I almost cried when I watched this clip
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
by the time the Japanese Imperial air force deployed Kamikazes attack on allies fleet the Pacific Campaign had already been lost. It was a desperate attempt to slow down the advancement and will have no impact to the attack on Okinawa....
I think what is missing in the point of argument is that it reflect the ultimate abusive of power from imperial military within the civil government of Japan, and also towards its own citizens.
The blatant use of its young citizens for suicidal attack to continue to justify victory at all cost is totally in Denial of losing the War in which the Japanese military themselves declared the war against the United States. Their military leadership were Coward to the end by pushing their own young children to unnecessary dead than accept defeat.
One can also says that their arrogant and pride swallowed the Atomic bomb.
they're gonna drop the Atomic Bomb anyway on somebody to usher in a new era !
they wanted the whole world to know the power of nuclear weaponry to usher in the Cold War !
think about it, if they liberated Europe from the Nazis, then why let half of Europe fall under the Soviets ???
just that the Japs were the only Axis power left and also the Allies wouldn't wanna drop it in Europe.............Japan is far far away so any fall-out won't hit Europe.
MacArthur was furious when they dropped the bomb after he said it was totally not necessary as the Japs are already beaten.
they don'e even need to invade Japan since the Japs depend on outside imports to survive like Britain, a blockade will be enough.
-
Originally posted by chanjyj:
Why do you keep calling him son Ged? ICD-9 295?
Golly, if that's your son I'll look closely at the gene pool
Demolitions, B757s..... Maybe A380s next
Aiyah, don't so kan cheong lah, Chan! I was just working my way up to sport, tiger and pumpkin.
-
Originally posted by Asromanista2001:
just that the Japs were the only Axis power left and also the Allies wouldn't wanna drop it in Europe.............Japan is far far away so any fall-out won't hit Europe.
MacArthur was furious when they dropped the bomb after he said it was totally not necessary as the Japs are already beaten.
they don'e even need to invade Japan since the Japs depend on outside imports to survive like Britain, a blockade will be enough.
Don't know where you get your information, sport, but you need to start looking somewhere else. In preparation for the invasion of Japan's home islands, MacArthur's own staff did their calculations twice and came up with a figure of more than 100,000 casualties for the invasion of Kyushu. Note that this figure does not include the invasion of Honshu.
Frankly, I think the 100K figure was optimistic. As it is, in the preceding year, the casualty figure for the fighting in Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Luzon, Peliliu and the Marianas exceeded 200,000, and mind you, those were only the remote territories. Do you honestly think the Japanese were going to bend over and spread their arses when it came to the home islands?
Really, if you're going to make big claims, make sure you get your facts right first, okay pumpkin?
-
Originally posted by Asromanista2001:
they're gonna drop the Atomic Bomb anyway on somebody to usher in a new era !
they wanted the whole world to know the power of nuclear weaponry to usher in the Cold War !
think about it, if they liberated Europe from the Nazis, then why let half of Europe fall under the Soviets ???
just that the Japs were the only Axis power left and also the Allies wouldn't wanna drop it in Europe.............Japan is far far away so any fall-out won't hit Europe.
MacArthur was furious when they dropped the bomb after he said it was totally not necessary as the Japs are already beaten.
they don'e even need to invade Japan since the Japs depend on outside imports to survive like Britain, a blockade will be enough.
you are going to be alone on this one!
-
Agreed. Given the kamikaze resistance put up by the Japanese, an invasion of the Japanese mainlands would have caused even more American casualties. Even civilians would probably have come out on the streets with their family katanas to meet the Americans.
Also, to have invaded the Japanese mainlands would have required a very complex exit strategy. "Vietnam" would have started 20 years early, and may encounter full on guerrilla warfare as long as the fighting spirit of the Japanese weren't broken. The only way was to force them to surrender instead of fight. The atomic bomb was perhaps the most effective way to make it clear that they are way out of their league.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Aiyah, don't so kan cheong lah, Chan! I was just working my way up to sport, tiger and pumpkin.
I'm still waiting for tiger
At this rate you better prepare for peaches, sweetie pies and darlings
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Agreed. Given the kamikaze resistance put up by the Japanese, an invasion of the Japanese mainlands would have caused even more American casualties. Even civilians would probably have come out on the streets with their family katanas to meet the Americans.
Also, to have invaded the Japanese mainlands would have required a very complex exit strategy. "Vietnam" would have started 20 years early, and may encounter full on guerrilla warfare as long as the fighting spirit of the Japanese weren't broken. The only way was to force them to surrender instead of fight. The atomic bomb was perhaps the most effective way to make it clear that they are way out of their league.
While I don't agree with Ged's pumpkin here, I'd beg to differ on this issue.
I'll cite Weber (1997), whose article closely mirrors what I believe. I'm too lazy to type out my points.
The "fighting spirit" is debatable. But ultimately if you cut off their supplies and continue carpet bombing, spirit, fighting or not is not going to save you.
Reference
Weber, M. 1997, 'Was Hiroshima Necessary', The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 4-11.
-
Thanks for the reference to Weber's essay. I believe I've encountered that before.
I agree that the atomic bombs were unnecessary IF all that was sought was a Japanese surrender. As Weber pointed out, the Americans and British were after the "unconditional surrender" of Japan. Whether the terms of the surrender were eventually the same is not relevant.
Herein lies the a rather philosophical aspect of "victory" and "defeat" and its application on Japan. Firstly, Pearl Harbor was still freshly etched on American minds. It was considered to be a sudden attack with no declaration of war, giving the defenders no opportunity to prepare for battle. It was a departure from the accepted norms of a formal declaration of war. Secondly, the Japanese also demanded "unconditional surrender" from its enemies; namely the British over Singapore.
The rules they were laying down on Japan was its own rules it laid out at the beginning of the war. The "Victors" offer the terms; the "vanquished" shall accept the terms. Hence, from a military-political perspective, Japan's offering of terms is unacceptable. If Japan chooses to surrender, it will do so unconditionally and without terms because it is the vanquished, not the victor. There is no denying that there was a "satisfaction" of vengeance involved, but those were the rules that Japan set out with. As far as the U.S. and Britain was concerned, they were playing within the rules Japan began with. Hence, until Japan surrenders unconditionally (by its own rules), the Allies would continue to bomb and escalate the violence.
Another perspective is that Japan by that time was completely helpless. It had no way to strike back at the U.S or Britain. Nor could it take down the bombers that flew over head. Because they had no power to strike back with, they also had no leverage or bargaining power against the Allies. However, despite that the lack of ability to threaten the Allies, it had not surrendered unconditionally. Hence escalated violence was viewed to be necessary in order to coerce them down that path. And to demonstrate the promise of "prompt and utter" destruction unless they surrendered unconditionally, the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, selecting civilian population as primary targets.
When we look back at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, we criticize it as barbaric and a violation of human rights and the conduct of war. However, the second World War also marked and ushered in the era of strategic bombing. Then, the prevalent thought was that a strategic air force, would be able to bomb the enemy into submission, targeting military, industrial and civilian centers to break the enemy's will to fight. That was how strategic bombing was viewed and used. The atomic bombs were simply an extension to strategic bombing; a bigger and fiercer bomb.
With the above plausible explanations, I disagree with Weber's dismissal of the Allies policy of unconditional surrender as merely a desire for vengeance.
-
US dropped the atomic bomb as a warning to russiaa, not japan.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Thanks for the reference to Weber's essay. I believe I've encountered that before.
I agree that the atomic bombs were unnecessary IF all that was sought was a Japanese surrender. As Weber pointed out, the Americans and British were after the "unconditional surrender" of Japan. Whether the terms of the surrender were eventually the same is not relevant.
Herein lies the a rather philosophical aspect of "victory" and "defeat" and its application on Japan. Firstly, Pearl Harbor was still freshly etched on American minds. It was considered to be a sudden attack with no declaration of war, giving the defenders no opportunity to prepare for battle. It was a departure from the accepted norms of a formal declaration of war. Secondly, the Japanese also demanded "unconditional surrender" from its enemies; namely the British over Singapore.
The rules they were laying down on Japan was its own rules it laid out at the beginning of the war. The "Victors" offer the terms; the "vanquished" shall accept the terms. Hence, from a military-political perspective, Japan's offering of terms is unacceptable. If Japan chooses to surrender, it will do so unconditionally and without terms because it is the vanquished, not the victor. There is no denying that there was a "satisfaction" of vengeance involved, but those were the rules that Japan set out with. As far as the U.S. and Britain was concerned, they were playing within the rules Japan began with. Hence, until Japan surrenders unconditionally (by its own rules), the Allies would continue to bomb and escalate the violence.
Another perspective is that Japan by that time was completely helpless. It had no way to strike back at the U.S or Britain. Nor could it take down the bombers that flew over head. Because they had no power to strike back with, they also had no leverage or bargaining power against the Allies. However, despite that the lack of ability to threaten the Allies, it had not surrendered unconditionally. Hence escalated violence was viewed to be necessary in order to coerce them down that path. And to demonstrate the promise of "prompt and utter" destruction unless they surrendered unconditionally, the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, selecting civilian population as primary targets.
When we look back at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, we criticize it as barbaric and a violation of human rights and the conduct of war. However, the second World War also marked and ushered in the era of strategic bombing. Then, the prevalent thought was that a strategic air force, would be able to bomb the enemy into submission, targeting military, industrial and civilian centers to break the enemy's will to fight. That was how strategic bombing was viewed and used. The atomic bombs were simply an extension to strategic bombing; a bigger and fiercer bomb.
With the above plausible explanations, I disagree with Weber's dismissal of the Allies policy of unconditional surrender as merely a desire for vengeance.
Your points are all valid. And to an extent I do agree with atomic being a bombing of an extension to the strategic bombing.
However there was one significant difference. "Normal" bombing did not target civilian areas. The atomic bomb, whether on purpose on not, did end up wiping out the entire city. And it's not as though it's a military city like Eglin AFB/Nellis AFB, or even one of the Saudi airbases.
You could, on the other hand agree that bombing of Dresden set a precedent of targeting civilians (some say civilians were not targeted, I beg to differ).
However, I personally believe that if Japan's "normal" surrender was rejected, and strategic bombing continued, an unconditional surrender would come. I do not think all Japanese had a suicidal tendency and were willing to starve to death.
Take note that I'm not against the use of the atomic bomb. I don't see it as a "necessary evil". I see it as a strategic weapon, to be employed when needed. The loss of life has been regrettable, but if employed well, nuclear weapons will be cheaper than conventional weapons. It also has the shock effect none other has.
-
Originally posted by chanjyj:However, I personally believe that if Japan's "normal" surrender was rejected, and strategic bombing continued, an unconditional surrender would come. I do not think all Japanese had a suicidal tendency and were willing to starve to death.
Take note that I'm not against the use of the atomic bomb. I don't see it as a "necessary evil". I see it as a strategic weapon, to be employed when needed. The loss of life has been regrettable, but if employed well, nuclear weapons will be cheaper than conventional weapons. It also has the shock effect none other has.
I don't really go with that proposal, Chan. Weber himself acknowledged:
1) The Americans dropped 1700 tons of bombs on Tokyo. The Japanese didn't surrender.
2) The Americans dropped 4500 tons of bombs on Tokyo. The Japanese still didn't surrender.
3) The Americans dropped Fat Boy on Hiroshima. The Japanese still didn't surrender.
The pattern's there, mate. Anyone who claims the Japs were "going to surrender anyway" is dreaming. They needed to be told not once, but twice, with nuclear weapons that it was time to call it quits.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Don't know where you get your information, sport, but you need to start looking somewhere else. In preparation for the invasion of Japan's home islands, MacArthur's own staff did their calculations twice and came up with a figure of more than 100,000 casualties for the invasion of Kyushu. Note that this figure does not include the invasion of Honshu.
Frankly, I think the 100K figure was optimistic. As it is, in the preceding year, the casualty figure for the fighting in Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Luzon, Peliliu and the Marianas exceeded 200,000, and mind you, those were only the remote territories. Do you honestly think the Japanese were going to bend over and spread their arses when it came to the home islands?
Really, if you're going to make big claims, make sure you get your facts right first, okay pumpkin?
yes, i read about how the Japs still have 1 or 2 million men to defend Japan and got thousands of planes for kamikaze and the Aliies thought it'll take at least 1946-7 to conquer the Japs !
but there's no need to attack the Japs at all ! their navy is gone and they need to import oil, steel and other important materials and how are they gonna do that when they're blockaded and their merchant fleet also sunk?
the Aliies can just starve the Japs into surrendering just like what the Germans tried to do to the British by attacking their merchant ships.
don't forget theJaps started the war becoz they need the materials in the 1st place.
no doubt the Atom Bomb ended the war more quickly - just that instead of soldiers dying, the civilians took over that job.
the Atom Bomb is to strike fear into everyone in the world not to end the war ! if they want to end the war with the atom bomb, they could just bomb a sparsely-populated place to show its power without having to kill so many civilians.
-
Originally posted by Asromanista2001:but there's no need to attack the Japs at all ! their navy is gone and they need to import oil, steel and other important materials and how are they gonna do that when they're blockaded and their merchant fleet also sunk?
You're kidding right? Please tell me you're kidding, gumdrop. How do you think the war started in the first place?
Originally posted by Asromanista2001:the Atom Bomb is to strike fear into everyone in the world not to end the war ! if they want to end the war with the atom bomb, they could just bomb a sparsely-populated place to show its power without having to kill so many civilians.Peaches, don't go pointing a gun at someone if you're not going to bloody shoot them, especially if you don't have much ammo. Do you think the Yanks had so many nukes to spare for putting on light shows?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
I don't really go with that proposal, Chan. Weber himself acknowledged:
1) The Americans dropped 1700 tons of bombs on Tokyo. The Japanese didn't surrender.
2) The Americans dropped 4500 tons of bombs on Tokyo. The Japanese still didn't surrender.
3) The Americans dropped Fat Boy on Hiroshima. The Japanese still didn't surrender.
The pattern's there, mate. Anyone who claims the Japs were "going to surrender anyway" is dreaming. They needed to be told not once, but twice, with nuclear weapons that it was time to call it quits.
Your argument is convincing, but I also find it hard to fathom that nobody wants to give in - hey, starve to death? It's beyond me. If all of them Japs had that mentality fine, the argument works just dandy but I'd eat my hat if they were all willing to die.You're the shrink, you tell me.
Let's agree to disagree, I'd rather have fun with your little pumpkin.
Oh btw, my girl's been readin this thread and suggested you call him cupcakes, love, sweetie, brownie and honey instead
-
Originally posted by chanjyj:
Your points are all valid. And to an extent I do agree with atomic being a bombing of an extension to the strategic bombing.
However there was one significant difference. "Normal" bombing did not target civilian areas. The atomic bomb, whether on purpose on not, did end up wiping out the entire city. And it's not as though it's a military city like Eglin AFB/Nellis AFB, or even one of the Saudi airbases.
You could, on the other hand agree that bombing of Dresden set a precedent of targeting civilians (some say civilians were not targeted, I beg to differ).
However, I personally believe that if Japan's "normal" surrender was rejected, and strategic bombing continued, an unconditional surrender would come. I do not think all Japanese had a suicidal tendency and were willing to starve to death.
Take note that I'm not against the use of the atomic bomb. I don't see it as a "necessary evil". I see it as a strategic weapon, to be employed when needed. The loss of life has been regrettable, but if employed well, nuclear weapons will be cheaper than conventional weapons. It also has the shock effect none other has.
On the contrary, "strategic bombing" includes the target of civilians as a doctrine in the period of its birth. To quote Stanley Baldwin, who served the third time as Britain's Prime Minister from 1935-1937, "The bomber will always get through... the only defense is in offense, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves."
Another note is that it is argued that strategic bombing was more effective at causing civilian casualties than leveling military and industrial targets.
In hindsight, we can believe that Japan would have eventually succumbed to strategic bombing. However, given the ferocity of the Japanese defenders on the outer islands and the Philippines, the American military command had no reason to believe that the Japanese would choose surrender unconditionally without escalating the level of violence. The policy of war is to hit harder and harder until the other side agrees to your terms and bends to your will. To slacken or show no resolve to raise the level of violence would work to strengthen the enemy's resolve to resist and lengthen the war. Ironically, the Americans had to relearn the lesson in Vietnam.
The demonstration of the will to fight, and / or the attack on the will to fight is imperative in war. The Doolittle raid wasn't necessary. It did little material damage to Japan at the expense of 16 bombers and their crew. However, it signaled to Japan the American will to resist and retaliate against Japan. At the end of the day, the war and the violence is an extension of policy and the exercise of the ability and will to impose one state's policy on another. Hence, the will and ability to impose or resist such imposition (aka "fighting spirit") is pretty much at the center of war.