[Daruhuw]

The British condoned firebombing because they argued that precision bombing was impossible, and yet, the US proved that to be a lie. How "precision" do you think a bunch of big azz bombers, travelling at several hundred miles per hour, and loaded with 500 pound, unguided bombs are going to be?

Why then, did the US conduct such a heavy firebombing campaign in Japan? Cause making a roundtrip flight from London to Tokyo was impossible???

[violalmina]

Originally posted by General Ludd


It shouldn't take hindsight to know that blowing thousands of people up is a bad thing. wow you're the last person I would expect to say this!

[KirillAristov]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Summary? Summary of article: the US is evil because we had no good reason to use the nuclear bomb on Japan.

I disagree with the article. The nuclear bomb did shorten the war considerably which was a very good thing. I saw on documentary on the History channel last night about secret planes of WW2. Japan and Germany were developping new jet planes that were far superior to the planes the Allies had. If the war had been allowed to continue for another year or two and Japan had begun mass production of its new jet planes, Japan could have turned the tide of WW2 back in its favor. This would have been disastrous.

Dropping the nuke on Japan was the right thing to do.

[intendepods]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I have yet to work out how the Rape of Nanking was 'liberating' the Chinese population there. That's what they said. We knew they were bad guys all along. Japanese efforts in invasion, annexation, or disruption of daily activities had been in full swing since some point during the Ming dynasty, with the first 100 years or so of the Qing dynasty an exception, when the power of Imperial China was at its peak.

[pataagusata]

Originally posted by techumseh


Their equipment and tactics for mobile warfare were superior to those of the British and Americans, who were more casualty averse and overly dependent on airpower. The Red Army had fought the Germans for 5 years and were proficient in blitzkrieg tactics.

In Aug 1945, the Japanese had 49 divisions and 2000 aircraft facing the Soviets. The Red army had a 1.2:1 edge in manpower and a 5:1 superiority in tanks and a 2:1 edge in aircraft. The attacked on Aug 8, and the Kwantung Army began surrendering on the 18th. During this time a very rapid advance liberated most of Manchuria and killed up to 80,000 Japanese combatants. Nearly 600,000 prisoners were taken. 8,000 Soviets were killed. The area taken was about the size of France and Germany put together and had much more primitive communications.

So Ted's statement is inoperative. The red army did a superb job in manchuria, but how do you back up your claims that the allies were less effective at blitzkrieg? The allies blitzkreiged through western europe even faster than did the soviets through eastern europe despite the fact that the soviets had greatly superior tanks to the allies throughout the war.

I doubt we could be sure which was truly better at that type of warfare in the absence of any battles that pitted the one against the other.

[Pszinygv]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It's not there weren't cities in Manchuria. In fact there were lots. There's not much difference between attacking a city and attacking an island - you need to dig out an entrenched enemy in both cases. Blitzkrieg was developed on the plains of Western and Eastern Europe, which included cities.

Totally different from amphibiously assaulting a fortified island.



Besides, why would anybody want to attack into an underground cavern? That appears to be a strategic mistake. You just screen it with infantry and clear the rest of the island. They have to come out sooner or later. If there are civilians in there it's highly unlikely that you can save them anyway. I'm sure your tactics would have worked better than the Marine and Army commanders on the ground that ordered this very thing.

[Tic Tac Took]

Originally posted by Dissident
and to think, if we hadn't waited so long to negotiate peace, perhaps Korea would not be divided today.

Nah. The U.S. had no chance to occupy Korea immediately. The only real hope for a united Korea lay in the U.S. staying out of the country, as in the wake of the Japanese collapse, a revolution rolled across the peninsula.

[indartwm]

Originally posted by Geronimo


The red army did a superb job in manchuria, but how do you back up your claims that the allies were less effective at blitzkrieg? The allies blitzkreiged through western europe even faster than did the soviets through eastern europe despite the fact that the soviets had greatly superior tanks to the allies throughout the war.

I doubt we could be sure which was truly better at that type of warfare in the absence of any battles that pitted the one against the other. See my other post. It's not true that the western allies moved faster than the Soviets. There were only two major allied breakthroughs on the western front, one in Normandy and the other after the Rhine crossing at the end of the war. In both cases, they only occured when German strength was depleted and reserves were non-existent. There's no case that I'm aware of of a major Allied breakthrough where the Germans still had a mobile reserve.

As for the Allied blitzkreig (liberation of France), the Soviets liberated double the territory during the same period. Better tanks, better tactics, less risk aversion and less dependence on airpower to clear the way made the difference. BTW, the British with a severe shortage of manpower by the end of the war, were considerably less aggressive than the Americans.

[SeLvesTr]

Originally posted by Dissident
you don't think racism had anything to do with the use of the bomb?

I doubt they would have used it on the germans. umm, it was developed with the intention of using it on the germans

it was only used on Japan because the Germans were finished

Jon Miller

[CurtisTH]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


How "precision" do you think a bunch of big azz bombers, travelling at several hundred miles per hour, and loaded with 500 pound, unguided bombs are going to be?



Cause making a roundtrip flight from London to Tokyo was impossible??? I think you misunderstand. The point wasn't that the British didn't firebomb Tokyo, but that the US was capable of firebombing both Germany/Occupied Europe and Japan, and they chose to conduct firebombing in Japan, and precision bombing in Europe.

Also, let me clarify my descriptions. The bombing conducted by Britain, and the US over Japan, was "area bombing." This meant that there was no attempt at aiming for military/industrial centers, and that, in order to make it effective, the bombs were dropped over the densest urban centers. Now, given Europe's history, the industrial areas were generally outside cities. In order to conduct their bombing campaign, Britain (and the US in Japan) had to ignore industrial targets.
The British in Europe claimed that it was impossible, or too costly, to bomb Germany in the day-time, and that this was the reason for the necessity of firebombing. Yet, the US, for whatever reason, refused to believe this, and ran its air-raids in the day-time. With the extant bomb sites, and some experience, it was quite possible to strike industrial complexes and military compounds without any need to, say, obliterate Dresden.
My point is that, given the above, why did the US choose to forego firebombing in Germany, but not in Japan? And for the record, it had nothing to do with air defense, as Germany's air-defense network was much more advanced and effective than Japan's.

As to the sneak attack on US soil argument, that doesn't really hold weight. 3000ish people died at Pearl Harbor. It was almost unprovoked, and is certainly not justifiable. Also, let me point out that I do not deny that the Japanese conducted fairly routine atrocities. However, we knew, in 1942, that Germany was conducting atrocities on a much higher scale. The point is that 3k military personnel doesn't really stack up well against 100k people, many civilians, in the firebombing of Tokyo alone. Besides, technically, Germany was attacking us all through 1941, as their U-boats were targetting American ships going to England.

[bridsanaeds]

you don't think racism had anything to do with the use of the bomb?

I doubt they would have used it on the germans.

[Sadsidioribre]

Let me see if I understand you well Jefftest

So, on one side, we have the Japanese, ready for
... "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" ...

even tfrom slow starvation:
... Some estimates say that over 10 MILLION civillians would have starved due to problems in transporting the rice that would be available, ...

And this, seemed to be very well known in the US
... Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries ...

So, if they are ready for millions deads, Truman knows that 100,000 is certainly not enough for a surrender. As a proof, the bombing of Tokyo.
... And 100,000 killed in this firebombing ...

and [Truman thinks] that the death by A-bomb is not worst than a firebombing or starvation
... is sooooo much better than 100,000 killed in an atomic bombing exactly how? ... Because it's just oh so much worse to die in a blast or of eeeeevil radiation, than to starve to death slowly over the course of several months with your belly distended, helplessly watching your family slowly die too. ...

So, as you say:
... This is the context. Now, at this point, Truman has a shot at ending the war quickly and decisively, using what they think of at the time as basically just a really big conventional bomb. What realistic alternative do you see?

Ok, let me try:
Now, at this point, Truman thinks to himself: "A people ready to sacrifice the entire nation, to die from starvation by millions, is not ready to surrender if we firebomb Tokyo. BUT... these same people will certainly surrender if we bomb some provincial city with just a really big conventional bomb. So, gentlemen, let's kill only a few 100K of them instead of millions. They will be so scared by dying fast and in so small amounts that they will surrender."

Uh ?!? Does not sounds very realistic to me...

Common, be serious. I do not believe they were not ready to surrender. Neither were they ready to surrender.
I believe they were divided.
The gambit of "let's drop a really big conventional bomb, on those crazy millions of kamikaze, kill a few hundred thousands and we hope they will surrender", sounds far too unrealistic, too risky, to be played on the info Jefftest gave us.
I think the US knew what they were doing.
I believe the US knew that some Japanese were ready for surrender, but those Japanese were weak, a minority among the militaristic class.
Those guys needed a psychological moment to propose surrender to their countrymen, a moment that also allowed them not to lose face, very important to Asians.
I think there were contacts between those guys and the US.
The A-bomb allowed them to surrender without losing face.
The Japan vase, at that time, was fragile and ripe for the psychological push.

I don't know what would have happen without the A-bomb, but I will say neither that it was needed, nor that it was useless.
It was the choice that had to be made... and maybe... I say maybe ... that the intimidation of the russians was only the small point that helped making a decision.
I agree that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed sacrificed, that it was needed, that it has shorten the war and reduced the number of victims on both sides.

But I have to confess that Jefftest's propaganstration almost made me believe the exact opposite.

[Imampaictjg]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Besides, do any of us know what the Soviet forces were capable of transporting by water during 1945? A little bit less than not much.

[dAy2EWlg]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Manchuria = Foreign occupation with severe supply problems

Japan = My home and family and I'll kill you even if the only thing left I have to fight with is my teeth Not so. Manchuria was a production base for Japan. They were making the stuff locally.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Also witness the invasions of places like Iwo Jima which have already been mentioned and the casualty figures add up. Does that mean the Soviets fought better than the Yankees?

[sharpyure]

and to think, if we hadn't waited so long to negotiate peace, perhaps Korea would not be divided today.

I'm beginning to think dropping the bomb was a mistake. We should have never done it.

[NanoKakadze]

Originally posted by monkspider
The fact that the Atom Bombs played a large part in the Japanese surrender is a long-held myth. I've actually done quite a bit of study of World War II from the Japanese perspective in my day (which is quite interesting in how different they view the war than us, for them it was always all about China, but I digress). Anyway, at the time they were used, the feelings of the Japanese generals toward the bombs were "we can live with it". They made the rather sound arguement that the atom bombs were less effective than the fire-bombing campaigns that had killed and displaced so many millions. Also, they (correctly) assumed that since it was such a technology the Americans couldn't have more than two or three bombs (they were right).

The real reason the Japanese surrendered was the ruthless campaign of fire-bombings, which showed that the Allies would kill every last Japanese person if necessary, and the Soviet campaign in Manchuria. Remember, it was always about China to them. Even until late in the war, they believed that if they could just settle "the China incident", they could turn the tide on the westerners. The Atom Bombs did not do much to bring the Japanese to surrender. it is unfortunate that this myth is so well-ingrained in the American psyche. If the atom bombs were less harmful than the firebombings then they do not deserve any special attention for their use. How can we condemn the US government for switching from a more harmful weapon to a less harmful one?

Furthermore, if the atom bombs were less harmful than the firebombings and the US populace believed that atom bombs were so terrrible that they could end a war all bythemselves how is this horrible? It was precisely this fear of atom bombs which prevented ww3 and I doubt anyone sees that as a bad thing.

In the final analysis if everything in your post is correct none of it makes a whit of difference. Use of the atom bombs was at worst no more immoral than the firebombs and in any case the war ended right after they were used.

So far Monkspider has revealed the truth about two widely believed myths.

1. The Mongols did not exist.
2. the atom bombs had no effect on the decision of the japanese government to surrender.

Such insights! Where can I find out aout the other misconceptions you have discovered?