Even without A-bombs could US take home islands?

[DuckofTindalos]

I'm not sure there was much general reaction in the populace, but certainly in the corridors of power there was some shock over the extent of the devastation and the fact that Dresden had no military/industrial targets. Even the fella in your avatar was unhappy about it, Feinder.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And there IS such a thing as killing too many enemies. Remember the reaction in the UK after the Dresden raid.

That was supposedly the reason for abruptly ending Desert Storm in 1991; the number of Iraqi casualties on the "Higway of Death" leading out of Kuwait into Basra. Soon afterward I took photos of that road; mostly "dead," abandoned hot-wired vehicles w/their engines still running.

I wonder if we we could have spared ourselves today's public outcry over Iraq if we had just gone on in 91' despite the mass media inspired public outcry.

I wonder if the survivors of Coventry were upset over Dresden? Or should they blame British Inteligence? Was keeping enigma secret too expensive?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Joe D.



Victory too expensive? Consider the price of defeat; could Western democracies afford to lose a war w/Imperial Japan? w/Nazi Germany?

There are other possibilities besides defeat and victory in wars, of course.

Ironically, WW II in Europe didn't officially end (on paper) till Germany was reunified back in the late 1980s.

But what possibilities did you have in mind? A separate peace w/IJ? Not after PH!

i suspect that IF the US and friends had invaded Japan, and IF things had gone wrong (and i am not saying they would have - this is a really big leap of "ifs") - that an armistice MIGHT have taken place - where there is no defeat, no victory - just a cessation in hostilities.

i don't think this would have happen... if suspect that the Russians and maybe even the Chinese (remember them? it was only as the Japanese were defeated that the revolution picked up steam again) would have got in on the act in attacking Japan on the ground.

This would have made for a FAR different post-war picture, of course.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: SouthernAP
You are comparing two different types of combat though. In combat in the ETO you had whole massed corps and armies in almost continuous contact with each other from 1943 (when the landings made on main land Italy) till May of 1945. ...

ORIGINAL: Ike99

...not to mention taking Monte Cassino) than Guadalcanal cost in 6 months, as many men died in two nights trying to cross the Rapido River in Italy in Jan 1944 as died taking Tarawa.

Well yeah but your considering apples and oranges. ...

Actually guys, I'm not comparing dissimilar battles. The reason I compared Tarawa and the Rapido River, Guadalcanal and San Pietro, was because the force levels involved were quite comparable...in fact - more forces were present in the PTO battles mentioned.

The only point I was trying to illustrate was that for all the Japanese ferocity and suicidal courage - more GI's were being killed by well equipped and trained Germans on any given day...

B

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: hgilmer

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: hgilmer

With complete air control, wouldn't we have at least tried to bomb them with conventional bombing and then regardless of whether they were attacking us with spears, their losses would have been in the millions?

What would you have bombed?

Yes, millions of of Japanese would have died. Does that balance if the Allies only lost a million lives? Or a half million?

At what point is victory too expensive?

You misunderstand me. I am in complete agreement with what we did. I wouldn't have wanted to lose one more U.S. soldier's life to 20 million Japanese in a war we did not start. My argument is to the people that claim we were wrong to use the atom bomb. We killed a lot of Japanese but we would have killed a lot more if we did it conventionally and we would have also lost many of our own men.

And I would not have given one more American life to save them any more Japanese lives.

I think we are on the same page. I don't agree with the people who say it was wrong, but I have to respect people who have the view that using the a-bomb was wrong.

The choice to use it had pros and cons on too many levels for it to IMHO neatly fitting it into a perfect answer.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

At what point is victory too expensive?

Victory too expensive? Consider the price of defeat; could Western democracies afford to lose a war w/Imperial Japan? w/Nazi Germany?

Joe,

I think you misunderstood. I agree with you on this I believe. The Germany "first" option the Allies choose was because only Germany had a possibilty of defeating the UK or USSR. Once she was out of the way, it was only a matter of time and lives until Japan was finished. Japan never had a possibilty of defeating any major power. Japan was hoping to create a situation where a peace conference would give her what she wanted. Fantasy yes, but that was her plan.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And there IS such a thing as killing too many enemies. Remember the reaction in the UK after the Dresden raid.

That was supposedly the reason for abruptly ending Desert Storm in 1991; the number of Iraqi casualties on the "Higway of Death" leading out of Kuwait into Basra. Soon afterward I took photos of that road; mostly "dead," abandoned hot-wired vehicles w/their engines still running.

I wonder if we we could have spared ourselves today's public outcry over Iraq if we had just gone on in 91' despite the mass media inspired public outcry.

I wonder if the survivors of Coventry were upset over Dresden? Or should they blame British Inteligence? Was keeping enigma secret too expensive?

Joe,

"Desert Storm" was not a declared war against Iraq. It was more of a (and I hate the term) "Police Action" to remove Iraq forces from Kuwait. It was NOT expected by the countries involved that Iraq would invaded and its capital captured.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


i suspect that IF the US and friends had invaded Japan, and IF things had gone wrong (and i am not saying they would have - this is a really big leap of "ifs") - that an armistice MIGHT have taken place - where there is no defeat, no victory - just a cessation in hostilities.

i don't think this would have happen... if suspect that the Russians and maybe even the Chinese (remember them? it was only as the Japanese were defeated that the revolution picked up steam again) would have got in on the act in attacking Japan on the ground.

This would have made for a FAR different post-war picture, of course.

If this scenerio were to take place, Russia would have gained the most. The GEO-POLITICAL elements are too varied to even speculate beyond one point. It would not have been good for America.

[Ike99]

I'm not sure there was much general reaction in the populace, but certainly in the corridors of power there was some shock over the extent of the devastation and the fact that Dresden had no military/industrial targets. Even the fella in your avatar was unhappy about it, Feinder.

Once the war was over people maybe looked back and questioned the morality of bombing and killing this or that many civilians here or there but when it was on I don´t think there was much debate.

I´m guessing the leaders debated wiping out Dresden or using the Atomic bombs for about 2.5 seconds.

I think the controvery at the time was, will the enemy be able to use these attacks for their own propaganda and war effort...¨Look here what they did to Tokyo, Dresden...you see we have to fight on and resist, there is no reasoning with these people and they`re out to destroy us. We have to keep fighting with all we have¨

I think this was much more the question in 44´-45´ among the Allied leaders than ¨Oh my these bombings are awful...we really should stop this.¨ [:D]

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

Joe,

"Desert Storm" was not a declared war against Iraq. It was more of a (and I hate the term) "Police Action" to remove Iraq forces from Kuwait. It was NOT expected by the countries involved that Iraq would invaded and its capital captured.

Yes, UN Resolution 660. However, after the "hey diddle diddle, right up the middle" plan to invade Kuwait was scrapped, it was decided to retake the Emirate both directly -- Marines supported by 2AD armor -- and indirectly, "invading" Western Iraq w/VII Corps supported by Brit armor. After that plan was accepted by the coalition, any fiction about maintaining Iraqi sovereignty was quickly dispelled from among its members.

As a member of 2AD, I recall that the only coalition nation taking exception to the above was Syria, whose spokesman told the BBC that they would "shoot us in the back" or words to that effect if the coaltion went too far into Iraq, i.e., Baghdad.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And there IS such a thing as killing too many enemies. Remember the reaction in the UK after the Dresden raid.

Oh yes. If you kill even one more than can be considered "absolutely necessary" your own "left wing, hand-wringing, liberals will spend the next sixty years crying and beating their breasts about it.., and the atrocity-commiting skunks on the other side will write the entire experiance out of their history books and pose to the world as the "victims" of the entire episode.

It's quite obvious that you have never read a German history book.

[Nemo121]

the atrocity-commiting skunks on the other side will write the entire experiance out of their history books and pose to the world as the "victims" of the entire episode.

 
Scholl, that's one of the most spiteful and quasi-racist things I've seen on the net outside of hate-mongering websites. Seriously, in war there's no black and white. There's always grey and while the fact that Allied forces committed fewer attrocities is undeniable we can't get anywhere by labelling an entire nation as "atrocity-commiting skunks" because of the actions of people over 60 years ago.
 
How would you feel if I were to insist on labelling anyone from Florida a racist simply because many years ago their ancestors may have fought for the CSA or held slaves? That would be pretty unfair wouldn't it? Yes --- as is your labelling of a couple of nations as "atrocity comitting skunks" because of things their ancestors did.
 
 
And before anyone casts an aspersion - my grandad was captured by the gestapo and got to lose a few fingernails to them when they tortured him and then got put into a deathcamp where prisoners were being pitchforked to death the day the Americans liberated it SO I'm not at all blind to what happened. On the other hand going around throwing around assertions as you've done is not only unfair and unreasonable. It is also dangerous and unlearned ( possibly the greatest transgression IMO ).

[witpqs]

Mike should distinguish between the way that Germany has dealt with WWII and the way that Japan has dealt with WWII. In general, Germany has dealt with it head-on and very openly. Japan has largely denied most and has indeed written reality out of the history books. Maybe that will change as more time passes.

However, I don't believe Mike was referring to everybody 'on the other side' when he wrote "atrocity committing skunks". I think he was referring to the actual 'atrocity committing skunks', many of whom carried great influence in Japan post-war. His statement was not racist, it was aimed at the actual actors.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Mike should distinguish between the way that Germany has dealt with WWII and the way that Japan has dealt with WWII. In general, Germany has dealt with it head-on and very openly. Japan has largely denied most and has indeed written reality out of the history books. Maybe that will change as more time passes.

Agreed. As this is the "WITP forum" I didn't think it necessary to identify the Japanese specifically as the partiie I was refering to for "inventing history". Obviously I was wrong.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
However, I don't believe Mike was referring to everybody 'on the other side' when he wrote "atrocity committing skunks". I think he was referring to the actual 'atrocity committing skunks', many of whom carried great influence in Japan post-war. His statement was not racist, it was aimed at the actual actors.

Actually I was refering directly to the Jqapanese military here, though others would certainly qualify. But for sheer instatutionalized barbaric behavior from start to finish, the Japanese Military stands above all others in WW II. Their treatment of prisoners (military and civilian) was abysmal, and their officers made no attempt to restrain their behavior, but were rather more likely to join in or lead it. In Germany such behavior was pretty much "political" in nature and handled by "special" units. Doesn't make it less reprehensable, just less generalized. All armies had "problem people" and "dispicable behavior"---but in the Japanese Military it was endemic and instatutional.

And this is not a "racial" distinction..., it's a "national" one. The Japanese Empire chose to treat it's military personel brutally, and as totally expendable assets expected to die in it's service. Subjected to brutally sub-human treatment, far too many Japanese soldiers became brutalized and inhuman in their treatment of anyone in their power. So when I said "atrocity-commiting skunks" I was refering directly and specifically to the Imperial Japanese Military..., and I retract not a single letter of my statement.

[RUPD3658]

Having recently read Downfall by Richard Frank I would say that we would have taken Japan but at a high price. In addition to the human suffering on both sides we also would have ended up with a partitioned Japan post war. This would have made the cold war even colder.

As for the clause allowing the Emperor to stay ending the war, Mr. Frank does a pretty good job of proving this not to be the case. Recently declassified decripts show this to be revisonist myth. Allowing him to stay on the throne did make the total surrender possible however. Without his order defeating the troops spread out throughout Asia would have resulted in "A Thousand Okinawas" His book is a very good read if you get the chance.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Mike should distinguish between the way that Germany has dealt with WWII and the way that Japan has dealt with WWII. In general, Germany has dealt with it head-on and very openly. Japan has largely denied most and has indeed written reality out of the history books. Maybe that will change as more time passes ..

Long after Nuremberg, Germany is now experiencing "holocaust exhaustion," and from my own personal experience, younger Germans would rather be done w/us and our military installations -- Ramstein, Landstuhl -- in their (now) undivided nation.

Things may also be changing in Japan after PM Abe -- who called former "comfort women" liars and who recently held an official ceremony to honor IJ "war criminals," was forced to resigned.

Because of its strategic location and other cold war conerns, the West never insisted that Japan face the music for its past, as it did w/Germany.

[hgilmer]

Being of Polish descent, it took me a long time to get over what the Russians and the Germans did to my people and some of my relatives left behind when the war started. But, I did finally realize it and have gotten over it. I also used to tell people that Mistubishi was the company that built the planes that killed our men in Pearl Harbor. But, I got over that, too. It wasn't necessarily that I had forgiven them, but that I realized the people there now weren't the ones who did all that. There may be a few left, but most are gone and it does no one good to keep holding on to old hate.

I think there is a growing resentment, though, from people who keep seeing show after show about how bad we were or how questionable things that we did. The dropping of the 2 bombs on Japan. I refused to watch the show on HBO about the survivors. Not because I have a hate for the Japanese but because that from the previews it looked like something that was going to be about how horrible it was and how we should not have done it.

I may be wrong and I realize that. I probably should have watched it. There is a lot of revisionism going on right now in the world and in the U.S. Kids who have never even had to learn true history and don't know how WW2 started are bombarded by images of Hiroshima and they wail about how bad we are as a country. It is sickening to me. The U.S. did what it had to do. I don't think anyone was celebrating the instant incineration of people, but they were celebrating the fact that their loved ones were coming home alive.

Sorry. I am not attacking anyone. I think I'm expressing the frustration many people have now over the way things are portrayed.

[jwilkerson]

Sorry all.

Bad MOD Joe ... too busy to catch this one earlier ...


Crossed political boundaries ... locked ... if you wanna have such debates try General Discusion Forum or else the Steak House.