facedness of it all though. The United States is a major power with realist ambition and it behaves in exactly that way, they are forced to engineer the situation so it looks like they are the good guys because of the political reality of American public opinion. Also just like Sept. 11 there was numerous warnings from other nations of an impending Japanese attack, the United States of course was not ignorant of this but rather intentionally ignored the warnings. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 04 2008 22:28 Choros wrote: This is blatantly untrue. There have been mounds of historical journals written on the subject, no one finds intentional ignorance to be the cause. The theory came about as a smoking gun, but there was never any facts to back it up besides the US knowing about it and Pearl Harbor not being warned.Also just like Sept. 11 there was numerous warnings from other nations of an impending Japanese attack, the United States of course was not ignorant of this but rather intentionally ignored the warnings. | ||
|
bahaa
Lebanon29 Posts
You don't understand. It never is about the quantity of blood shed. It is always about the identity. Innocent blood. That of civilians. Be it poor people, rich people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or other. Civilians are civilians regardless and nothing justifies targeting them. The whole arguement about how much lives the nuclear bombs saved in avoiding an invasion is so ridiculous and doesn't touch the real issue. If your own mother was among those people you needed to "smart"-bomb, and you were the pilot who needed to drop the bomb, would you still do it? You're a liar if you'd say "country first". It's arrogant to take others' lives lightly, and you're immediately exposed once you bring in the family arguement. Innocent people are no different than your family otherwise you're one selfish bastard! | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
Two decicive battles effectively closed the war off, the battle of Leyte Gulf in the Phillipines cost the Japanese 10,000+ dead;4 aircraft carriers,3 battleships,8 cruisers,12 destroyers sunk (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf), in truth these carriers were little more than converted merchant ships (their decent carriers were lost earlier, at Midway in particular) but this was the nail in the coffin after this battle the Japanese fleet was incapable of fielding even a pathetic battle group. The Soviet Invasion of Machuria lead too 83,737 KIA 640,276 POW's for the Japanese whilst the Russian's lost around 30,000. (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm) In the aftermath of this the Japanese were totally incapable of any form of offensive military operations, they scarcely could not even defend the air space over their own country mainly due to severe shortage of trained pilots which was the main reason for Kamikaze missions, their pilots were incapable of anything else. The Japanese military was utterly crushed and their cities lay in ruins. It is true that they had on paper significant forces to defend the home islands but in practice the United States would have been able to defeat these ill equipped militia with ease. I have not read the page you refer too because I don't know what book your talking about so feel free to enlighten me. Apparently Hirohito had sent a letter to Washington offering surrender. In my opinion war could have been finished simply talking, not nuking. I'l reemphasize my point when I got the time again but the summary is Hirohito never wanted with the U.S to begin with. He was against Pearl Harbor. Yet, Pearl Harbor still happened. The point I'm trying to make is that the Emperor has no real control over the Japanese Army or Navy. Its the generals (such as General Anami) who controlled the Japanese Army directly. It is him who had the final say of anything and he was against surrender. His plan was: Let the Americans/Allied bleed and they'l offer a stalemate. You're offering nothing substantial as to whether the Japanese were nearing-surrender. Losing the battle of Leyte Gulf has nothing to do with Japan incapable of inflicting blood in the Americans. It just meant total victory was off-hand from the Japanese. The Japanese Generals believed stalemate was still possible and that's what mattered. The army wouldn't put their arms down and this would mean the war not being over until September '45 (this is the MOST optimistic date, and the most unrealistic one too) to beyond spring of '46. This means millions of additional deaths to innocent people. If you read the Goebbels (German propaganda minister) diary, Goebbels still believed in a stalemate victory even in MARCH OF 1945! And every generals in the Allied faction thought the war would be over by Winter of 1944. This is the exact same mentality excepting different nations and time. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
I have no idea why you mention killing the Emperor but I will explain this point as its really quite important and revealing. It all goes back to the decisive defeat of the Russian in the Russo-Japanese war. At that time Japanese soldiers were remarkably well behaved they treated prisoners very well, they did not kill civilians or do anything mischievous in general, in direct contrast to their conduct in the second world war, the transition from civility into madness can be traced. Because the coup involved the army killing/kidnapping the emperor in order to prevent him from delivering the message. This happened after the two atomic bombs were dropped and shows how the Japanese Army was ready to fight to the end but the psychological effects of the bombs divided the army and the coup failed. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On November 04 2008 13:28 Lemonwalrus wrote: The harshness of the Treaty of Versailles is accepted as one of the leading causes of World War 2, you are proving Frits' point for him. HAHAHAHAHA Open a damn history book. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
Learn how to debate. Oh, and: http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/causes.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II#Treaty_of_Versailles http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210520/treaty_of_versailles.htm http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563737_2/World_War_II.html#p7 http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/long_term_causes_of_world_war_tw.htm http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/6916/ww2.htm#two http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/wwiieurcauses.htm http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_Treaty_of_Versailles_help_cause_World_War_2 http://www.johndclare.net/peace_treaties6.htm http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Treaty_of_Versailles_directly_cause_World_War_2 http://www.benwiggy.com/homework/history/world-war-II-treaty-versailles.php http://www.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/war-conflict-twentieth-century/how-did-treaty-versailles-lead-world-war-ii http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/91499.html It seems that people that have read history books agree with my assertion. Manner up. Edit: You should probably learn the difference between what is your OPINION and what is historical FACT, because this is not the first time you have attacked somebody in this thread with no proof whatsoever. | ||
|
AnWh
Sweden220 Posts
| ||
|
Nitro68
France470 Posts
I mean, just for your information, the Allied bombs killed 70,000 french + 75,000 injuried in 42-44 (not working for the german war effort) ! 3 times more than the Blitzkrieg. It was like that. Nobody complain about that. There was no pity at this time, anycountry with Nuke would have used them. | ||
| ||
