Happy Anniversary GC!

[decaro]

On Feb. 9, 1943, the World War II battle of Guadalcanal in the southwest Pacific ended with an American victory over Japanese forces.
NYT

Which reminds me of this tidbit from the Washington Times back in 2003:

A proposal to rename Henderson Field on Guadalcanal after Japan's national flower - the chrysanthemum - has angered Marines, who say the "revisionist history" dishonors Americans who fought and died for the pivotal airfield.

... After taking the island from the Japanese in 1942, the 1st Marine Division completed construction of what is now an international airport for the Solomon Islands.

... A consultant group from Japan, hired by the Solomon Islands' government, has proposed that the name be changed to one symbolizing their country ...

The result of the above was published in American Heritage, Oct. 2003, Tell It to the Marines, A PROPOSAL TO RENAME GUADALCANAL’S AIRPORT DOESN’T FLY

... The idea that Maj. Lofton Henderson, the first American pilot to die in the Battle of Midway, might have his name removed from the field to attract a few more Japanese tourists did not sit well at all with Henderson’s fellow Marines ... The idea was quickly withdrawn, and the Solomons government learned a lesson about what happens when you listen to consultants. Beyond that, it also learned the importance of choosing one’s enemies: If you have to fight someone, try not to make it the U.S. Marines.

[tocaff]

The same stuff occurred when the Smithsonian was going to put the Enola Gay on display.  Revisionist history has no place unless it makes factual corrections.  If it offended the Japanese that the Enola Gay would be displayed that's just to bad as I'm sure that Americans found the Pearl Harbor attack rather offensive too.  It's in the past and people need to get over it and let things go and just leave the history (factual) alone.  

[Ike99]

The same stuff occurred when the Smithsonian was going to put the Enola Gay on display. Revisionist history has no place unless it makes factual corrections. If it offended the Japanese that the Enola Gay would be displayed that's just to bad as I'm sure that Americans found the Pearl Harbor attack rather offensive too. It's in the past and people need to get over it and let things go and just leave the history (factual) alone.

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.

[tocaff]

That's why civilians died in the PH attack?  The US repeatedly warned the Japanese about the atomic bomb and got no result.  After Hiroshima the Japanese still refused to surrender so Nagasaki happened.  Every time a dictatorship controls a government the people seem to suffer needlessly.  I'll offer you 2 more examples- 
Nazi Germany was without hope yet their dictatorship refused to surrender a country that was being destroyed.
Argentina's military in the 80s, I believe it was, flying it's citizens who dared to dissent over the Atlantic and dumping them alive into the ocean from the planes.

DON'T JUDGE A DIFFERENT ERA BY TODAY'S STANDARDS.
If your country was at war and the other side refused to give up even in a lost cause who would you prefer to die, your people or the other guys?

[Ike99]

That's why civilians died in the PH attack?

Right, but you won´t see a picture of a Zero strafing a hospital at Pearl Harbor in a museum because they were not the objective. If your a dive bomber pilot...hmmm, let me see, do I drop my bomb on that school bus or that battleship? Easy choice. Civilians are always killed in wars by accident but when you very intentionally make the killing of civillians the objective you have crossed a moral threashold.

Civillians were the objective with the atomic bomb strikes.

[tocaff]

So then Ike, answer this one-  If the US had been forced to invade Japan it was projected that there would be approximately 1 million US casualties.  Judging from your posts that would've made you happy.  So how many Japanese, both military and civilian, would've become casualties?  Do you think that the loses of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would've been dwarfed by those numbers?  I'm not advocating the use of atomic bombs, but they were used under very different conditions than we live in today.  So how do you justify these dictatorships and what they've brought upon their people?  

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... Civillians were the objective with the atomic bomb strikes.

Japan's infrastructure was the target, and infrastructure always resides in a nation's largest industrial cities.

The A-bomb couldn't avoid civilian casualties any more than LeMay's firebombing campaign or the 8th Air Force's bomber raids against Berlin. The only exception I can think of was the firebombing of Dresden, a city which had no strategic significance to Germany's war effort and whose civilian casualties were (initially) greater than those of Hiroshima.

But this isn't really the point of this thread, so before this spirals out of control ...

[Ike99]

So then Ike, answer this one- If the US had been forced to invade Japan it was projected that there would be approximately 1 million US casualties. Judging from your posts that would've made you happy. So how many Japanese, both military and civilian, would've become casualties?

The US would not have been forced to invade Japan, for what? They were finished. They knew they were finished and the Allies knew they were finished.

As a matter of historical record they had already offered to surrender once and were actively pursuing another back channel surrender through the Russians.

The A-bomb couldn't avoid civilian casualties any more than LeMay's firebombing campaign or the 8th Air Force's bomber raids against Berlin.

Your talking apples and oranges Joe.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

The A-bomb couldn't avoid civilian casualties any more than LeMay's firebombing campaign or the 8th Air Force's bomber raids against Berlin.

Your talking apples and oranges Joe.

It's all the same war, Ike; for some reason people tend to think differently about casualties from conventional vs. atomic weapons, but the fire bombing of Dresden must have been as horrific as Horoshima and (initially) had more casualties.

[tocaff]

So we can agree that dead is dead?  Can we also agree that the Allies had agreed that they would not make a seperate peace and that the governments of Gemany and Japan had to be removed?  So is it possible that the terms offered by the Japanese weren't acceptable?  As an aside I would like to know why you seem to dislike the Allies from WW2 so much?  That request is out of curiosity and not trying to bait you.

[DEB]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

The US would not have been forced to invade Japan, for what? They were finished. They knew they were finished and the Allies knew they were finished.

So, why, when the Emperor had decided to surrender, did the military academy cadets attempt a coup to stop him?
The problem was that the Japanese did not what to accept unconditional surrender, and the basis that they did want was unacceptable to the Allies.

and were actively pursuing another back channel surrender through the Russians.

And the Russians "helped" by declaring war on Japan too. Yet even this failed to get Tojo & Co. to accept the Allied terms.

The Atom bombs saved lives all round. If it had not been done, Japan
would have proberly ceased to exist as a nation and possibally as a race; and the Allied losses would have been huge, not least from the "Kamikaze" boats ( already built ) & jets ( being built ) that were to be used to defend the homeland.

[Ike99]

So, why, when the Emperor had decided to surrender, did the military academy cadets attempt a coup to stop him? The problem was that the Japanese did not what to accept unconditional surrender, and the basis that they did want was unacceptable to the Allies.

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.

And the Russians "helped" by declaring war on Japan too. Yet even this failed to get Tojo & Co. to accept the Allied terms.

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

The Atom bombs saved lives all round. If it had not been done, Japan would have proberly ceased to exist as a nation and possibally as a race; and the Allied losses would have been huge, not least from the "Kamikaze" boats ( already built ) & jets ( being built ) that were to be used to defend the homeland.

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.

The bombs didn´t save any lives. Japan was on the edge of starvation. After the Phillipines they had no oil coming in at all. Their entire navy was sunk and their entire merchant fleet. It was over. The only thing that kept them going was the idea of protecting the god Emporer. In the end that´s how it turned out anyways.

Admiral William D. Leahy-the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.

Dwight Eisenhower-During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, attempting to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. . . .”

Henry “Hap” Arnold-It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.

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

[tocaff]

Ike you're in denial.  If Japan didn't surrender and a state of war continued the a war weary US and her Allies would've had to continue fighting.  Say what you will, if nothing else the A bombs forced a beaten Japan to capitulate.  Now please answer the question that I posed prior to the post by DEB please.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

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

It destroyed Japanese infrastructure -- drastic decease in military production -- and forced a conditional capitualtion (political) right after the 2nd A-bomb attack; I don't think the timing was a coincidence.

Curtis Lemay, who was in charge of the USAF bombing campaign over Japan, said something to the effect that, if we kill enough of them (Japanese), they will surrender. It was primitive, it was brutal, but in the end, it worked.

In any event , it saved my father's TD unit a trip to the Pacific.

[bigred]

All of you need to read a book called "The rise and fall of great powers from 1500 to 2000 A.D." by Paul Kennedy.  The argument reminds me that nothing last forever.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: bigred

All of you need to read a book called "The rise and fall of great powers from 1500 to 2000 A.D." by Paul Kennedy.  The argument reminds me that nothing last forever.

By "The argument" do you mean this argument or Kennedy's argument? Did Kennedy have a conclusion short enough for you to post?

[Ike99]

Ike you're in denial. If Japan didn't surrender and a state of war continued the a war weary US and her Allies would've had to continue fighting. Say what you will, if nothing else the A bombs forced a beaten Japan to capitulate.

I´m not in denial. You don´t know your history.

Did the London blitz make the British surrender to the Germans?
Did the carpet bombing of German cities by day and night make the leaders say this is too much we are going to surrender?
Did Saddam surrender in recent times after the US bombed Iraq?

No, it never has this political effect.

The destructions of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc., were not even brought up in the imperial cabinet meetings and had no effect on if/when Japan was going to surrender. No more than the destructions of Berlin, Dresden, and a dozen other cities made the Germans say ¨This is too much, we surrender.¨

If the Allies had not made a pardon for the Emporer the Allies would have had to conduct an invasion of Japan and go in and get him the same as they had to go in and drag Hitler out of his bunker.

The Allies accepting this Emperial condition is what saved lives. Not the use of the atomic bombs.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Ike99
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.

The bombs didn´t save any lives. Japan was on the edge of starvation. After the Phillipines they had no oil coming in at all. Their entire navy was sunk and their entire merchant fleet. It was over. The only thing that kept them going was the idea of protecting the god Emporer. In the end that´s how it turned out anyways.

Oh please. The Japanese had zero intent to surrender prior to the bomb blasts and not just to save the Emporer. They thought they could get "good" terms. Read "Downfall" by Richard Frank. Contrary to the doom and gloom scenario you present the Japanese had far more material than we thought they had. The Americans were stunned to see how well equipped the Japanese were for a final battle in the aftermath of the war. We'd grossly underestimated how many planes the Japanese had and how well they were conserving fuel for the fight. The Japanese lacked deep resources for the long battle but Ketsu-go did not rely on a long-term use of airpower since most of their planes were on a one-way trip. They'd equipped hundreds of suicide min-subs. The kamikazes would be making a short run, at low altitude over rugged terrain where radar would give precious little warning and they'd been told to target the transports. The losses among the transports would have been horrific and the Japs knew it.

On shore it was more of the same from Okinowa and Iwo Jima. Again, the Japos knew where the USA was gonna land and were waiting for them. They had over 650k men on Kyushu to defend it. To make matters worse, they had trained civilian "militia" groups so that any Americans ashore would have faced the nasty problem of being attacked by civilians which, in short order, would have become a "shoot order" on any Japanese person they saw. There's just no way around that. The Japanese understood, or thought they did, they level of American war-weariness and believed they could cause such horrific losses to the Americans with Ketsu-go that they could negotiate better terms, not just the save the emporer bit.

The only evidence of Japanese surrender intent is coming from the Jap ambassador in Moscow who wasn't part of the inner circle of decision makers in Japan, did not have any authority to do what he was doing and was ignored by the decision makers when he did it.

The losses would have been horrific. Estimates on the US side were around 109,000 men KIA - and keep in mind the USA planners were estimating based on forces much smaller than the Japs really had. On the Japanese side the losses are hard to imagine if the 90%+ KIA rate seen on Iwo and Okinawa held up plus the losses among the civilian population which would have been staggering.

Toss in that had Ketsu-go come to place it would have meant months more of tender Japanese mercies being imposed on the captured peoples of Asia which was killing tens of thousands a month plus the likihood of a Soviet intervention which would have added tens of thousands more to the casualty list.

There's just no doubt the bombs saved lives, and not just a few but likely over 100,000 at least.

[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.

Suck it up. You cut a deal.

Done.

[tocaff]

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?