Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if: The US did not drop the bombs?

Discussion in 'What If - Other' started by TheImPaLeR, Jan 4, 2010.

  1. USMC

    USMC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    10
    I'm assuming we could all agree that if the bombs weren't dropped a whole lot of Allied personnel would be killed. Along with a large part of the Japanese population due to combat, mass suicides, and starvation.
     
  2. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Hello USMC,
    I totally agree with you that some people are actually asuming this :D

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  3. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Well, if you can get past your mindless emotionalism, yes, trading 150,000 lives for possibly 10,000,000 is an act of kindness.

    The belligerents had been bombing each other's cities literally for years, but your only complaint seems to be doing it with atomic bombs is "unkind", or maybe it's that it was the US doing it??

    Don't you ever read the links posted on these threads? Or do prefer to remain ignorant as a way of preserving your irrational beliefs?

    "By August 1945, the Japanese armed forces had 2,350,000 officers and men under arms in the homeland, organized into 53 infantry divisions (apart from 5 divisions in Hokkaido and the Northeast Islands) and 25 brigades. Additionally there were two tank divisions and seven brigades, plus four AAA divisions. The 55 divisions were deployed as follows: Honshu-35 infantry, 2 tank; Shikoku-4 infantry, Kyushu-14 infantry. Behind the combat troops were 2,250,000 Army workers, 1,300,000 Navy workers, 250,000 Special Garrison Force personnel, and a National Volunteer Force of militia officially put at 28 million. "

    OLYMPIC VS KETSU-GO

    The Japanese version of the Volkssturm was the National Volunteer Force most of whom were conscripts rather than true volunteers. These were civilians armed with anything that could be used as a weapon. because they wore no uniforms and many had no identifying insignias, Any Allied soldiers encountering Japanese civilians after an invasion, would be forced to shoot first and ask questions later for their own safety. Japanese officials acknowledged this and claimed it would contribute to the Allied casualty rate.
     
  4. andya

    andya Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    1

    So , now i am being led to believe 2 A-Bombs were dropped and hundreds of thousands of old people, women and children died because..of a bit of snow in Japan during the winter of '45. Was it possible to predict the weather 5 months in advance in the 1940s. Or, more like, the bad weather is being used to justify the dropping of 2 a-bombs on a battered and beaten country?
     
  5. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    The US did forward terms prior to dropping the bomb; They were included in the Potsdam Declaration which also warned of the destruction of Japan if the terms were not accepted. When the Japanese, after the atomic bomb was dropped. accepted the Potsdam Declaration, they inserted a provision that the position of the Emperor, as the sovereign head of state, would be preserved. Their term for this concept was Kokutai.

    What they meant by this was that Emperor Hirohito remain as he was, the absolute ruler of Japan. The answer that came back from the US State Department was negative; that far from being any kind of sovereign ruler, the Emperor would be subject to the orders of the Supreme Allied Commander in Japan. The answer did not even guarantee Hirohito's personal security; under the US terms he could have been arrested and tried as a war criminal. Thus the Japanese did NOT get their way and surrendered without any guarantee of Hirohito's continued reign as Emperor, or of the survival of the institution of Emperor. The only pronouncement on that issue was that the Japanese people would eventually be allowed to choose whatever form of government they desired.

    In fact. Hirohito and many other Japanese actually expected he Emperor to be tried as a war criminal. John Dower, in "Embracing Defeat" states that a significant minority of Japanese actually felt Hirohito should be tried for war crimes.
     
  6. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Devilsadvocate,
    Okay guys THAT'S IT.

    I refuse to continue in a thread were this kind of statement is forwarded.
    According to this justification/forwarding; the Germans having killed/shot/executed "only" some thousands of French Partisans committed an act of kindness - since they could have murdered away hundreds of thousands of French citizens/ Sympathisers/supporters.

    Kruska
     
  7. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Your sarcasm would be a lot more effective if you knew what you were talking about.

    What Ickysdad is trying to tell you, is that the 1945 Fall Rice crop failed catastrophically because of very severe weather in Japan that Fall. Because most other food stocks were either already exhausted, or reserved for military troops, Japanese experts estimated that roughly six million Japanese civilians would starve to death in the first half of 1946.

    That didn't happen because the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, and the Emperor decided to surrender unconditionally in time for the US to organize a shipment of 800,000 tons of emergency food in early 1946, thus preventing a tragic famine. If the surrender had been delayed, even by a few weeks, this would have been impossible
     
  8. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    False analogy, as usual.

    Good-bye, Kruska.
     
  9. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Apparently, that is NOT what some people are assuming, although I can't see how such a position can logically be argued.
     
  10. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    I am not saying that his work is not accurate or insightful. I am not even saying that Frank's interpetation is wrong, to him.

    The thing to bear in mind is that it is "HIS" interpetation regardless of historical accuracy or the copius notes taken. If he can't present the information from a non biased position he is no different than Tom Clancy or Dr. Seuss.
     
  11. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Well, it's apparent that Frank doesn't cull out that data that argues against his position, as some "historians" do. Of course, it's "his" interpretation of the evidence, but he does include the evidence, pro and con, and does explain the logic he used in arriving at his conclusions, so the reader can judge for him- or herself whether his interpretation is reasonable. That is very different from the behavior of many "historians" I have read on the subject.

    No one is completely unbiased, especially in this matter, and to require that standard of anyone is unreasonable. Frank does everything he can to present a fair case for, and against, his position. The notes I mentioned are there because Frank is willing to give his critics and supporters access to everything he reviewed; thus if anyone disagrees with his conclusions they can point out any errors they think he made. Not every historian is so accommodating. I don't think anyone could ask anything more of Frank in the area of presenting a fair and accurate assessment of the issue.

    In my opinion, to compare Frank to Clancy or Dr. Seuss because one does not agree with Frank's conclusions is...well, unfair. I would be much more impressed if you took issue with Frank's reasoning or reported errors in his data.
     
  12. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Well not agreeing with Frank's conclusions is the same as taking issue with his reasoning. My point is that Frank is interpeting a history that he did not live through; much in the same way that Theodor Geisel was not a Dr. nor did he ever eat green eggs and ham. As a matter of fact Mr. Geisel may very well be a better source for first hand information than Frank; considering that he lived from 1904-1991, his life did rather encompass the period in history with which we are concerned.
     
  13. andya

    andya Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    1

    And what you dont understand is that how can a rice crop failure in the fall be used to justify an A bomb attack in the summer over 60 years ago?. How did they know? Hindsight? Think about it for a minute. The crop failure was AFTER the A BOMB. I repeat AFTER. Thats the humanitarian argument blown out of the water.
     
    Kruska likes this.
  14. andya

    andya Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    1

    I dont know what im talking about and i only have sarcasm in my locker so can someone as enlightened as yourself,please, explain to me in words that i can understand, the humanitariam part of " the destruction of Japan if the terms are not accepted"
     
  15. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    I'll be happy to explain that seeming contradiction.

    Historians have estimated that in 1945, about 300,000 people died every month the war in the Pacific continued. Most of these deaths were occurring in Japanese occupied territory. That means that, between January, 1945, and the beginning of July, 1945, approximately 1,800,000 (at least ten times the number of people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) people died because an "already beaten" Japan refused to surrender.

    Now, I'm not claiming that Truman and his advisers were aware of that number of deaths, but they did know that large numbers of mostly innocent people in the Japanese occupied areas were dying every day the war continued. Thus they were under an immense pressure to stop the war as soon as humanly possible. But they were also aware that the only sure way to do so was to invade the Japanese Home Islands, and this entailed the very real potential to more than double the number of American war deaths up to that time; no American President could ignore that fact.

    When the atom bombs became a real option in July, 1945, Truman was faced with the choice of dropping the bombs, and killing possibly a hundred thousand Japanese, including a handful of civilians with each bomb, or allowing the war to continue for perhaps another six months. The latter option held the potential for at least another 1.8 million deaths, mostly of innocent people, not to mention perhaps another 500,000 to 1,000,000 American casualties, and potentially millions of Japanese casualties, if an invasion of Japan became necessary.

    In simple terms, Truman had to weigh the potential casualties of 200,000 dead Japanese and an immediate end to the war, against the potential casualties of 1-2 million innocent people, plus anywhere from half a million to a million dead Americans, and unknown millions of Japanese deaths and the war dragging on for another six months to a year. He chose the only option that could, given those choices, be termed humanitarian.

    Now, anyone who can't understand those words and that math is being willfully obtuse.
     
  16. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    It wasn't to justify the use of the bomb, because you are correct; Truman couldn't know of the rice crop failure. It was an example of why continuing the war and relying on blockade and bombardment would not have saved any Japanese lives, as some misguided proponents argue.
     
  17. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Yes, not agreeing with Frank's conclusions is the same as taking issue with his reasoning. Frank went into great detail in explaining his reasoning, and I would expect anyone who disagrees with that reasoning to also explain in detail why he disagrees.

    Well, if the good Dr. Suess has some input into the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan, I'd certainly be willing to consider whatever he has to say, but I doubt the very fact that he was alive during 1945 qualifies him to discuss the issue of the use of the atomic bombs. Frank did not live through that period, having been born only in 1947, but that does NOT disqualify him to write the history of that period any more than Jeff Sahara
    is disqualified from writing about the American Civil War.

    It seems to me what you are saying is you don't like Frank's conclusions, but you can't really put forth a logical case for disagreeing with them.
     
  18. andya

    andya Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    1

    " Handfull of civilians"??? Come on!! Please dont insult me and get some integrity else you lose all credibility.
     
  19. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Devilsadvocate
    I'll be happy to explain that seeming contradiction.
    ...a handfull of civilians

    ....only option, ....humanitarian

    ......willfully obtuse

    I am really beginning to wonder in which direction this forum is heading? Where are the mods?

    Kruska
     
  20. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    I am not saying that at all. I am disagreeing with this statement:

    There is no way that Frank could possibly share that same mind as a Japanese person during the summer of 1945. He can empathize and sympathize; but he can not speak from that perspective.

    Theodor Geisel on the other hand lived during the period and was very active in the War effort (WW2).


    So I guess his opinion must have counted for something and could be an accurate reflection of attitudes during the period.
     

Share This Page