Happy Anniversary GC!

[tocaff]

Sorry Joe.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Curtis Lemay said before the bombings ¨there are no strategic military targets left in Japan, we are out of targets.¨ and after the war said..."The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."

Three days prior to the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima Truman had a meeting with Douglas Macarthur, Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, they told him there was no military need to use the bomb. These were not military targets. They were meant to kill a lot of Japanese and frighten them into surrender. ¨Terror Bombings¨ by any conservative definition.

Did it work, quite clearly no.

I like that you just keep saying the same thing and ignore the comment from Suzuki that they had zero intent to surrender before the bombs hit. You 100% miss the logic the Japanese were using to sustain the war- the hope of one last bloodbath to improve their negotiating positions and that the bombs changed that calculation. Whatever Leahy and LeMay thought really doesn't matter. It is like asking me why you do something. I have an opinion...you know. The delay was caused because the Japanese didn't even believe the bomb had hit them. They failed to get a team to investigate the bomb for the central government until August 8.

It is also dishonest to describe Hiroshima as having "no military value". It was the HQ of the Japanese 5th division and 2nd General Army, it was a primary port of embarkation, and had an Army Reception center, large numbers of barracks, a large military airport, an army ordnance depot, and food and clothing depots, shipbuilding facilities, a steel company, railroad marshalling yards and aircraft part works. The city had 43,000 soldiers stationed in it when the bomb hit. Hiroshima was clearly picked because it wasn't blown up already and that was the primary reason for selection but it had as lot of military value and claiming otherwise makes you look dishonest.

Nagaski was similarly picked for the "Clean" nature of the city but it also housed the Mitsubishi Torpedo Factory for example. There was, functionally, no city in Japan that lacked some military value.

I'm also curious about the "meeting" with Eisenhower and MacArthur and your sites on that since, to the best of what I can find Mac was in Manila. In fact on the day of Hiroshima MacArthur was forwarded a report on operation plans for Olympic in Manila. While it might be possible he met with Truman about the bomb and then went from DC to Manila in 3 days it seems like a very fast trip. Eisenhower had no reason to be informed about the Pacific War since he was CINCE and the command system had enough issues with army-Navy rivalries w/o muddying them even more.

[Ike99]

I like that you just keep saying the same thing and ignore the comment from Suzuki that they had zero intent to surrender before the bombs hit. You 100% miss the logic the Japanese were using to sustain the war- the hope of one last bloodbath to improve their negotiating positions and that the bombs changed that calculation. Whatever Leahy and LeMay thought really doesn't matter.

You can pull out any single person or odd ball general and colonel you want saying ¨Japan will never surrender, we´ll kill all these Americans on the beach¨ dah... dah... dah...

Doesn´t matter, these people and their opinions are no more a representative of the wishes of the Japanese government than Patton saying he wants to start a war with the Soviets is a representation of the wishes the US government.

Doesn´t stand up.

[tocaff]

[:)]  Amazing at how tranquil the forum becomes when the block list utility is activated.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

You can pull out any single person or odd ball general and colonel you want saying ¨Japan will never surrender, we´ll kill all these Americans on the beach¨ dah... dah... dah...

Doesn´t matter, these people and their opinions are no more a representative of the wishes of the Japanese government than Patton saying he wants to start a war with the Soviets is a representation of the wishes the US government.

Any odd ball? did you miss the part about that being a quote from Kantoro Suzuki? You know when I said:

Dear god, where -- and please cite ANY source- are you getting any of this. Suzuki was not brought in with the "sole mission" of ending the war. He was brought in in the wake Koiso's horrible showing. Suzuki wasn't a peacenik. Here, and I'll quote Suzuki directly, from his testimony in December 1945:

"The Supreme War Council, up to the time [that] the atomic bomb was dropped, did not believe that Japan could be beaten by air attack alone. They also believed that the United States would land and not attempt to bomb Japan out of the war. On the other hand there were many prominent people who did believe that the United States could win the war just by bombing alone. However, the Supreme War Council, not believing that, had proceeded with the one plan of fighting a decisive battle at the landing point and was making every possible preparation to meet such a landing. They proceeded with that plan unit the Atomic Bomb was dropped, after which they believed the United States...need not land when it had such a weapon; so at that point they decided it would be best to sue for peace.

That isn't an oddball, that is the leader of the Japanese war effort relating, what every other document shows, that there was no serious drive to peace by the decision makers that matter in Tokyo.

[Ike99]

It is also dishonest to describe Hiroshima as having "no military value". ... food and clothing depots, shipbuilding facilities, a steel company, railroad marshalling yards and aircraft part works. The city had 43,000 soldiers stationed in it when the bomb hit.

And we need to put all that in perspective, Japan had no oil coming in at all and hadn´t for quite some time, scarce petrol, scarce lubricants, scarce steel, on the verge of starvation...scarce everything.

I doubt very much all those scary sounding war factories you mention were operating even at a 10% capacity if they were operating at all.

But let´s say for a moment they were operating, full blast, wide open war production.

These targets could have easily been destroyed using conventional bombs as the US had total air superiority. Had Japan within reach of thousands of bombers and had their carrier fleets floating around Japan conducting airstrikes virtually unopposed. That could have been done without much of a problem.

But instead they take two atomic bombs and drop them smack in the middle of two major cities with the specific intent to kill a large number of Japanese civilians to put pressure on the Japanese government to surrender.

Now, last time I heard when someone makes a bombing attack where the specific intent is to kill a large number of civilians to effect a political course of action that bombing is called a ¨Terrorist Bombing¨

Or has that recently changed?

This is the reason the spin doctors went into motion the second those bombs were dropped about how it ¨saved american lives¨ and ¨forced Japan to surrender.¨ Both of which are undeniably untrue.

The Allies could have easily effected a Japanese surrender by accepting the Imperial pardon given to them months before and continually sense (and they ended up taking this route anyways) or by simply floating the fleet around the islands 6 months and watching them starve. Both of these options were open to them without irradicating two cities full of civillians.

But, they were more worried about what the Russians were doing at the time than anything the Japanese were doing and had a little Cold War kick off show at the peoples of Hiroshima and Nagasakis expense and, just maybe, it might make them surrender.

But people like tocaff do not want to see this and cling to 60+ year old WW2 propaganda because to do otherwise would be an admission the bombings were, in fact, a terrorist bombing and Truman a war criminal as big as any other.
That´s why people like him bark at the moon when you put the facts out on the table.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Ike99
But people like tocaff do not want to see this and cling to 60+ year old WW2 propaganda because to do otherwise would be an admission the bombings were, in fact, a terrorist bombing and Truman a war criminal as big as any other.
That´s why people like him bark at the moon when you put the facts out on the table.

You just go from losing argument to losing argument. Nice that once I pointed out it was Suzuki you went back to the "no justification" argument. You also are cute in arguing about lack of supplies but not mentioning the very obvious military target of 43,000 troops in the area. Bombing civilian areas was an ugly part of the war and everyone did it but, at the time, it was pretty much accepted doctrine because the technology of the day didn't really allow precision targeting - and forget any bomb in pickle barrel bits about the Norden bombsight.

Bottom line, I've looked for the details of this peace deal you mention to MacArthur and

1. I can't find it in any serious history book I've got on my shelves
2. I see it referenced on sites like rense.com but that site also references holocaust deniers so I'm not putting any faith in that. You've got no source sites for any of these alleged offers.
3. I've looked for comment on it by the reporter have alleged to find this gem of info but he never mentions it anywhere.
4. The offer was made in January which would have been Koiso's government and not Suzuki's and that, by your logic, makes zero sense. It makes no sense to cummunicate the offer to MacAurthur anyways. Your argument isn't even internally coherent.

I think the problem is that you don't want to see what is a mound of evidence that has been well trod by historians and the conclusions are clear that the Japanese did not want a surrender and that the a-bombs did create a net savings in lives. I think you are doing a notably poor job of reading the histories and instead of looking at the scope of research on the subject have seized upon a few tidbots, out of contest quotes and blatant mistakes to create this fictional world you live in.

[Wirraway_Ace]

Since the decision to drop the A-bomb can generate so much debate from those who were not born at the time of the event, I think it makes a very strong case for why the Enola Gay should be on display.  She was a pivotal player in an event that shaped a number of generations of Americans and Japanese.  I think she makes a great reminder of why you don't start wars in a way that motivates your enemies (whether you felt justified or not, military target or not, etc.) and a warning that even a "Just War" may not be wholly just.  There were plenty of cases of brutallity beyond the needs of the combat situation to go around for all services of all nations.  In this, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Germans, Japanese and Russians, but like anything, these are matters of degree. 

I am not a defender of the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign in Europe or Japan, though I think I understand it in the context of WWII.  For the English, it was for many years the only way they could strike back.  Later, it was part of a strongly held theory among many (but not all) leaders that it could break the enemy's will and ability to fight.  This theory certainly had some strong supporters in the United States.  The A-bomb was, in my view, a logical extension of the Strategic Bombing Campaign that had been in progress for years.  There were some who believed it could break the enemy's will and there were those who did not.  My personal belief, shaped by growing up during the Cold War, is that the A-bombs had a profound world-wide effect, hastened the Japanese surrender, saved American lives and helped changed the psyche of modern Japan for a militarists state to a pacifist state.  

At the end of the day, I would remind the A-bomb proponents that we have never used such weapons again--which should hint at something.
To the those who feel Japan was somehow unfairly treated:  the decision to go to war, the vicious nature of the war and the near annihiliation of Japan that resulted from it was the responsiblility of a whole generation of Japanese leaders--take responsibility for your actions that precipitated everything that followed...

[Ike99]

ILCK-You also are cute in arguing about lack of supplies but not mentioning the very obvious military target of 43,000 troops in the area.....out of contest quotes and blatant mistakes to create this fictional world you live in.

No, you are cute in whitewashing away the destruction of two entire cities and the killing of over 150,000 people with many others forced to live with the effects of radiation sickness and birth defects generations later.

All of which was undeniably completely unnecessary. And what kind of fictional world do you live in where conventional bombs do not kill troops as well as factories?

Tell me ILCK, if Japan had dropped atomic bombs on 2 US cities and still lost the war would those who were responceible been convicted and executed as war criminals or overlooked as going after ¨military targets¨?

Judging how you cried after 9/11 for 6 weeks and US reaction not likely jack.

[Ike99]

Bottom line, I've looked for the details of this peace deal you mention to MacArthur and

1. I can't find it in any serious history book I've got on my shelves
2. I see it referenced on sites like rense.com but that site also references holocaust deniers so I'm not putting any faith in that. You've got no source sites for any of these alleged offers.
3. I've looked for comment on it by the reporter have alleged to find this gem of info but he never mentions it anywhere.
4. The offer was made in January which would have been Koiso's government and not Suzuki's and that, by your logic, makes zero sense. It makes no sense to cummunicate the offer to MacAurthur anyways. Your argument isn't even internally coherent.

And BTW, all this fictional stuff I´ve invented and you can´t find in ¨your books¨ because I live in a fictional world.


Wilki

By the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, the Japan campaign was underway as Allied forces closed in on the home islands. By the end of January 1945, some Japanese officials close to the Emperor were seeking surrender terms which would protect his position. These proposals, sent through both British and American channels were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Roosevelt on the 2nd of February, two days before the Yalta conference. The dossier was reportedly dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand - the proposals contained all had the condition that Emperor's position would be assured, albeit possibly as a puppet ruler. At this time, however, the allied policy was to accept only an unconditional offer of surrender, although the eventual August settlement did keep the position of emperor in place[5].

It´s there and many other places as well as McArthur discussing it publicly as well as others.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Ike99


Wilki

By the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, the Japan campaign was underway as Allied forces closed in on the home islands. By the end of January 1945, some Japanese officials close to the Emperor were seeking surrender terms which would protect his position. These proposals, sent through both British and American channels were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Roosevelt on the 2nd of February, two days before the Yalta conference. The dossier was reportedly dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand - the proposals contained all had the condition that Emperor's position would be assured, albeit possibly as a puppet ruler. At this time, however, the allied policy was to accept only an unconditional offer of surrender, although the eventual August settlement did keep the position of emperor in place[5].

It´s there and many other places as well as McArthur discussing it publicly as well as others.

The wiki link goes to that article by Trohan. The story exists but was it accurate? Do you have any historian who has vetted the article and verified the content as true - that this was a valid peace offer by credible authorized Japanese sources. Doubtful, and that is what I mean by being able to read sources and distinguish credible and not credible. People have written books on Holocaust denial as well...doesn't make it accurate.

Simple concept, go buy Downfall by Richard Frank. It is the most readable current book on the end of the war and uses the most recent information avaialble. Read it, note the way it is sourced and then come back and chat.

[Tankerace]

Ok, Moderator hat on.

Stop with the personal attacks, accusations of denaial, etc Right Now.
 
Stop with the 9/11 references as well. Many have PMed me taking offence at them. The Atmoic bombs will always be controversial subjects. In truth, Japan did want to surrender before them. CONDITIONALLY, however, as they wanted to keep the emperor. After the dropping, Hirohito just wanted to end the war.
 
Continue discussing it if you wish, but one more 9/11 reference or personal attack and this thread is closed.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

No, you are cute in whitewashing away the destruction of two entire cities and the killing of over 150,000 people with many others forced to live with the effects of radiation sickness and birth defects generations later.

All of which was undeniably completely unnecessary. And what kind of fictional world do you live in where conventional bombs do not kill troops as well as factories?

Tell me ILCK, if Japan had dropped atomic bombs on 2 US cities and still lost the war would those who were responceible been convicted and executed as war criminals or overlooked as going after ¨military targets¨?

Judging how you cried after 9/11 for 6 weeks and US reaction not likely jack.

You are getting very riled up about the concept of strategic bombing. Frankly this is what militaries of the day did. Atom bomb, incendiary, high explosives the effects are the same -- dead people and dead civlians. It was a huge part of the ugliness that was aerial bombardment. It isn't nice but the question is did the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shorten the war?

You have yet to refute Suzuki's logic that the Japanese did not think the Americans could win by air power alone UNTIL the a-bombs were dropped. Until that point they were planning for a much longer war and longer = more dead bodies and in any reasonable scenario it would have been a lot more dead bodies than the a-bomb blasts. there's just no way around that.

Simple point, Japanese losses on Iwo and Okinawa were, KIA, north of 95%. Assuming that the 500k Japanese troops on Kyushu suffered "only" 80% losses that's 400k and a lot more than the bombs caused.

[Ike99]

Atom bomb, incendiary, high explosives the effects are the same -- dead people and dead civlians.

Uhh...no. The effects of conventional bombs are quite a bit different from Atomic and Plutonium bombs. If they were the same as you claim the US and others would not have invested so much effort into developing them.

[Ike99]

The wiki link goes to that article by Trohan. The story exists but was it accurate? ....credible ?

Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Allied Commander Southwest Pacific is not a credible source? When did this happen?

[8|]

[AcePylut]

The only facts that matter is that the Japanese would have fought "to the bitter end" if the Emperor so wished it...

and the ONLY thing that finally convinced the Emperor that continuing to fight was the wrong move was the Atomic Bomb.

Read his surrender declaration. He doesn't cite "russian attack" or "out of resources"
he cites... THE ATOMIC BOMB... as the reason for his surrender.

"After examining Japan's current situation and condition, I have decided to take extraordinary measures[1]. I have ordered our government to inform the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Japan will surrender[2].

It is the role of the Emperor to strive for prosperity and happiness throughout the world, and for the security and well-being of the Japanese people. I declared war on America and Great Britain to protect the Japanese people and to bring peace and stability to the East Asian region. I did not declare war to infringe on the rights of other nations, or to expand Japanese territory.

This war has now lasted four years, and despite the best efforts of the military, the government and the Japanese people, this war has not been successful for Japan. The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon[3] with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. If we continue to fight this war, this weapon will destroy the Japanese nation and bring about the total extinction of the human race.

As a result, I have no way to save the millions of Japanese citizens other than to surrender.

I express my deepest regret to our allies in East Asia who have worked hard with us to achieve freedom in this region. I am pained by the thought of the officers who died in service to Japan, and their bereaved families. My greatest concern is for the welfare of the wounded and for those who have lost their homes and livelihoods.

The road ahead for Japan will be very difficult and I am aware that many Japanese will feel dishonoured. However due to the current situation, I have resolved that there is no option but to work to achieve peace for all the generations to come. To do this we must "endure the unendurable"[4].

To maintain the structure of the Japanese nation, I am working for you, and I am relying on the sincerity and goodwill of the Japanese people. I ask you to remain calm and to refrain from fighting with your fellow citizens, so that we do not lose the confidence of the world.

Let the Japanese people work together as one family for the future, confident that the Japanese nation will endure, but also aware of the heavy responsibilities and the difficult road ahead. Work together to rebuild the nation for the future, so that we may keep pace with the world."




Sorry boys and girls, but it was the bomb that caused Japan to surrender, not anything else.

[tocaff]

Brought to you by the 313th Wing of  the 20th Air Force, 9th Bombardment GRP North Field Tinian Island.

[Ike99]

Sorry boys and girls, but it was the bomb that caused Japan to surrender, not anything else.

And even if it did cause the surrender of Japan, and even if it did save Allied lives....even if everything ILCK and you say is true and everything I say is wrong...it still was a crime of war and those who were responcible for it war criminals by any yardstick of international law.

It is illegal to specifically target and kill civilians during a war. Illegal.

I-L-L-E-G-A-L

They didn´t drop those bombs on any torpedo plants or aircraft factories. Those bombs were very specificaly targeted and dropped in the center of those cities to cause maximum numbers of deaths. So much so you can go see the recon pictures of where the bombs were targeted and where they actually hit with a glowing report of how much damaged they caused.

This is illegal. It doesn´t matter if it saved 5, 50 or 50,000 or no Allied lives. That is an illegal act.

¨You did what? You dropped 2 atomic bombs on two cities and killed 150,000 people. Guilty. Next case.¨

That´s how fast that case would be in and out of the Hague. You cannot justify it away by saving Allied lives.

Using this rational any beligerent in any conflict could start blowing up hospitals and shooting those protected by the Red Cross and justify it away with something like...¨By killing the enemies doctors, nurses and medics who heal, then return enemy soldiers to come fight me again I save my soldiers lives.¨ That´s the logic your using.

Bottom line...the specific targeting and killing of civilians is a crime. There is no getting around that.

As the WW2 veterans die off it becomes more and more acknowledged it was indeed, a war crime and should not have been done. After they are gone and more times passes this will be eventually how history records this event.

Brought to you by the 313th Wing of the 20th Air Force, 9th Bombardment GRP North Field Tinian Island.

Why would you brag about such a thing Tocaff? To kill innocent civilians to save the lives of your soldiers smacks of cowardice.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Why would you brag about such a thing Tocaff? To kill innocent civilians to save the lives of your soldiers smacks of cowardice.

Ike, I warned you no personal attacks.

As to cowardice, as a man who has a relative who was MURDERED by the Japanese in a prison camp after surviving the Bataan Death March, how is torturing and executing prisoners any better or worse than bombing civilians? War is war, nothing is good about it.

This thread is now closed. Ike, I suggest you refrain from personal attacks in the future.