Hiroshima And Nagasaki

[Hominus Feralis]

The atomic bombs in Japan prevented the inevitable invasion and take-over of Japan. Do you think that more than 200,000 deaths (the amount of deaths caused by the bombs) would have occured in the invasion of Japan. Keep in mind that over 100 millions deaths occured in Europe (NOT including Nazi concentration camps).

[badassbob]

I voted yes. It saved more lives than it ended.

[TweaK]

I voted yes. It saved more lives than it ended. [/b] I second that.

[Hominus Feralis]

Alright, so far thats 3 to 0. KEEP IT UP!!!!

[The Blue Meanie]

Wouldn't a better idea be, to get one of the mods to split off the Hiro/Naga discussion from the Iraq thread, rather than to make a wholly new thread?

[Howie]

Wouldn't a better idea be, to get one of the mods to split off the Hiro/Naga discussion from the Iraq thread, rather than to make a wholly new thread? [/b] I seems rather vague to where it would be a definitive split. So in regards tot his same topic; Respond to this post for a similar topic ---> http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/index.php?...c=37109&hl=

[Hominus Feralis]

50 : 50!!!!!!!!!&#3 3;!!!!!!!! From now on, if you believe that invading Japan would have had a lower death toll, you have to explain yourselves. Tell us how, with reason, how the several battles, bombings, and raids there would have been less than 200,000 deaths. Over a million Soviet soldiers died in the battle of Stalingrad, which was just a single city. Hardly an entire country

[Hominus Feralis]

aite, keep it up.

[Jess]

I voted no. There were a lot of deaths in Europe but Japan's a lot smaller isn't it?! Maybe less people died than would have but to me saying yes is condoning it. I feel sorry for the pilots who dropped it, having all those deaths on your hands...maybe they're heroes to some...I don't look on them badly, just feel sorry for them. I wonder how they feel about it now.

[Tsen]

I voted no because an invasion of Japan was not necessary, so it becomes irrelevant whether it would have killed more to invade than the bombs killed. Continuation of the blockade and willingness to accept a conditional surrender (like allowing the emperor to remain in power) would have been possible with far fewer casualties.

[Ne-yo]

I voted no because for one Truman decided to drop the A - Bomb to deter away from a costly US invasion which didn't matter because Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves. This was just the U.S way of trying to impress the Soviet Union Thus kick Starting the Cold War.

[shark!]

I said no for the same reasons exactly as Ne-yo and Tsen. yah me too, ive always thought this was quite a big reason for the start of the cold war.

[Tsen]

Yup, I too feel that dropping the bombs was a big factor in the start of the Cold War.

[Hominus Feralis]

oh yea, man the dropping of the a bomb started the cold war. but you have to look at the japanese war comittee. before the droping of the a bomb, the counsil unanimously agreed on staying in the war. After the bombing, it was half pro war and half anti war. the emperor had to step in and break the tie (in favor of anti war) Lets face the facts that none of us know if Japan would have given up after isolation. In fact, experts, including Truman and the secretary of war, believed they wouldnt surrender. To say otherwise is really just your opinion, without any fact basis. And impressing Russia has nothing to do with the amount of casualties form the bomb vs. invasion. I suggest you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall for the facts. estimated AMERICAN fatalities for the entire operation were between 500,000 to 1,000,000. estimated JAPANESE fatalities for the entire operation were between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000. It may just be me but any where from 5,500,000 and 11,000,000 is a little bit more than 214,000 (the bombing deaths) Indisputable

[Tsen]

You seem to have an extreme case of selective hearing. Let's try this with caps-lock and in bold: THE INVASION OF JAPAN WAS NOT NECESSARY. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT HOW MANY CASUALTIES INVADING JAPAN WOULD HAVE INCURRED. Japan was not ready to surrender because they were afraid of losing face. They already knew, with no doubts in their minds, that they could no longer obtain their initial objectives. They were being stubborn, but if we simply continued the blockade, cutting them off from the world, they would have been forced to surrender. The process could easily be furthered by a willingness to accept a conditional surrender.

[Hominus Feralis]

Aha, shows how much you know about Japan. Japan at the time was an isolationist. They cut themselves off form the world willingly. I am sure they were full capable of living by themselves.

[TheNocturnalGent]

holy crap, some of you folks need to get your history straight. Dropping the bombs on Japan saved what could have been millions more allied troops. The Japanese beleived that their leader was a GOD. They would do anyhting including sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their families to win for their God. Women and children were trained to fight to the death in the case of an invasion. The only plausible way to end the war was to drop the bombs to convince their leader (who knew himself he was not a god) that we can take him out at any time but the only way to get his people, those worshiping him to stop fighting, even after we killed him was to get him to admit to his people that he was not a God and surrender indefinately to any enemy forces. Stay in school kids. EX: The Battle of Okinawa is distinguished among battles, yet often unrecognized when referring to the great battles of the Second World War. Over 250,000 people lost their lives. Approximately 150,000 Okinawans, about a third of the population, perished.(1) At the battle's end, somewhere between a third and half of all surviving civilians were wounded.(2) No battle during the Second World War, except Stalingrad, had as massive a loss of civilian life. The stakes were high. The Japanese, determined to fight to the last man, almost achieved their objective, but in defeat 100,000 Japanese combatants died rather than surrender.(3) In the end, fewer than 10,000 of General Mitsuri Ushijimas's Thirty-Second Army were taken prisoner. They were willing to die meaningless deaths because their god told them it was the right thing to do and as long as they fought for him they would go to heaven.

[The Blue Meanie]

They were willing to die meaningless deaths because their god told them it was the right thing to do and as long as they fought for him they would go to heaven. [/b] I don't know where you get your information about 20th century Japanese religious beliefs, but wherever it is from, you seem to severely misunderstand things. Traditionally, the Japanese emperor was tied up in the idea of a God. But, in the 2oth century, this was NO different from the idea that the Queen of England was the head of the Chuch of England. The Japanese, in the 20th century, were not cultish savages who believed their emperor was a God. And even if they DID. This contrasts radically with the political reality within Japan at the time. The Emperor, Hirohito, months before the bombings sought to negotiate a surrender. It was the War Council from whom the "fight to the bitter end" rhetoric originated, not the Emperor. He was saying the exact opposite, and in the months before the bombings, he had already established his supremacy over the War Council.

[TheNocturnalGent]

ugh.

[Universal Mind]

The Japanese, in the 20th century, were not cultish savages who believed their emperor was a God. [/b] The Japanese soldiers did believe that the Emporer was God, and they were very willing to fight to the end and die for him. That is why so many of them committed suicide attacks in their airplanes. Interestingly, this afternoon on the History Channel, some American WWII veterans were talking about exactly that. One of the veterans said that the Japanese soldiers were willing to die for their God, the Emporer. Then he said something like, "Our attitude was that if they wanted to die for their Emporer, we were willing to accomodate them." The first nuclear bombing did not make them surrender. It took a second nuclear bombing to make it happen. So why would they have surrendered without a nuclear bombing? Back to my question to the America haters... Why did the Japanese not surrender in the first days after the first nuclear bombing if they were supposedly already ready to surrender before it? (Answers so far: 1. Three days was not enough time, despite the very fast communication and transportation technology. -- Bonsay) Does anybody else dare to answer the question? You are trying to get us to understand your view, aren't you?

[The Blue Meanie]

The Japanese soldiers did believe that the Emporer was God, and they were very willing to fight to the end and die for him. That is why so many of them committed suicide attacks in their airplanes. [/b] The Japanese Kamikaze pilots died "for their country" for the exact same reasons that many American soldiers died in "last stand" situations in the Civil War, the War of Independance, etc. Being a f%&$ing stupid idiot and dying "for your country" is a mentality that is shared by pretty much all major world cultured. In the case of Japan, it was just a little more "hands-on" in the case of Kamikaze bombers. Interestingly, this afternoon on the History Channel, some American WWII veterans were talking about exactly that. One of the veterans said that the Japanese soldiers were willing to die for their God, the Emporer. Then he said something like, "Our attitude was that if they wanted to die for their Emporer, we were willing to accomodate them." [/b] And exactly how much of an understanding do you expect an American army grunt to have of Japanese culture? The History Channel, while entertaining, is far from scholarly and its programs are often "dumbed down". Fromk what I've seen, there is also a strong tendency to use inappropriate sources to support the blanket statements some of the programs make. I'm not saying the History Channel is crap. It's entertaining, mostly right most of the time, and provides a good background... but just don't expect to get a thorough understanding of the issues behind some of the programs it airs. The first nuclear bombing did not make them surrender. It took a second nuclear bombing to make it happen. So why would they have surrendered without a nuclear bombing? [/b] For the umpteenth time, though I really feel by now that this is falling on deaf ears and a closed mind, the Japanese head already indicated their willingness to surrender. What you SHOULD be saying is "Why did Truman not accept Japanese surrender before the bombings, or even after the first bomb?". Back to my question to the America haters... Why did the Japanese not surrender in the first days after the first nuclear bombing if they were supposedly already ready to surrender before it? (Answers so far: 1. Three days was not enough time, despite the very fast communication and transportation technology. -- Bonsay) Does anybody else dare to answer the question? You are trying to get us to understand your view, aren't you? [/b] Man, if you'd seriously read BACK a page or two and stop asking why anyone hasn't answered you, you'll see I already answered your question f%$&ing AGES ago, but, both you and Hominus both decided to ignore me. For your conveniance (and to assuage my own frustration) I'll quote again here what I said in answer to your question days ago: Hiroshima scared the japanese government shitless. Prior to hiroshima, they had basically trumpeted their willingness to agree to a surrender. Fucking asswipe Truman had not only refused to let them surrender, but her had refused to even LISTEN to their offers. Then, he had proceeded to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. The Japanese administration were in a state of panic and confusion - it seemed to them like truman, given his indicated unwillingness to even LISTEN to their offers of surrender, and his subsequent dropping of the bomb... it seemed to the japanese administration that he was not interested in a surrender, and instead wanted to totally destroy and nuke japan. [/b]

[Tsen]

No they weren't. Japan didn't have the industrial resources needed to support their rapidly growing and industrializing nation. Dipwad.

[Hominus Feralis]

Once again, your ignorance of japanese history and culture shows dipwad

[Tsen]

Hominus, you really are being an idiot. Look at Japan--it's an incredibly densely populated island of relatively small porportions, and on that island there is nowhere near enough resources for Japan to create and uphold a powerful military force. That was the entire reason they invaded China--they needed the resources desperately. Cutting off Japan would have effectively reduced their war machine to rubble. Japan set its sights on China, Korea and other countries in Southeast Asia as a result of a critical lack of resources. Japan needed these resources to continue its rapid industrialization and development. After conquering some of the territories of these nations, it started contesting Russia's far-eastern territory and eventually began to invade eastern Mongolia. Japan turned to a government form that was very similar to Fascism as a result of the Great Depression. Although this unique style of government was very similar to Fascism, there were many significant differences between the two and has therefore been termed Japanese nationalism. Unlike the regimes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, Japan had two economic goals in developing an empire. First, Japan's tightly controlled domestic military industry jump-started the nation's economy in the midst of the depression. Japan was forced to import raw materials such as iron, oil, and coal to maintain strong growth in the industrial sector due to the lack of natural resources on Japan's home islands. Most of these raw materials came from the United States. As a result of this military-industrial development scheme and the industrial growth of Japan, mercantilist theories prevailed. The Japanese felt that resource-rich colonies were needed to compete with European powers. Korea (1910) and Formosa (Taiwan 1895) had earlier been annexed primarily as agricultural colonies. In addition to Korea and Formosa, Japan primarily targeted Manchuria's iron and coal, Indochina's rubber, and China's agricultural resources.[/b]

[Hominus Feralis]

they were looking to dominate asia, but their history as an isolationist country would have enabled them to survive.