Matrix Games Forums

My understanding is 500K allied casualties and 1 to 1.5 mill. Japanese.
BTW read a letter to the editor, some time ago, Time magazine I blieve, written by a guy who, in 1945 was drafted and training in a mortar unit of some kind or other. His take on the A-bombs was that, had they not been used, he would most likely have died during the invasion, and thus, he was quite happy that they were used.
I know, it is just someone's personal opinion. (there is probably 1million Japanese personal opinions (- causlaties from Hiroshima/Nagasaki) that probably concur with this guy, +500K US marine/army + families that also concur.

ORIGINAL: Becket

The invasion plan for Japan (I forget the name now, dammit, but it was planned for 46) anticipated 1 million US casualties.

To put this in perspective, the number of US killed in WWII is approx. 250,000.

Operation Olympic.

The US took the easy way out, but I think that weopons of mass dustruction should be used only as a last resort if you losing badly in a war, not to be used if you winning. I heard saddam hussian used chemicals weopons because he was outnumbered 5 to 1 when he was fighting Iran and shia rebels in his country that allied with Iran, some would say he done a good job because he saved the sunni minority but we consider him a bad guy. [8|]

hithere
Matrix Veteran

101 post!!!!! I'M A MATRIX VETERAN!!!!!!

The mothers, wifes, and children of the 500K allied troops that did not have to go on operation Olympic beg to differ.

By the way, did the US warn the japs that they were going to nuke a few of their cities if they didnt stop the war??

ORIGINAL: general billy

The US took the easy way out, but I think that weopons of mass dustruction should be used only as a last resort if you losing badly in a war, not to be used if you winning. I heard saddam hussian used chemicals weopons because he was outnumbered 5 to 1 when he was fighting Iran and shia rebels in his country that allied with Iran, some would say he done a good job because he saved the sunni minority but we consider him a bad guy. [8|]

Nooo...the easy way out would have been to just fight in the Pacific war and let UK and Europe fend for themselves. yes the US did have interest in defeating Hitler but he prob would have been dead in a few years anyway

ORIGINAL: general billy

By the way, did the US warn the japs that they were going to nuke a few of their cities if they didnt stop the war??

very good question and i am not sure. I don't think that japan would have believed us...even so....the US had to drop a SECOND one. doesn't that say anything???

ORIGINAL: kaleun

My understanding is 500K allied casualties and 1 to 1.5 mill. Japanese.
BTW read a letter to the editor, some time ago, Time magazine I blieve, written by a guy who, in 1945 was drafted and training in a mortar unit of some kind or other. His take on the A-bombs was that, had they not been used, he would most likely have died during the invasion, and thus, he was quite happy that they were used.
I know, it is just someone's personal opinion. (there is probably 1million Japanese personal opinions (- causlaties from Hiroshima/Nagasaki) that probably concur with this guy, +500K US marine/army + families that also concur.

500K casualties or KIA? I've always heard 1million casualties (killed & wounded), so maybe that makes up the discrepancy.

ORIGINAL: general billy

The US took the easy way out, but I think that weopons of mass dustruction should be used only as a last resort if you losing badly in a war, not to be used if you winning. I heard saddam hussian used chemicals weopons because he was outnumbered 5 to 1 when he was fighting Iran and shia rebels in his country that allied with Iran, some would say he done a good job because he saved the sunni minority but we consider him a bad guy. [8|]

For my part, I have no problem with ending a war quickly against an opponent that had initiated a plan to execute all Allied POWs before they could be liberated. The death rate for US POWs in Japanese camps is approximately 75%. Compare to the death rate for US POWs in German camps which is somewhere far south of 25%.

ORIGINAL: general billy

The US took the easy way out, but I think that weopons of mass dustruction should be used only as a last resort if you losing badly in a war, not to be used if you winning. I heard saddam hussian used chemicals weopons because he was outnumbered 5 to 1 when he was fighting Iran and shia rebels in his country that allied with Iran, some would say he done a good job because he saved the sunni minority but we consider him a bad guy. [8|]

I didn't say (or intentionally imply) that we were justified in dropping the A-bombs on Japan. Like I said, this will be debated endlessly. My point is that this decision needs to be viewed in the proper historical context. When people say or imply that we were unreservedly 'bad' for nuking Japan, I only ask that they keep in mind that the only reason we were the only country to nuke anyone in WWII was that we were the only country that *had* nukes then. There was no concern about nuclear retaliation at that time. If Japan or Germany had them, they certainly would have used them. And the only reason that the Axis didn't employ CBW to any extent (and yes I'm aware that the Japanese used them to some extent in China, but this was primarily to test various compounds because they considered the Chinese 'subhuman' and therefore suitable subjects) was because the Western Allies had *huge* stockpiles of CBW agents themselves and the Axis didn't want to initiate what would have probably escalated into mass use of these agents against civilian (their own included) populations.

ORIGINAL: hithere

ORIGINAL: general billy

The US took the easy way out, but I think that weopons of mass dustruction should be used only as a last resort if you losing badly in a war, not to be used if you winning. I heard saddam hussian used chemicals weopons because he was outnumbered 5 to 1 when he was fighting Iran and shia rebels in his country that allied with Iran, some would say he done a good job because he saved the sunni minority but we consider him a bad guy. [8|]

Nooo...the easy way out would have been to just fight in the Pacific war and let UK and Europe fend for themselves. yes the US did have interest in defeating Hitler but he prob would have been dead in a few years anyway

Even easier, just don't embargo Japan and pull back to the shores. Might have been interesting to see the Rising Sun flying in Peking today and a Swastika on the Arc De Triumph.

You don't use weapons based on whether you're winning or losing. Remember Patton's line? You don't win wars by dieing for your country, you win wars by making the other SOB die for his country. If you've got a weapon that can help you win, you would be a traitor to your people not to use it.

These type of threads are amazing. Ask a yes/no question, start a debate that rages for days. LOL

Sorry if I pushed any buttons...

I have friends in NYC and was there with the wife 2 weeks before 9/11. NYC is one of the best cities in the world.

re atomic bombs, the U.S. had better resources in men and material and developed the bomb first. Germany was about 2 years behind. If Germany or Japan had developed nukes, we would have had our first nuclear war.

Slap me silly for commenting in a thread that I know I shouldn't. <G>

I don't have any sources handy so my comments will be irrelevant, but the 1 million casualty figure has to be taken with a grain of salt. Postwar propaganda blew the Pentagon's estimations out of all proportions when the debate over the bomb began. US estimated 50,000 dead with wounded figures varying greatly. Later the million casualty figure became a million dead figure, etc. Anyway, the point was that contemporary casualty figures were never as high as the postwar debate suggested. All that being said, they were still high. Threads like this tend to throw around DEATH figures of 50,000 like they were spare change.

Uh, general billy, when did war become a game? Only use the weapons if losing sounds so charming but somehow doesn't seem to fit into 1945. Hundreds of thousands dead in the US and tens of millions worldwide. Truman is presented a weapon that can end all the killing in perhaps a matter of days but of course he should have not used it because the US was "winning." I hope you would have gone to the family of every serviceman killed and explained to them personally why their loved one had to die because we were "winning." There is very little similarity between the Second World War and the Iraq situation except at the superficial level.

I think the casualty figures came about from the Allied landings as they approached Japan.Obviously the resisitance was stiffening tremendously the closer the Allies got and especially the casualty figures resulting from the Kamikazes.I remember reading somewhere that the Japanese had managed to amass >10000 aircraft that could have been used for Kamikaze attacks on Operation Olympic and Downfall.The Allies had vastly underestimated the number of aircraft the Japanese had hidden so it was just as well these Operations werent needed.

ORIGINAL: hithere

ORIGINAL: general billy

...even so....the US had to drop a SECOND one. doesn't that say anything???

Ummmm...that our aim was off?

<Sorry, couldn't resist the poor joke.....>

now just say the US was being invaded by the nearly the whole world and there was no hope in winning, i have a strong feeling that the US would use again Nukes just to survive, look at afganistan, they were using daisy cutter which are like miniture nukes, on guys that was using 1950's weopons [:-]

the history chan (i watch that alot [;)] ) had a show on operation Olympic. one thing that stuck in my head was that the 1st 2 divisions that hit the beach were not even in the war plans after 3 days becouse they would be assumed to be destroyed. My Grandfather was a Sherman Co commander during WW 2. I know HE was glad that the war ended because he was at FT. Lewis getting ready to ship out to the Pacific when the war ended.

ORIGINAL: hithere

the history chan (i watch that alot [;)] ) had a show on operation Olympic. one thing that stuck in my head was that the 1st 2 divisions that hit the beach were not even in the war plans after 3 days becouse they would be assumed to be destroyed. My Grandfather was a Sherman Co commander during WW 2. I know HE was glad that the war ended because he was at FT. Lewis getting ready to ship out to the Pacific when the war ended.

acually...it might not have been the History chan...could have been PBS. it has been a little while