Anouther factor over looked by western history was the Russians would have invaded Japan if the US did not. The Russians took an island or two in the north and it is still Russian to this day.
That put pressure on the Japanese to find a way out of the war and put pressure on the allies to end the war in their favor instead of the Russians.
It could have ended up like Korea, the northern islands communist and southern islands under US control.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Good point TA I agree and the Islands you are reffering to are the Kurile islands.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

The fact that the SU had just given the Japanese a mighty wallop in invading Manchuria (Op. August Storm, started the very day after Hiroshima) and wiping out the largest concentration of Japanese forces may have given the Japanese Government yet another slight incentive to reconsider surrender...

__________________
Everly Brothers - What I Have To Do Is Dream
"Never wrestle with pigs, you both end up getting dirty and the pig likes it."

Quote
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

Anouther factor over looked by western history was the Russians would have invaded Japan if the US did not. The Russians took an island or two in the north and it is still Russian to this day.
That put pressure on the Japanese to find a way out of the war and put pressure on the allies to end the war in their favor instead of the Russians.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

Ive seen very good arguments for both sides of that proposition of the the Soviets invading Japan.

The Soviets made amphibious landings in the Kuril islands, Sakhalin island and North Korea, but they were very small compared to the enormous task force the U.S. was planning for Operation Olympic.

The combined Allied naval armada would have been the largest ever assembled, including forty-two aircraft carriers, twenty-four battleships, and four hundred destroyers and destroyer escorts. Fourteen U.S. divisions were scheduled to take part in the initial landings in what was going to be a gigantic blood bath.


By all accounts the Soviets were confident they could invade and Glantz seems to think that they had a good chance of invading Hokkaido, so I'd probably go along with that, but others have argued that it was beyond the Soviets amphibious capabilities.


Quote
__________________________________________________ __________________________________

The fact that the SU had just given the Japanese a mighty wallop in invading Manchuria (Op. August Storm, started the very day after Hiroshima) and wiping out the largest concentration of Japanese forces may have given the Japanese Government yet another slight incentive to reconsider surrender...
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

yes,thats right, as I posted some Japanese sources have stated that the atomic bombings themselves weren't the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was not the American atomic attacks on August 6 and August 9, but the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced Hirohito's message of surrender on August 15, 1945 [without a Guarantee for the Emperor]. Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened imperialistic Japan's acceptance of defeat.

Couldnt agree more.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Can I pose this question?............

If you were the American C in C, with complete control in the campaign against Japan, would you A.... continue the blockade and bombing for as long as it took to force surrender [B-29 casualties in the last series of raids was 0.9%,] or B....invade to try and finish the war sooner and take up to a million casualties?

Naturally this is on the proviso that the bombs didn't force surrender.

If you insist on gaining the nickname 'Butcher', go for option B

__________________
Everly Brothers - What I Have To Do Is Dream
"Never wrestle with pigs, you both end up getting dirty and the pig likes it."

lol, yes

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Don't think iv'e ever seen a compelling argument for invading.

You don't aim at civilians (means you don't make civilians the main target of a military operation)

even to win a war faster, even to spare your soldier's lives.

If you do, you've just made the first step towards terrorism, straight out.

That's my point.

__________________
Police cars carry three agents. The first one can read, the second one can write and the third one keeps watch on those dangerous intellectuals.
Unknown subversive activist - 20th century.

I agree Chocapic, but keep inmind that Heroshima and Nagasaki were military towns with Naval Bases

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

That's a good point, when is bombing cities a crime, or 'terror' bombing, and when is it a legitimate warfare target?

As far as I know there were 43,000 soldiers based in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was an industrial city that had turned out the torpedoes used at Pearl Harbor. Its shipyards had built some of Japan's biggest warships.

Were they legitimate targets?

probably the most legitimate out of the choices the U.S. had.

Yes im sure there were a few exceptions.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Did some cops turned the world trade center into a legitimate target ?

Do you agree on shooting random civilian in retaliation to partizan actions ?

Do you think the potential industrial/military targets can justify the bombings on Varsaw or Belgrade or Dresde or London ?

why the hell US did bother in Vietnam jungle, when they could have nuked Hanoi ?

Like if police used to shoot down somebody with a missile in a crowded street.

I'm not saying nuking Japan was a "bad" option, I'm just saying you don't aim at civilian.

If only the US could admit : "we comitted a crime by deliberatly killing thousands of civilians in order to win the war faster and with less US casdualties" it would be OK with me

__________________
Police cars carry three agents. The first one can read, the second one can write and the third one keeps watch on those dangerous intellectuals.
Unknown subversive activist - 20th century.

I say, Chocapic, you are not going to tell me that the French army never killed any civilians, did they? I remember the Algerian war, for instance, to be quite a dirty affair where every FNL was a civilian. Insurgents might be armed, but were civilians anyway. So?

And with less Japanese casualties too, as I thiunk was mentioned somewhere above

__________________
Everly Brothers - What I Have To Do Is Dream
"Never wrestle with pigs, you both end up getting dirty and the pig likes it."

come on Za, when I say you don't aim a civilians, it's true for US, France or whatever.

Do you think I try to point at US and say France always kept its hands clean ?

X is the good guy, X is the bad guy...you won't drag me into this type of debate.

All I want to say is countries have to admit their own crimes. If they auto-forgive with silly excuses, they won't be credible if they complain when it's their turn to be victims.

where do you lead us with your comments about Algeria ? Has everyone denied war crimes and torture during the independance war ?

As per nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki to spare Japanese civilian lives...what can I say..."I kill you today, so I don't have to kill you + your brother tomorrow, I hope you're grateful" LOL

__________________
Police cars carry three agents. The first one can read, the second one can write and the third one keeps watch on those dangerous intellectuals.
Unknown subversive activist - 20th century.

The Japanese were the agressors in damn near every conflict they were involved in. 5/6 years into Total War all this moralistic stuff about targetting civilians seems largely irrelevant outside of a utopic worldview, to judge it by our current standards is ridiculous and forgets that the countries of the time were locked into a conflict with no 'second place' on offer. After losing millions of souls to the agressive policies of the Axis nations the Bombs were entirely justified especially against a nation that had been in a position to surrender for a long time but refused to. Thinking it somehow deserved a better deal. Thus committing perhaps the worst crime of all, exacerbated by an ancient loyalty to the Emperor, by fighting on utterly pointlessly. The final defence plans for the home islands are far more horrifying than any Atomic bomb.
When I think of conversations with friends of my Grandfather who were 'guests' of Nationalistic Japan in the 40's I have no hesitation in supporting the bomb.
Sow the wind.
Reap the whirlwind.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
"Wars cannot be fought with dream stuff" - Sir Percy Hobart.

I've heard the reason Nagasaki was hit, was because Osaka was covered by clouds.

So "Nature" saved one and selected another.

Then those 2 names we all know so well, would've been different.

I'm sure there were many alternate targets in case of bad weather conditions.

So I don't believe we should get too hung up on deliberately hitting massive civilian targets of little military value.

It was a roll of the dice.

They did have many chances to surrender (as mentioned), but just like you/me today, we can't stop it/anything, we have no single voice.

It's important not to let the M-I-C gain too much power, because they will sacrifice you/me to the last man/woman/child to achieve their goals and avoid damaging their egos.

Von "Tagged" it!

__________________
"Danger Will Robinson!"

This is a tough one.

Although Germany started the bombing of civilians in both wars, it was soon two way traffic.

But was it legal under international law, should it matter if it was or not?

Early R.A.F. attempts at pin point bombing failed, and 'Bomber' Harris soon had 'area' bombing in full swing.

The United States began its strategic bombing campaign by legal (according to international law) daylight "precision bombing" of military targets in or around urban areas. In Europe, its loss of bombers became such that it adopted the British strategy of nighttime, indiscriminate urban bombing. For Japan, precision bombing was the rule until the above mentioned General LeMay took over the 20th and 21st bomber Commands, and initiated the firebombing of Japanese cities, he thought the Japanese deserved it.

R.J. Rummel on.......
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM

says was the indiscriminate (meaning the target was the city, usually the city center, and not military installations) American bombing of urban areas democide (mass murder), that is, the intentional targeting of unarmed civilians with deadly weapons? I don't see how this can be denied. Bombs were dropped intentionally on unarmed civilians in their homes or at work. These people died not because they lived near military targets or were caught in the crossfire of battle, but because of their nationality and the urban area in which they lived. It was democide. I think LeMay was correct. Not only would he, McNamara, and others on his planning staff, be charged with war crimes had the Japanese won, but in fact they had committed war crimes.

Or do you do anything to win a war once your in it?

“War is a nasty, dirty, rotten business. It’s all right for the Navy to blockade a city, to starve the inhabitants to death. But there is something wrong, not nice, about bombing that city.” – Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris

I'm really pleased of your post ANZAC, i was just about to loose my faith.

It's very sad that, 60 years after the facts, people either :

- are not able to call a war crime when the see one,

- try to hide themselves behind other countries' crimes (they have no reasons to feel guilty,they claim,but still they look for crappy excuses...), please, leave the "he's the one who started acting dirty" debate at the schoolyard where it belongs.

- feel like admitting a war crime will make the country in question into the kingdom of evil, always wrong and always on the bad side whatever it had or will do in history.

Gents, did the nuking of Japan made the USA of these dark years an hegemonic country, trying to wage war all around the world by starting WWII, causing mass destruction because it was mainly populated by serial killers ?

Did the nuking of Japan erases the fact USA fought against one of the most ugly and dangerous ideology mankind has ever known and gave so many lives for other people's freedom ?

Is it too subtle to understand, for example, that a war crime can be judged under the circumstances and context of the times (I mean it's not the same as if USA opened war by nuking Japan just like Japan bombed Pearl Harbor ?) or that we can doubt they had a clear picture of the nuke effects in the long run ?

Gents, please, don't aim at civilians, and if you do because war is hell, don't pretend it's OK to do so.

__________________
Police cars carry three agents. The first one can read, the second one can write and the third one keeps watch on those dangerous intellectuals.
Unknown subversive activist - 20th century.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "civilized" war. Civilians always get the short end of the stick since they are un- armed. Look at Iraq these last 10 years or Viet Nam or Somliea, or Cambodia under Pol Pot, Ida Ammen, Serbs and Croats,Northern Ireland, the list goes on and on about the civilians getting hurt and killed.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.