Matrix Games Forums

The people making those decisions were fallible, just like you and me. Remember that a general (I forget whom) said, after Pearl Harbor, that the Japanese would invade the US and dictate terms in Washington. I suppose they were going to cross the continent on bicycles. People made decisions based on what they believed to be true, and moral culpability has to be judged on that, not on the truth. I'm not suggesting anyone was attempting here to assess that, I didn't see it, so I guess I did, or more properly cautioned against trying (here).

Chicken boy see the recent link I posted
Extract as follows

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000 150,000 3,500 193,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

I think the Japanese population had an uncommon fidelity / fealty to the Emperor. They would have endured a great deal in his name and at his behest. Moreso than many (including most Western European) other country's citizens. Their reserves of resilience were certainly not endless-but their resilience often ended with the end of their lives: by default or by design.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



Examples please?

I can't seem to recall any other island nations in history that endured complete military defeat, an iron-clad blockade and starvation amongst large sections of the population.

Britain during the World Wars wasn't even close to the Japanese experiance of blockade.

Warspite1

Hello mind_messing. We seem to find ourselves on opposite sides of a debate for a change [;)]

Perhaps my resolution for the new year should be to try to agree with you

I was talking about the numerous examples of the Japanese refusal to surrender on the various Pacific Islands - including some cases involving Japapese civilians who would rather die than surrender.

The scale is quite different. Trying to translate the circumstances of Saipan and Okinawa (where the enemy were right outside your cave) to the Home Islands (where the enemy flew overhead and dropped some bombs) is difficult.

I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

warspite1

Exactly, the scale is quite different - and IF you are wrong and IF I am right, then the level of starvation of the population would be quite hideous.

I do not say superhuman, but I think it's clear from many examples in history, just how difficult it is for a population to simply rise up against their military masters. Yes, it may happen eventually - the big unknown is the when.

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Chicken boy see the recent link I posted
Extract as follows

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000 150,000 3,500 193,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000

Are these Allied casualty estimates? Presumably so. How many civilians would have died? Presumably many, many more than Allied soldiers-an order of magnitude higher?

ETA: These were exclusively Allied casualty estimates. Truman's limited knowledge was quite vague: The published version of Truman's letter states that Marshall told him it would cost "at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties and might cost as much as a million.

I see nothing there to contradict that the bombs saved lives if one includes Japanese civilians and military (some 900,000 in the home islands). It would have been an abattoir.

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Chicken boy see the recent link I posted
Extract as follows

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000 150,000 3,500 193,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000

Warspite1

Sorry I cannot read the link - are these Allied casualties only?

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

I think the Japanese population had an uncommon fidelity / fealty to the Emperor. They would have endured a great deal in his name and at his behest. Moreso than many (including most Western European) other country's citizens. Their reserves of resilience were certainly not endless-but their resilience often ended with the end of their lives: by default or by design.

The worst the vast majority of the Japanese population had to endure was food shortages and homelessness as a result of Allied bombing.

That is severe in itself, but it isn't living under starvation conditions with no prospect of improvement.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Chicken boy see the recent link I posted
Extract as follows

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000 150,000 3,500 193,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000

Warspite1

Sorry I cannot read the link - are these Allied casualties only?

Aren't you reading my posts? Git. [:-]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I really think some people of this board over-estimate the WW2 Japanese population. They were not superhuman. They did not have endless reserves of resilance. They were like any other human in that they would do what was needed in order to feed themselves and their families.

I think the Japanese population had an uncommon fidelity / fealty to the Emperor. They would have endured a great deal in his name and at his behest. Moreso than many (including most Western European) other country's citizens. Their reserves of resilience were certainly not endless-but their resilience often ended with the end of their lives: by default or by design.

The worst the vast majority of the Japanese population had to endure was food shortages and homelessness as a result of Allied bombing.

That is severe in itself, but it isn't living under starvation conditions with no prospect of improvement.

No. The worst the majority of Japanese had to endure was firebombings, immolation and death. Lots of it too. Some 40,000 KIA from the Tokyo firebombings of March 1945, IIRC.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Chicken boy see the recent link I posted
Extract as follows

Invasion Scenarios Killed Wounded Missing Total
Southern Kyushu, followed by Tokyo Plain 40,000 150,000 3,500 193,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu (Japan sur-renders) 25,000 105,000 2,500 132,500
Southern Kyushu-Northwestern Kyushu-Tokyo Plain 46,000 170,000 4,000 220,000

Warspite1

Sorry I cannot read the link - are these Allied casualties only?

Aren't you reading my posts? Git. [:-]

Warspite1

I never read your lousy posts you twat [;)]

In all seriousness CB i'm trying to post using a fiddly IPAD so I did not finish typing mine before yours appeared - soz [:(]

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




I think the Japanese population had an uncommon fidelity / fealty to the Emperor. They would have endured a great deal in his name and at his behest. Moreso than many (including most Western European) other country's citizens. Their reserves of resilience were certainly not endless-but their resilience often ended with the end of their lives: by default or by design.

The worst the vast majority of the Japanese population had to endure was food shortages and homelessness as a result of Allied bombing.

That is severe in itself, but it isn't living under starvation conditions with no prospect of improvement.

No. The worst the majority of Japanese had to endure was firebombings, immolation and death. Lots of it too. Some 40,000 KIA from the Tokyo firebombings of March 1945, IIRC.

The term "vast majority" must not have registered.

40,000 KIA from Tokyo firebombings, but there were an estimated million plus made homeless.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.

warspite1

Two things:

Firstly "reasonable terms" - a) as you say these were not agreed, but even if they were, they were not unconditional (the Emperor). Yes they were pretty similar to what was ultimately signed, but I think the US bent over backwards in allowing the Emperor to stay - rather than the US being unreasonable not to have accepted the January terms (had they been sanctioned).

Secondly you seem to be making an absolute distinction between military and civilian population. I suspect that there would have been a great many civilians - old and young, male and female - taking up arms in the event of a US invasion.

A third point: if the atomic bomb was not necessary and the invasion of Manchuria was the deciding factor for the Japanese, why did they wait until the second bomb had been dropped to give in?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Anyways, I find the question of death by atomic fire versus conventional gasoline firebombings versus death by naval gunfire versus death by high explosives entirely irrelevant. You can bet that in 'preparation' for the battlefield, there would have been huge civilian casualties preceding an Allied invasion. To ignore these likely casualties (incalculable or at least not accurately calculated by the Allies) in a conventional invasion is myopic.

Again, this assumption that an invasion would be the event needed to effect a Japanese surrender...

There was no need for the Allies to invade. The Japanese were offering reasonable terms in January of 1945. Granted, the peace offerings were not offically sanctioned, but to say that the entire Japanese leadership was dead-set on a Gotterdammerung would be wrong. The prospect of the civilian population starving in order to feed the military would only have served to encourage a drive for peace.

warspite1

Two things:

Firstly "reasonable terms" - a) as you say these were not agreed, but even if they were, they were not unconditional (the Emperor). Yes they were pretty similar to what was ultimately signed, but I think the US bent over backwards in allowing the Emperor to stay - rather than the US being unreasonable not to have accepted the January terms (had they been sanctioned).

Those terms are perfectly reasonable. They were everything the Americans demanded, bar the face-saving gesture of allowing the Emperor to remain in power.

It's not as if the Americans had a burning anti-monarchial agenda to push - they let the Emperor stay regardless...

Secondly you seem to be making an absolute distinction between military and civilian population. I suspect that there would have been a great many civilians - old and young, male and female - taking up arms in the event of a US invasion.

I've been saying that there would be no need for an invasion since my first post in this thread, so I can't think of where I'd have made that distinction...

A third point: if the atomic bomb was not necessary and the invasion of Manchuria was the deciding factor for the Japanese, why did they wait until the second bomb had been dropped to give in?

Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th.

The Soviet invasion was on August 9th as was the bombing of Nagasaki.

Hirohito's broadcast was on August 15th.

I think you can agree that six days is a pretty reasonable time-frame for a government to get the full details and make an informed decision to act.

Food for thought: If the Atomic bombs were necessary and they were the deciding factor for the Japanese to surrender, why did they wait until the second bomb before giving in?

simple answer...YES!

Annoyingly I will have to answer one by one on this IPAD

Re the demands, as I said, I believe the demand for unconditional surrender was not unreasonable. The fact that ultimately the US allowed Hirohito to remain was sensible under the circumstances and showed flexibility on the part of the US.

I suspect we will never agree so will just have to agree to disagree on the point of what was reasonable.

Re the distinction between military and civilian - it does not matter whether there is an invasion or not. You say the civilian population would not allow the military to starve them and would force a surrender with no need of an invasion. Again we will have to agree to disagree. Whether an invasion or an attempt to starve the population is carried out, I see no reason for the large part of the Japanese populace to suddenly throw in the towel. In the absence of the bomb, an invasion would have been necessary but either way, it would have been horrendous for the Japanese people in terms of lives lost.

Re why did Japan wait for the 2nd bomb? To be crude about it, I think they needed time to understand and take in just what the ?£&@ had hit them at Hiroshima. By the time they realised this was serious number 2 had landed. BUT even then there was further delay and indecision on their part.

Two cities obliterated and Manchuria being overrun and still there was doubt as to whether surrender was the right course of action for their people.....

It's been an interesting debate as ever mind_messing but I will never be drawn to a different conclusion on this.

Captain Ramsey, you were right all along [;)]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




The worst the vast majority of the Japanese population had to endure was food shortages and homelessness as a result of Allied bombing.

That is severe in itself, but it isn't living under starvation conditions with no prospect of improvement.

No. The worst the majority of Japanese had to endure was firebombings, immolation and death. Lots of it too. Some 40,000 KIA from the Tokyo firebombings of March 1945, IIRC.

The term "vast majority" must not have registered.

40,000 KIA from Tokyo firebombings, but there were an estimated million plus made homeless.

Aye, but in your previous postings, we were only to consider death (not wounded or other injuries) in our cold calculus. Surely, "just" being homeless wouldn't rise to your challenge, would it?

I've not seen any reasoned calculation of the numbers of Japanese made homeless on Kyushu by an Allied invasion.