Support NeoGAF

[Bracewell]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...inal-more-on-the-yasukuni-controversy/283004/

So yes, I don't think it is shocking that people and governments in East Asia get upset that Japanese politicians yearly visit a shrine that houses terrible war criminals and exposes a idiotic and false historical view that Japan was 'forced' into the War and probably denies any of the war atrocities that Japan has committed, or at least does not mention them (though I am not sure on the last bit).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contr...Yasukuni_Shrine#Y.C5.ABsh.C5.ABkan_War_Museum

The problem is, that the Yasukuni shrine still has the 14 or 15 war criminals engraved on it and that is why its so controversial.
They could easily remove those names, but dont do that for whatever reason.

This, of course, sparks outrage.

With "it doesnt help" I mean the historical reappraisal about the crimes they did.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of the controversy behind the shrine, that really is some stubborn denial and historical revisionism, and it shouldn't be tolerated.

With the purpose of ending the war and saving lives, not to be sadistically cruel like the examples that I listed above or the major major events that werent even mentioned. I don't know about you, but I think purpose and the fact that dropping the bombs lead to the surrender of Japan, which avoided an invasion of Japan, which would have resulted in far more civilian and soldier deaths than the atomic bombs makes it less morally reprehensible than the examples that I listed.

No, see, that's just naïve. There's enough historical evidence that Japan was on its last legs before the bombs were dropped, and surrender was most likely inevitable before a land invasion could even begin. Stating that civilian and soldier deaths would have been higher if we hadn't nuked over 226,000 civilians is baseless speculation. Even Truman's advisers put the estimates of dead American soldiers at around 40,000 in that scenario.

 

[CorvoSol]

He serves no purpose. The British royal family at least have people loving or hating them. The Japanese imperial family? No one cares.

I dunno, Wikipedia says he's still important to the Shinto religion, so there's that at least. I can respect a figure head with religious duties to fulfill a lot more than the tabloid frenzy that was the British Royal Wedding.

Also at least nobody in his family is named Pippa. That's a big plus.

 

[Syph Medwes]

Imagine if Germany never apologized for WW2. Treaty of Versailles part 2.

except no
read economic consequences of the peace hombre

 

[Soyongdori]

*and* the Soviet Union annihilating Japan's most powerful army in a matter of a week.

Yeah, considering the fact that Soviet Union had superior tanks and artillery and superior army with better weapons, japan got curb stomped on both Manchuria and North Korea. I remember reading about Yamada shitting his pants after finding out Japan's Kwantung, 3rd and 5th army literally all got wiped out within few days and most of his soldiers taken as POW.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Oh really? Please tell us more about this "No one cares", because as someone who lives in Japan, I don't see what you claim.

Experiences may vary, but I'm going to have to agree that the Japanese public at-large really don't care about the Emperor. He lives in a walled complex and rarely makes headlines. It's not hard to find young Japanese adults who don't even know his name.

But, as I said, experiences may vary. You live in Japan so you might have a different outlook on it. So, what are some examples where you have encountered discussion or media about the Emperor in Japan that makes you think that he's still an important figure over there? What makes you think he's still important to japanese people as a guest in the country? Honest question.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

U.S. involvement in WWII is heavily over-glorified and romanticized, but the Eastern Front was where the war was won, and it was a bloodbath the likes of which had never been seen.

Um... the other half of WW2 was where the US was much more involved, and all other allies were almost inconsequential in.

 

[Piecake]

Interesting. I wasn't aware of the controversy behind the shrine, that really is some stubborn denial and historical revisionism, and it shouldn't be tolerated.



No, see, that's just naïve. There's enough historical evidence that Japan was on its last legs before the bombs were dropped, and surrender was most likely inevitable before a land invasion could even begin. Stating that civilian and soldier deaths would have been higher if we hadn't nuked over 226,000 civilians is baseless speculation. Even Truman's advisers put the estimates of dead American soldiers at around 40,000 in that scenario.

You are completely wrong. There is no historical evidence that Japan was willing to surrender before the bombs dropped. We have evidence of government documents and communication saying that they werent going to surrender, but were going to make a glorious last stand. They were even training women and children to 'defend' the homeland.

Yes, a government that valued the lives of its Citizens and its soldiers above all else would have given up and surrendered because they were on their last legs and they had no chance of winning. However, it is pretty fucking clear based on the history of the War that the Japanese government and military cared far more of glory, honor, and honorable death, and not surrendering than saving the lives of its militiary personal, even though doing so would have been more humane and in some cases, made better military sense.

A staple of Hiroshima Revisionism has been the contention that the government of Japan was prepared to surrender during the summer of 1945, with the sole proviso that its sacred emperor be retained. President Harry S. Truman and those around him knew this through intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages, the story goes, but refused to extend such an assurance because they wanted the war to continue until atomic bombs became available. The real purpose of using the bombs was not to defeat an already-defeated Japan, but to give the United States a club to use against the Soviet Union. Thus Truman purposely slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Japanese, not to mention untold thousands of other Asians and Allied servicemen who would perish as the war needlessly ground on, primarily to gain diplomatic advantage.

One might think that compelling substantiation would be necessary to support such a monstrous charge, but the revisionists have been unable to provide a single example from Japanese sources. What they have done instead amounts to a variation on the old shell game. They state in their own prose that the Japanese were trying to surrender without citing any evidence and, to show that Truman was aware of their efforts, cite his diary entry of July 18 referring to a “telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.” There it is! The smoking gun! But it is nothing of the sort. The message Truman cited did not refer to anything even remotely resembling surrender. It referred instead to the Japanese foreign office’s attempt (under the suspicious eyes of the military) to persuade the Soviet Union to broker a negotiated peace that would have permitted the Japanese to retain their prewar empire and their imperial system (not just the emperor) intact. No American president could have accepted such a settlement, as it would have meant abandoning the United States’ most basic war aims.

An exchange I had with two revisionists, Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird, is revealing. In the December 2007 issue of Passport (newsletter of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations), I published a short critique of their Pulitzer Prize-winning American Prometheus: the Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Among other things, I accused them of resorting to “semantic jugglery” in falsely equating Truman’s diary reference to “peace” with “surrender,” and pointed out that they had failed to provide “even a wisp of evidence” that Japan was trying to surrender. In their response, Sherwin and Bird in turn accused me of dismissing a “huge body of distinguished scholarship,” but again failed to include a single example of such evidence.

In particular, Sherwin and Bird berated me for failing to refer to Tsuyoshi Hasegawa’s Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. “Hasegawa’s research into Soviet and Japanese archives,” they wrote, “is replete with massive new and important ‘wisps’ of evidence about the causes of Japan’s surrender. It seems telling to us that his work is ignored.” What Sherwin and Bird apparently did not know, or hoped their readers did not know, was that although Hasegawa agreed with revisionists on a number of issues he explicitly rejected the early surrender thesis. Indeed, Hasegawa in no uncertain terms wrote that “Without the twin shocks of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, the Japanese never would have surrendered in August.” So much for the “massive new and important ‘wisps’ of evidence.”

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52502

As for deaths, the battle of freakin Okinawa resulted in like 150-200k deaths. Do you honestly think invasion of Japan would result in fewer deaths? Please...

Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[14] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. The estimated casualty figures later became a crucial point in postwar debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a letter sent to General Curtis LeMay from General Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[54]

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[55]

A study done by Admiral Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[56] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[57] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[58]

In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[59] Admiral Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[60] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[60] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[61] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[3]

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[62]

The Battle of Okinawa resulted in 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds). The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).[citation needed]

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals (awarded for combat casualties) were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[63] There were so many left that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded in the field.[63]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

I mean, seriously, where the hell did you get that 42k number from? did you pick like the absolute lowest estimate?

 

[KHarvey16]

No, see, that's just naïve. There's enough historical evidence that Japan was on its last legs before the bombs were dropped, and surrender was most likely inevitable before a land invasion could even begin. Stating that civilian and soldier deaths would have been higher if we hadn't nuked over 226,000 civilians is baseless speculation. Even Truman's advisers put the estimates of dead American soldiers at around 40,000 in that scenario.

Literally nothing you've said here is true.

Japan was not on the verge of surrender. How can people still think this? Even after the second bomb, and well after the declaration of war by the soviets, the ruling council did not want to surrender. The emperor himself had to step in and force the issue, and multiple attempts were made on his life in response.

We have their classified communications. Their entire strategy was to mount one last, enormous defense and force an invasion. They would then capitalize on the allie's war weariness after a prolonged, bloody engagement on their home island to get surrender terms acceptable to them.

Military casualties alone from such an invasion would dwarf the number lost in the bombings. The civilian death toll would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like pretty good days. Japan, as a whole, was starving. The island had no food and rations consisted of things like pine cones. It's important to realize that the massive body count wouldn't just be from the invasion, but also from simply not having food to feed a population. That means simply prolonging the war, even if there were no invasion, would have resulted in more civilian deaths than the bombs did.

The statement that they were about to surrender is absolutely false. The idea that we can't possibly know the bombs were the best choice out of a group of terrible choices is absolutely false. People, in this topic in particular, fall victim to believing what they wish was true is true.

 

[Toxi]

Edit: Beating a very dead horse.

 

[vas_a_morir]

You are completely wrong. There is no historical evidence that Japan was willing to surrender before the bombs dropped. We have evidence of government documents and communication saying that they werent going to surrender, but were going to make a glorious last stand. They were even training women and children to 'defend' the homeland.

Yes, a government that valued the lives of its Citizens and its soldiers above all else would have given up and surrendered because they were on their last legs and they had no chance of winning. However, it is pretty fucking clear based on the history of the War that the Japanese government and military cared far more of glory, honor, and honorable death, and not surrendering than saving the lives of its militiary personal, even though doing so would have been more humane and in some cases, made better military sense.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52502

As for deaths, the battle of freakin Okinawa resulted in like 150-200k deaths. Do you honestly think invasion of Japan would result in fewer deaths? Please...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

I mean, seriously, where the hell did you get that 42k number from? did you pick like the absolute lowest estimate?

Damn, the "Nuclear bombs were a war crime against innocent civilians in a target with no strategic military value to scare the Russians even though Japan was begging to surrender to the US for months" people just get fucking REKT every time this thread or derail comes up. You'd think they'd learn. How did this thread become about America?

 

[Piecake]

Damn, the "Nuclear bombs were a war crime against innocent civilians in a target with no strategic military value to scare the Russians even though Japan was begging to surrender to the US for months" people just get fucking REKT every time this thread or derail comes up. You'd think they'd learn. How did this thread become about America?

Blame the first poster, the popularity of whataboutism on this board, and an American-centric worldview.

 

[Dicktatorship]

The US apologized to Native Americans and native Hawaiians.

Well to be fair we still have to live with them while those other guys live in other countries. I'd apologize for stealing my co-workers lunch before I'd apologize to stealing some random person's jewelry collection. Why? Because I still have to deal with my co-worker a lot more frequently than some random person who I robbed.

Spoiler

 

[Bracewell]

You are completely wrong. There is no historical evidence that Japan was willing to surrender before the bombs dropped. We have evidence of government documents and communication saying that they werent going to surrender, but were going to make a glorious last stand. They were even training women and children to 'defend' the homeland.

Yes, a government that valued the lives of its Citizens and its soldiers above all else would have given up and surrendered because they were on their last legs and they had no chance of winning. However, it is pretty fucking clear based on the history of the War that the Japanese government and military cared far more of glory, honor, and honorable death, and not surrendering than saving the lives of its militiary personal, even though doing so would have been more humane and in some cases, made better military sense.



http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52502

As for deaths, the battle of freakin Okinawa resulted in like 150-200k deaths. Do you honestly think invasion of Japan would result in fewer deaths? Please...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

I mean, seriously, where the hell did you get that 42k number from? did you pick like the absolute lowest estimate?

My mistake, I shouldn't have said "surrender" when I meant "defeat".

Japan was, for all intents and purposes, "defeated" before the bombs were dropped. They probably wouldn't have surrendered, but they were certainly beaten. A combination of Soviet military might and American blockades/firebombings would have made that a harsh reality, there is historical evidence of this. The bombs were not the only solution, that's just our homegrown propaganda, as is the notion of a "fanatically hostile population".

We had hundreds of bombers reducing Tokyo to rubble in March of 1945. In May, our B-29 superfortresses set Tokyo (which was practically debris at that point) ablaze. We owned the seas and the skies around Japan, enough historians agree that the fanaticism of Japan's leaders (and their soldiers) would have become rapidly unsustainable once they were no longer able to feed and arm their soldiers. The timeline used by the Truman administration was almost entirely an excuse to demonstrate our nuclear capabilities to the world, because Japan could not have held out for that long.

 

[KHarvey16]

My mistake, I shouldn't have said "surrender" when I meant "defeat".

Japan was, for all intents and purposes, "defeated" before the bombs were dropped. They probably wouldn't have surrendered, but they were certainly beaten. A combination of Soviet military might and American blockades/firebombings would have made that a harsh reality, there is historical evidence of this. The bombs were not the only solution, that's just our homegrown propaganda, as is the notion of a "fanatically hostile population".

We had hundreds of bombers reducing Tokyo to rubble in March of 1945. In May, our B-29 superfortresses set Tokyo (which was practically debris at that point) ablaze. We owned the seas and the skies around Japan, enough historians agree that the fanaticism of Japan's leaders (and their soldiers) would have become rapidly unsustainable once they were no longer able to feed and arm their soldiers. The timeline used by the Truman administration was almost entirely an excuse to demonstrate our nuclear capabilities to the world, because Japan could not have held out for that long.

A continuation of the blockades and bombing campaigns would have resulted in many more civilian deaths.

 

[Toxi]

My mistake, I shouldn't have said "surrender" when I meant "defeat".

Japan was, for all intents and purposes, "defeated" before the bombs were dropped. They probably wouldn't have surrendered, but they were certainly beaten. A combination of Soviet military might and American blockades/firebombings would have made that a harsh reality, there is historical evidence of this. The bombs were not the only solution, that's just our homegrown propaganda, as is the notion of a "fanatically hostile population".

We had hundreds of bombers reducing Tokyo to rubble in March of 1945. In May, our B-29 superfortresses set Tokyo (which was practically debris at that point) ablaze. We owned the seas and the skies around Japan, enough historians agree that the fanaticism of Japan's leaders (and their soldiers) would have become rapidly unsustainable once they were no longer able to feed and arm their soldiers. The timeline used by the Truman administration was almost entirely an excuse to demonstrate our nuclear capabilities to the world, because Japan could not have held out for that long.

They were not the only solution, they were the least bloody solution.

The firebombing of Japanese cities killed more people than the two atomic bombs. Our blockades were starving the populace. Invading Japan would have been a bloodbath that dwarfed previous battles like Okinawa in terms of dead.

 

[Piecake]

My mistake, I shouldn't have said "surrender" when I meant "defeat".

Japan was, for all intents and purposes, "defeated" before the bombs were dropped. They probably wouldn't have surrendered, but they were certainly beaten. A combination of Soviet military might and American blockades/firebombings would have made that a harsh reality, there is historical evidence of this. The bombs were not the only solution, that's just our homegrown propaganda, as is the notion of a "fanatically hostile population".

We had hundreds of bombers reducing Tokyo to rubble in March of 1945. In May, our B-29 superfortresses set Tokyo (which was practically debris at that point) ablaze. We owned the seas and the skies around Japan, enough historians agree that the fanaticism of Japan's leaders (and their soldiers) would have become rapidly unsustainable once they were no longer able to feed and arm their soldiers. The timeline used by the Truman administration was almost entirely an excuse to demonstrate our nuclear capabilities to the world, because Japan could not have held out for that long.

What historical evidence? Point it out. If you can't, you are just like those historians in the quote I posted whose argument is based on 'evidence', even though that evidence is either non-existent or just used in a completely disingenuous way.

So, you would prefer widespread firebomibings, mass starvation, and, essentially, the complete collapse of society to dropping the atomic bombs? I mean, that is what it would take them to get them to surrender or give up, because we were already fire bombing them to hell and that certainly did not make them surrender.

You honestly think that that would have resulted in fewer deaths than dropping two atomic bombs? I don't know about you, but that sounds fucking awful, and sounds like it would have resulted in FAR FAR more civilian deaths than dropping two nuclear bombs. Plus, it would have absolutely crippled Japan for years and years to come. There would have been no relatively quick recovery.

Personally, I think bombing and blockading them into collapse and surrender is a bunch of crap anyways. I mean, are there any examples where that has actually worked? Britain? Nope. Germany? Nope. Vietnam? Nope. Japan? Yes, but that was because of the atomic bombs.

If all the evidence is just a lot of supposition and assumptions then that isnt evidence. That is just some people's guesswork. Just like the claim that Truman used the bomb to show off its power. There is no evidence that points to this. There is a crap ton of evidence that suggests that he used it to avoid invading Japan.

 

[CrazyDude]

They were not the only solution, they were the least bloody solution.

The firebombing of Japanese cities killed more people than the two atomic bombs. Our blockades were starving the populace. Invading Japan would have been a bloodbath that dwarfed previous battles like Okinawa in terms of dead.

If we had only blockaded the Japanese, 5-10 million people would have starved to death.

 

[Bracewell]

A continuation of the blockades and bombing campaigns would have resulted in many more civilian deaths.

No. The blockades and bombings were already going on, and yes, civilians were already dying. But we had Japan's terms of surrender, refused them before dropping the nukes, and accepted the very same terms immediately after. Fat Man and Little Boy were what resulted in many more civilian deaths.

Even Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, and senior members of the Office of Naval Intelligence knew back then that dropping the bombs would have given us no advantage over the Japanese that we didn't already have.

 

[Toxi]

No. The blockades and bombings were already going on, and yes, civilians were already dying. But we had Japan's terms of surrender, refused them before dropping the nukes, and accepted the very same terms immediately after. Fat Man and Little Boy were what resulted in many more civilian deaths.

Even Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, and senior members of the Office of Naval Intelligence knew back then that dropping the bombs would have given us no advantage over the Japanese that we didn't already have.

BULLSHIT

 

[CrazyDude]

No. The blockades and bombings were already going on, and yes, civilians were already dying. But we had Japan's terms of surrender, refused them before dropping the nukes, and accepted the very same terms immediately after. Fat Man and Little Boy were what resulted in many more civilian deaths.

Even Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, and senior members of the Office of Naval Intelligence knew back then that dropping the bombs would have given us no advantage over the Japanese that we didn't already have.

That is not how it was, now you are just ignoring the evidence people are posting.

 

[KHarvey16]

No. The blockades and bombings were already going on, and yes, civilians were already dying. But we had Japan's terms of surrender, refused them before dropping the nukes, and accepted the very same terms immediately after. Fat Man and Little Boy were what resulted in many more civilian deaths.

Even Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, and senior members of the Office of Naval Intelligence knew back then that dropping the bombs would have given us no advantage over the Japanese that we didn't already have.

Complete nonsense.

The ruling council REJECTED the surrender terms after the second bombing. Only the emperor could force them to be accepted, and they tried to kill him multiple times to prevent the announcement.

 

[thetrin]

The emperor gives a good speech, and Abe continues to be a complete shit bag. I'm in no way surprised.

 

[Piecake]

No. The blockades and bombings were already going on, and yes, civilians were already dying. But we had Japan's terms of surrender, refused them before dropping the nukes, and accepted the very same terms immediately after. Fat Man and Little Boy were what resulted in many more civilian deaths.

Even Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, and senior members of the Office of Naval Intelligence knew back then that dropping the bombs would have given us no advantage over the Japanese that we didn't already have.

That is just completely false We didnt reject Japanese surrender and accept the same terms afterwards. Where did you get this crap from?

And those people were wrong. They thought Japan was going to surrender because that is what they would have done and thought that their actions were awful and probably felt guilty about it. Actual historical evidence suggests that Japan wasnt going to surrender and wanted a glorious bloodbath where they defended their home from American and Russian invaders.

 

[Branduil]

Do people even think about the consequences of their ideas? Why is the entirety of Japan starving to death slowly a better alternative to the atomic bombs?

 

[Bracewell]

That is just completely false We didnt reject Japanese surrender and accept the same terms afterwards. Where did you get this crap from?

And those people were wrong. They thought Japan was going to surrender because that is what they would have done and thought that their actions were awful and probably felt guilty about it. Actual historical evidence suggests that Japan wasnt going to surrender and wanted a glorious bloodbath where they defended their home from American and Russian invaders.

Complete nonsense.

The ruling council REJECTED the surrender terms after the second bombing. Only the emperor could force them to be accepted, and they tried to kill him multiple times to prevent the announcement.

That is not how it was, now you are just ignoring the evidence people are posting.

BULLSHIT

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/129964

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been

 

[Condom]

People arent patting America on the back for the atomic bombs. They just think it was the best choice out of a slew of terrible fucking choices.

They could have bombed military sites or the emperors' palace instead no? I don't buy the current explanation.

 

[JordanN]

They could have bombed military sites or the emperors' palace instead no? I don't buy the current explanation.

Where do you think they kept them?

 

[CrazyDude]

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/129964

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been

The only evidence of this is from Trohan's article. There is no other evidence of this on either the American side or the Japanese side. The fact that Japan has no record of these so called terms is pretty damning. It is also seems to me very unlikely that surrender terms would be sent to General MacArthur instead of going through diplomatic channels directly to Washington D.C.

 

[Toxi]

They could have bombed military sites or the emperors' palace instead no? I don't buy the current explanation.

They were military sites.

 

[Xenus]

They could have bombed military sites or the emperors' palace instead no? I don't buy the current explanation.

You do realize bombing the Emperor is the WORST IDEA IMAGINABLE right. He is the one that wanted peace. You bomb him and the imperial council makes him into a martyr that just wanted peace and look at what the awful American's did to the peace loving emperor... They would have dug in their heels and circled the wagons even harder on the die to last man ideals...

 

[KHarvey16]

The only evidence of this is from Trohan's article. There is no other evidence of this on either the American side or the Japanese side. It is also seems to me very unlikely that surrender terms would be sent to General MacArthur instead of going through diplomatic channels directly to Washington D.C.

And if a sanctioned attempt to sue for peace under those terms was pursued at that time, how can it be possible that those in charge would not agree to the same terms after two atomic bombings?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

They could have bombed military sites or the emperors' palace instead no? I don't buy the current explanation.

The palace of the Emperor is IN THE MIDDLE OF TOKYO

 

[Condom]

Where do you think they kept them?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Didn't know that actually haha

 

[Bracewell]

The only evidence of this is from Trohan's article. There is no other evidence of this on either the American side or the Japanese side. The fact that Japan has no record of these so called terms is pretty damning. It is also seems to me very unlikely that surrender terms would be sent to General MacArthur instead of going through diplomatic channels directly to Washington D.C.

Yes, that really does bring it into question, in my mind. It could have been a clever fabrication by MacArthur, who clearly had misgivings about detonating a nuclear device. The closest thing to a Japanese corroboration we can have is here.

 

[yamaneko]

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-07-japanese-team-world-powerful-laser.html

 

[DarkFlow]

Has Typist shown up yet?

 

[Toxi]

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-07-japanese-team-world-powerful-laser.html

Wrong thread?

 

[Team Alucard]

You do realize bombing the Emperor is the WORST IDEA IMAGINABLE right. He is the one that wanted peace. You bomb him and the imperial council makes him into a martyr that just wanted peace and look at what the awful American's did to the peace loving emperor... They would have dug in their heels and circled the wagons even harder on the die to last man ideals...

Not to mention at the time the emperor was literally regarded as god. Killing him would have been disastrous and ended any chance of Japan accepting unconditional surrender. It's also why he was never punished for his complicity in numerous war crimes outside of being forced to renounce his divinity. The people would not have tolerated seeing him hang, even though by all accounts he should have.

 

[Xenus]

Not to mention at the time the emperor was literally regarded as god. Killing him would have been disastrous and ended any chance of Japan accepting unconditional surrender. It's also why he was never punished for his complicity in numerous war crimes outside of being forced to renounce his divinity. The people would not have tolerated seeing him hang, even though by all accounts he should have.

Pretty much. You want to see Japan fight till the last man go and kill the Emperor

 

[Condom]

The palace of the Emperor is IN THE MIDDLE OF TOKYO

Regular bombing would work.

Like others said it would be dumb if it actually hit the emperor himself of course, was thinking more as a deterrent. In the end Japan was a total douche in WWII so I can see how they just wanted to mass-destroy cities, how inhumane it may be.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Do people even think about the consequences of their ideas? Why is the entirety of Japan starving to death slowly a better alternative to the atomic bombs?

I get the feeling this sentiment is based on the feeling that the US is immoral for seeking an unconditional surrender. In other words, that the US' greed in acquiring favorable terms of surrender led to the US' continued advance. Therefore, the US need not starve the nation or do a land invasion, but rather they should have I dunno, stopped attacking and tried to negotiate. Also, use a warning nuke and drop luxury items.

obviously, what people don't understand is that without an unconditional surrender, Japan would be torn apart by war within a decade and would persist as a belligerent force against US interests and security for decades to come. I think if your heart bleeds for Japanese people and sympathy for innocent lives, then you must understand why the imperial government could not be allowed to continue. This is the price you pay when you initiate total war against a powerfl nation... you have invited great peril on your country, so it had better be worth it.

 

[Team Alucard]

Unconditional surrender was necessary, and certainly when given the choice between dropping the bombs and a mainland invasion, the former was without a doubt the better decision. What really needs to be asked is whether or not either situation was ultimately necessary, rather if Soviet entry into the war and the subsequent annihilation of the Kwantung in the Manchurian campaign would have been enough on its own to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering.

The timing of the events are clustered so closely together that it's difficult to say really.

 

[Xenus]

Unconditional surrender was necessary, and certainly when given the choice between dropping the bombs and a mainland invasion, the former was without a doubt the better decision. What really needs to be asked is whether or not either situation was ultimately necessary, rather if Soviet entry into the war and the subsequent annihilation of the Kwantung in the Manchurian campaign would have been enough on its own to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering.

The timing of the events are clustered so closely together that it's difficult to say really.

I doubt it. As the Soviets were no near term threat to to main islands. If the US threat to the islands themselves didn't make them back down the Soviets themselves entering wouldn't have. Now if they had shown the ability to strike the home islands as well as the Americans that could ave been a significant factor but only then.

 

[Bracewell]

I get the feeling this sentiment is based on the feeling that the US is immoral for seeking an unconditional surrender. In other words, that the US' greed in acquiring favorable terms of surrender led to the US' continued advance. Therefore, the US need not starve the nation or do a land invasion, but rather they should have I dunno, stopped attacking and tried to negotiate.

Given that the Potsdam Declaration didn't have a clear definition of "unconditional surrender", it basically didn't even give us the favourable outcome we claim it did. The Emperor wasn't dethroned, his prominence in Japanese society dwindled as a natural consequence of being on the losing side.

I find it strange that we're happy to imagine how the war would have been drawn out for months and years, somehow starving the Japanese populace but not eroding the resolve of the Imperial Council, but it's inconceivable that we could have accepted the same terms without resorting to the nukes. How is the former bit of conjecture more valid than the latter?

but rather they should have I dunno, stopped attacking and tried to negotiate.

Well, yeah. We had the military advantage.

Also, use a warning nuke and drop luxury items.

I wanted to ask what this was in reference to, but I'm not sure I want to know anymore.

 

[Xenus]

I wanted to ask what this was in reference to, but I'm not sure I want to know anymore.

Typist in a thread a week or two ago kept advocating that we use a nuke as warning. Just essentially tell the Japanese okay we'll be dropping it at said time in said uninhabited/lightly inhabited place. That they would have surrendered because of "reasons" and it would have been much more humane.

 

[MasterOfPastures]

As I posted previously, Japan's shame is it's ignorance of it's own atrocities. Ignorance is what keeps hawks spouting bullshit and dodging responsibility. They were butchers and brutalizers, enslaving asian nations to the point that colonies felt that they just changed masters for the worse. But none of this is known, or even acknowledged, in the collective Japanese conscience. Such a thing would be unthinkable in regards to Germany.

 

[Piecake]

Given that the Potsdam Declaration didn't have a clear definition of "unconditional surrender", it basically didn't even give us the favourable outcome we claim it did. The Emperor wasn't dethroned, his prominence in Japanese society dwindled as a natural consequence of being on the losing side.

I find it strange that we're happy to imagine how the war would have been drawn out for months and years, somehow starving the Japanese populace but not eroding the resolve of the Imperial Council, but it's inconceivable that we could have accepted the same terms without resorting to the nukes. How is the former bit of conjecture more valid than the latter?

Well, when has mass bombings resulted in a nation surrendering? When has mass bombings resulted in the people rising up and demand that their nation surrender? When has the government surrendered due to mass bombings? I honestly can't name a single one. Can you?

That is why it is far more plausible that the war would have dragged on and on, resulting in mass starvation and the collapse of civil society, because there is ample historical evidence that mass bombings with the purpose of getting the opposite side to surrender doesnt work. And why do you think it would have magically worked if we just kept on doing it a bit more even though it didnt work until that point?

There is no reliable evidence that suggests that the Japanese were willing to surrender on even remotely reasonable terms. I am sorry, but your newspaper article is a bunch of crap. How can anyone take that seriously when that is the only evidence of Japan's willingness to surrender? There is no Japanese evidence nor US government evidence that supports it.

 

[Kin5290]

Regular bombing would work.

Like others said it would be dumb if it actually hit the emperor himself of course, was thinking more as a deterrent. In the end Japan was a total douche in WWII so I can see how they just wanted to mass-destroy cities, how inhumane it may be.

It's good to hear that in 1945 the U.S. Army Air Force already had precision laser guided bombs that could target individual buildings without hitting any of the surrounding city.

Typist in a thread a week or two ago kept advocating that we use a nuke as warning. Just essentially tell the Japanese okay we'll be dropping it at said time in said uninhabited/lightly inhabited place. That they would have surrendered because of "reasons" and it would have been much more humane.

That was actually somebody else. Typist was the guy who advocated air dropping money and valuable goods, marching into Berlin naked to protest the Nazi regime, and challenging Adolf Hitler to a televised debate (in 1930, mind you) to discredit his views. All of these peaceful actions, he alleged, would disband the Nazi regime and remove Hitler from power without any of the bloodshed of WW2.

I also think he advocated offering Kim Jong Un a casino on the Vegas strip and complete immunity from prosecution from any war crimes as a way to encourage him to step down from his position as head of the DPRK.

 

[Lazyslob]

if we never apologize well never advance as a race.

 

[airmangataosenai]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

On China:

Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka said to the people of the People's Republic of China: "The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself.

On Textbooks:

Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki said: "I am painfully aware of Japan's responsibility for inflicting serious damages [on Asian nations] during the past war." "We need to recognize that there are criticisms that condemn [Japan's occupation] as invasion" (Press Conference on Textbook issue).

Korean Occupation:

Chief Cabinet Secretary Kiichi Miyazawa said to the people of the Republic of Korea: "1. The Japanese Government and the Japanese people are deeply aware of the fact that acts by our country in the past caused tremendous suffering and damage to the peoples of Asian countries, including the Republic of Korea (ROK) and China, and have followed the path of a pacifist state with remorse and determination that such acts must never be repeated.

"There was a period in this century when Japan brought to bear great sufferings upon your country and its people. I would like to state here that the government and people of Japan feel a deep regret for this error."

Minister of Foreign Affairs Taro Nakayama said to the people of South Korea: "Japan is deeply sorry for the tragedy in which these (Korean) people were moved to Sakhalin not of their own free will but by the design of the Japanese government and had to remain there after the conclusion of the war" (188th National Diet Session Lower House Committee of Foreign Affairs)

Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu, in a meeting with President Roh Tae Woo, said: "I would like to take the opportunity here to humbly reflect upon how the people of the Korean Peninsula went through unbearable pain and sorrow as a result of our country's actions during a certain period in the past and to express that we are sorry" (Summit meeting with President Roh Tae Woo in Japan).

Comfort Women:

January 1, 1992: Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, in a press conference, said: "Concerning the comfort women, I apologize from the bottom of my heart and feel remorse for those people who suffered indescribable hardships".

Chief Cabinet Secretary Koichi Kato said: "The Government again would like to express its sincere apology and remorse to all those who have suffered indescribable hardship as so-called 'wartime comfort women,' irrespective of their nationality or place of birth. With profound remorse and determination that such a mistake must never be repeated, Japan will maintain its stance as a pacifist nation and will endeavor to build up new future-oriented relations with the Republic of Korea and with other countries and regions in Asia. As I listen to many people, I feel truly grieved for this issue.

American POWs:

Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada apologized to a group of six former American soldiers who during World War II were held as prisoners of war by the Japanese, including 90-year-old Lester Tenney, a survivor of the Bataan Death March in 1942. The six and their families and the families of two deceased soldiers were invited to visit Japan at the expense of the Japanese government in a program that will see more American former prisoners of war and former prisoners of war from other countries visit Japan in the future.

Abe just a few months back:

October 18, 2013: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said: "Japan inflicted tremendous damage and suffering on people in many countries, especially in Asia. The Abe Cabinet will take the same stance as that of past Cabinets."

There are dozens upon dozens of examples not listed either. America has no right to judge Japan in regards to self-reflection.