Matrix Games Forums

Ike, it's you, for a change, who doesn't have a clue. Again you show yourself to be a person who, at best, dismisses those who disagree with you. Maybe you would've been happier to see a landing by the Allies on one of the home islands and the horrific loses it would've caused on both sides. The result probably would've been an A bomb campaign against every Japanese city that was still standing on the other islands as fast as the US could produce them. Maybe a result such as that would've been better? Did you know that the fire bombing raids killed far more Japanese civilians than either A bomb? So now answer my earlier question please-Why do you seem to hate the Allies of WW2?

No Todd, it´s you who don´t have a clue. I tell you the same as McArthur and rest of the Allied field commanders in effect told Truman.

You can drop all the Atomic bombs you want, bomb Japan from one end to the other over and over and they will not surrender. They will surrender when the Emporer says surrender as they will fight when the Emporer says fight.

To get the surrender of Japan you are going to have to go through their Emporer. In this way and only in this way will you get a surrender.

Otherwise you will have to invade the islands on basically what amounts to a war of genocide with the virtual destruction of the Japanese race at a heavy toll in Allied lives.

So...

Option ¨A¨-Imperial Pardon with an Allied occupation of Japan.

or

Option ¨B¨-An invasion of Japan with many Allied lives lost and the virtual destruction of the Japanese as a race.

The Allies picked option ¨A¨

Good choice in my opinion. You disagree with the decision Todd?

And still no answer to my question Mr. Know it all?

And still no answer to my question Mr. Know it all?

Holding the Allies to the same moral standard they set for the Axis is not showing a biased for the Axis.

It is showing fairness to all parties involved.

The Allies convicted Karl Donitz of war crimes even though US Pacific submarine commanders testified on his behalf they operated under the same rules and guidelines in the Pacific as he did in the Atlantic.

Yamashita Tomoyuki was hung as a war criminal for the actions of the 31st Naval Base Force against Civilians and POW´s in Manilla. The fact of the matter is Tomoyuki had ordered the unit out of Manilla, the unit commander disobeyed and went on a rampage. All this is on record and was brought up at his trial.

If anyone was a war criminal and should have been hung it was the commander of the 31st Naval Base Force, not Tomoyuki. As even American military members publicly stated at his trial ¨This is a Kangaroo Court¨

What was Karl Donitz and Yamashita Tomoyuki really guilty of? Conducting rather successful operations in the Atlantic and Maylaya against the Allies.

These are act of vengence against a defeated enemy. Not a measure of justice.

So my question to you Todd is...why do you show a biased for the Axis and not hold everyone to the same moral standard?

ORIGINAL: Ike99



The attack on Pearl Harbor was directed specifically at military targets, even more specifically at the US Warships. The atomic bomb attacks against Japan were not.

If Japan had the technology and means to deliver an atomic weapon it certainly would have. The Japanese tried to start wild fires in the U.S. with their helium filled ballon attacks, however only a few hikers died and the effort was futile.

Do you think Imperial Japan thought balloons would only hit military targets? LOL


I make no apologies for the U.S. using atomic weapons, I'm glad we did. We took the war to the enemy. The United States was at peace when Imperial Japan utilized a sneak attack against our citizens, we weren't at peace during the firebombing or atomic strikes.


Ask any citizen of Manila how they were treated during the Japanese occupation.



On another note, God Bless the Marine , Arny and Naval forces for their many sacrifices in defeating the enemy on Guadalcanal.

I make no apologies for the U.S. using atomic weapons, I'm glad we did. We took the war to the enemy. The United States was at peace when Imperial Japan utilized a sneak attack against our citizens, we weren't at peace during the firebombing or atomic strikes.

I have no problem with that. If we accept one thing one way we must accept it the same in another for everyone else.

Doesn´t it seem a bit odd to anyone else we can go from, in the space of a one hour documentary...

The barbarous, cruel, murderous , indiscriminate and criminal bombing of Warsaw, Rodderdam, Nanking and London to...

the ¨Strategic¨ 1,000 bomber raids over German cities, firestorms, fire bombing of Japanese cities culminating in the atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities?!

[:D][:D][:D]

Well now wait a minute.

If one side does it and it´s criminal and the other side does it and it´s strategic...

Well which one is it?!![:D] [:D]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Oh please. The Japanese had zero intent to surrender prior to the bomb blasts and not just to save the Emporer.

I hate arguing with people who don´t know what they´re talking about.

THE JAPANESE HAD BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SURRENDER FOR MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DROPPING OF THE ATOMIC BOMBS. IT´S A MATTER OF HISTORICAL RECORD. WATCH A DOCUMENTARY. READ A BOOK. GOOGLE IT. IT´S ON RECORD.

The Emperor only surrendered in light of the A-bomb. He has no intention of pushing for surrender prior to the a-bomb and there is zero evidence for it. As late as 1945 he spoke of the need for "one more military gain" in order to achieve a proper peace in a letter to Prince Konoe.

His officers also had no inclination to do so and the attempted coup even after the a-bomb shows the depth of willingness to fight amongst the officer corps.

The ONLY surrender effort the Japanese had made was via their ambassador in Moscow and he wasn't authorized to do it. He was acting way outside his authority.

The initial Japanese overtures to the SU were only to allow mediation with the US but not the end of the war. In May, Foreign Minister Togo sent a strongly woreder letter to all diplomatic attaches denying than any peace overtures had been made to the USA or UK. Sato's main role in Moscow was to try and stall the SU entry into the war in the eyes of his masters. Any peace efforts for snuffed out by Tokyo. The military attache for Japan in Sweden on June 24 was upbraided by his superiors with a telegram reading, "Japan is determined to prosecute the Greater Asian War to the end." There were other individual efforts in various embassies (Switzerland and the Vatican) but all had the same effect: 1. There was no official sanction and if their efforts were discovered were condemned.

So, now I ask you to read a book based on the Imperial Japanese War Records and the results of the MAGIC summaries from the United States. In fact, a lot of revisionism of the 1970's (your view) has been shredded in works by scholars since then as more and better eveidence has come to light.

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

... On another note, God Bless the Marine , Arny and Naval forces for their many sacrifices in defeating the enemy on Guadalcanal.

Thanks for remembering why I started this thread in the first place!

So now instead of the Japanese and their experimentation on the Chinese for biological weapons research or the German atrocities we'll wait with baited breath to hear what the Allies did akin to it. Was the fire bombing of Dresden needed, maybe. We don't know because we weren't there. The bombing of Japanese cities, why not as their industry became a cottage type industry with production carried out in private homes. Were the Allies totally guiltless in WW2? No. In any war there is plenty of guilt to go around. Bayonet and sword practice on POWs, nice. Read the book Ghost Soldiers for a brutal picture of the life of POWs in the hands of the Japanese. The victors write the history and that will never change. I wonder how the Japanese would've treated the US if they had won....

Oh yeah and one more thing I'd like to mention as long as we want to discuss what an evil victor the USA was. The USA provided for the rebuilding of Japan and Europe and forgave the debts incurred by it's Allies through the lend Lease plan and outright purchasing of munitions. The Marshall Plan was something on a grand scale never seen before. Imagine not demanding war repirations from the vanquished.

If one side does it and it´s criminal and the other side does it and it´s strategic...

I know it's not morally correct, but history is littered with this:
The Winner gets to decide!!

The Emperor only surrendered in light of the A-bomb. He has no intention of pushing for surrender prior to the a-bomb and there is zero evidence for it.

The ONLY surrender effort the Japanese had made was via their ambassador in Moscow and he wasn't authorized to do it. He was acting way outside his authority.

Wrong.

A new government came in during April 1945 headed by Kantaro Suzuki with the sole mission of putting an end to the war. Germany had surrendered and they knew the war was lost and wanted out. During this month through reading the Japanese diplomatic codes US intelligence concluded and the US State Department agreed Japan, including the Emporer, was attempting to end the war.

Even before then in January 1945 Douglas MacArthur sent Roosevelt a document given to him from Japanese officials outlining their terms of surrender.

These included...

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.

Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.

Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.

Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.

Release of all prisoners of war and internees.

Surrender of designated war criminals.

An assured position for the Emperor albeit in puppet form

Roosevelt rejected it and Allied reporters were censored from reporting this story during the war. I´m thinking you didn´t read that in your history book before the paragraph about how the atomic bombs save lives? But anyways, this is basicaly the deal that was settled upon in the end anyways.

As well...

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo. He made it clear Japan was wishing to surrender but , he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States. Similar Japanese peace offers were sent through through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th.

All on the historic record.

Hmmm...I could go on but don´t feel the need to.

So, now I ask you to read a book based on the Imperial Japanese War Records and the results of the MAGIC summaries from the United States. In fact, a lot of revisionism of the 1970's (your view) has been shredded in works by scholars since then as more and better eveidence has come to light.

The only revisionism going on here is that the Atomic bombing of Japan was justified or even neccessary and it began right after they left the bomb bays. BTW...Historians widely agree the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not neccessary. I don´t know what ¨scholars¨ your talking about.

They will surrender when the Emporer says surrender as they will fight when the Emporer says fight.

So why the coup attempt by the military acadamy after the emporer had decided to surrender??? The Japs even made a film of it!!

Otherwise you will have to invade the islands on basically what amounts to a war of genocide with the virtual destruction of the Japanese race at a heavy toll in Allied lives.

Precisely. The A-Bombs saved lives.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... Historians widely agree the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not neccessary. I don´t know what ¨scholars¨ your talking about.

Historians don't have to fight wars, soldiers do; and many former servicemen would walk up to Paul Tibbits -- pilot of the Enola Gay -- shake his hand and thank him.

These men may not know all sides of this story, but one thing they did know: that if it wasn't for Tibbits and the Manhattan Project, they might not be here today. In fact, the same could be said of me, as my dad's TD unit was slated for the 3rd wave of the invasion of Japan.

See the Vets Day, Tibbits and Invasion of Japan thread from last August in the WitP forum. It's quite long.

Note: Don't know if you folks abroad get the History Channel, but there's a segment this Monday re a Japanese woman who survived an atomic bomb blast; she also gives the Channel a tour of the shelter.

So why the coup attempt by the military acadamy after the emporer had decided to surrender??? The Japs even made a film of it!!

I think your talking about when they tried to smash the record recording of the Emporer ordering surrender yes, before it went on the radio?

Well because those particular people didn´t wish to surrender and I´m sure a lot didn´t BUT....

as I said before what the Emporer said was the way it was going to be. He wanted surrender but with one condition, Him. As McArthur tried to explain to Truman, you have to go through the Him.

Doesn´t matter what anyone else says or wants. They´ll do what he says. Otherwise the´ll fight on.

edit-Think about, if families will jump off cliffs with their babies and crash into ships they certainly would do anything, atomic bomb or not. They didn´t surrender because of the A bomb.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

The Japanese did not accept unconditional surrender.
The surrender was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Reason why Japan still has an Emporer to this day.

I was not aware the Allied "conditions" req'd that the Emporer abdicate.

The Russians didn´t help anything. They made a land grab.

You misrepresent my point.

The Atomic bombs didn´t make the Japanese surrender. That´s propaganda after the fact to justify their use. They were going to go on. Only after a deal was made that protected the Emporer from being put on trial as a war criminal and his reign continued did they agree to surrender.

Rubbish. The Emporer surrendered when it became apparent to him that the war was unwinable and he knew that the Japanese Military government had every intention of continuing the war. He quite rightly "resumed" rule rather than allowing Tojo & Co. to continue acting as if they were Shogun and that decision alone proberly saved him from a war crimes trial ( which would have been wrong anyway as he was a puppet Emporer - not unusual in Japanese history ).

The only thing that kept them going was the idea of protecting the god Emporer.

That idea kept the japanese people going, but not the Military Government.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima didn´t do anything militarily or politically. They just killed a lot of people.

Militarily is arguable. The cities bombed were chosen as military targets.
Perhaps you would have liked it if the Allies had bombed Toyko?
Politically, they did not dent the resolve of the Military Government, but they did cause the Emporer to reclaim rule.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... as I said before what the Emporer said was the way it was going to be. He wanted surrender but with one condition, Him.

Technically correct, but though the figurehead of an emporer was maintained, his godhood was not. Hiro Hito was reduced to a national symbol, just like back in the days of the shogun, w/MacArthur as the new shogun. I recall a photo of MacArthur w/the emporer; Mac looked like a giant sammurai next to HH.

ORIGINAL: Ike99
... Think about, if families will jump off cliffs with their babies and crash into ships they certainly would do anything, atomic bomb or not. They didn´t surrender because of the A bomb.

Maybe this is semantics, but yes, you could say that Japan didn't surrender because of the A-bomb, but because of what the A-bomb was doing: destroying city after city, and left unchecked, ultimately destroying the entire Japanese culture.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I think your talking about when they tried to smash the record recording of the Emporer ordering surrender yes, before it went on the radio?

That was part of it.

...as I said before what the Emporer said was the way it was going to be. He wanted surrender but with one condition, Him. As McArthur tried to explain to Truman, you have to go through the Him.

Can't disagree that; only that the military did not agree with the Emporer, so until he "put his foot down" and resumed rule, the war was set to continue.

Doesn´t matter what anyone else says or wants. They´ll do what he says. Otherwise the´ll fight on.

The trouble was he spent a lot of the war saying nothing ( as puppets do ).

They didn´t surrender because of the A bomb.

Agreed. They obeyed the Emporer. So what caused him to speak out finally?
The A bombs.

Agreed. They obeyed the Emporer. So what caused him to speak out finally?
The A bombs.

No, the aggreement that he would not be put on trial as a war criminal.

ORIGINAL: Ike99

A new government came in during April 1945 headed by Kantaro Suzuki with the sole mission of putting an end to the war. Germany had surrendered and they knew the war was lost and wanted out. During this month through reading the Japanese diplomatic codes US intelligence concluded and the US State Department agreed Japan, including the Emporer, was attempting to end the war.

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.

Now, note the date, this is when Suzuki is in American hands. If anything, he's gonna put the best spin on his testimony so when he says they were willing to fight and intended to until the bomb drop there's no reason to doubt that statement since it runs against his interests to claim fighting intent.

His statements when he first met senior officers after his elevation to his post gave no hint of surrender and he told Army Minister Sugiyama that he agreeed with a 3 point plan to fight to the bitter end. Suzuki moved to consolidate more power in the hands of the Army over the navy in the ongoing inter-service struggles in Japan (and the Army was the home of most of the worst hardliners) so that wasn't a peace move. He selected Shigenori Togo to serve on his cabinet, and he was a peace proponent, but in his post-war interrogations he explicitly rejects the view that Suzuki wanted peace and he recalled a conversation where Suzuki detailed a 2-3 year plan to fight on. Again, if when talking to a know proponent of peace he wouldn't open up and instead talked more war where is Suzuki looking for peace?

When a final war plan called "The Fundamental Policy to be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War" was presented to the Emperor only Togo, of the "Big 6" in the Suzuki cabnent offered any call for peace. Suzuki argued quiet strenuously for war to extinction to the extent that it shocked Kido (one of Hirohito's assistants). This plan was approved on June 8 so very late in the game for there to have been a change of heart and well after your "peace feelers" in April and May.

As for your Shigemitsu and peace theory is also bunk. On May 5 the Swedish ambassador in Tokyo wired his government that he saw "no perceptable difference between the present government and it's predecessor." Apparently they missed the peace overtures from April you discussed? There were contacts made, as I said in my first post, with various governments ranging from the Vatican, Switzerland and Portugal but none of them carried the stamp of approval of the Big 6 so those overtures reflected individual efforts and not official policy and none were ever carried through.

I'd also like a source cite on the MacArthur "peace proposal" and who it came from since the terms are not shared by any "peace" proposal even discussed among the ruling members of Japan. It is more odd in view of the fact that as late as August 7th MacArthur declared, "In my opinion there should not be the slightest thought of changing the Olympic operation" and he consistently dismissed estimates of increased Japanese strength against the invasion as deception. Once more, I'm not sure why if he thought peace was in the offing.

Most your your comments are more or less directly lifted from this site: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html and the use of works by Hoyt, Alperovitz and
Barnes show how out of date this material is. Wainwright, BTW, makes the comments in the last section of his book and reflect his personal thoughts/biases but even the main chunk of his book supports the thesis that the Japanese were not close to surrender.

A good sum of the current state of research: http://www.anzasa.arts.usyd.edu.au/ahas ... raphy.html and sums up: "On the issue of Japanese surrender, various studies suggest that in July 1945 the government had not decided to surrender and that Hirohito and the militarists had not been prepared to reach such a decision until the entry of the Russians into the war and the dropping of the atomic bombs finally forced the Emperor’s hand. In that sense the traditional view is supported.....Overall, the recent studies, have, in various ways, modified but not displaced the traditional views on why the bombs were dropped. Much of the revisionist case is based on the ahistorical assumption that Truman and US policymakers understood Japanese intentions with the same clarity as historians have been able to achieve decades after the event. In any case, the Japanese showed no serious signs of being willing to surrender in July and early August 1945."

Happy reading.

Don't bother, it's like talking to the wall.  He finds 1 thing out of who knows how many that suits him and it's gospel and everyone else is wrong.  His picture is in the dictionary next to the word stubborn.

Don't bother, it's like talking to the wall. He finds 1 thing out of who knows how many that suits him and it's gospel and everyone else is wrong. His picture is in the dictionary next to the word stubborn.

No Todd, it´s like talking to people in clear denial.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ¨military targets¨? Not quite, not by any stretch of the imagination. They were cities. Choosen simply because they had large concentrations of population. If looking for a military base they could have easily pick Truk or Rabaul or any number of other Japanese bases as targets.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey-"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

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.

The Bombs were dropped on the 6th and the 9th.

The Emporer and cabinet met on the 10th and took a vote. The result of this vote was....

No Surrender. As in No, no, no...you can comprehend Atomic bombs dropped came with a reply of no surrender yes? Let it sink a little bit and float around maybe it will get through into your thick skull.

On the 10th, Japan sent a message to the Allies stating they would surrender on one condition, that being a continuation of Imperial reign. Hirohito was not to be touched. The same, single condition they had been giving for months. The dropping of Atomic bombs made NO CHANGE in their position. Can you comprehend this? Try.

On the 12th, a reply was sent back to Japan stating Allies accepted Japans condition making it clear however the Emperor could remain in a figure head position only. Japan then sent back a message saying they agreed to surrender.

On the 14th B29´s dropped thousands of leaflets over Japan telling the Japanese people Japan had surrendered and stated the condition. On the 15th the Emporers radio adress announcing surrender went out on radio.

Now...spin it any way you like with ¨military targets¨ and ¨saving american lives¨ and all the other revisionist nonsense that started the second those two bombs left the bomb bays but that´s how the deal went down.