Atomic bomb

Actually we could repopulate Japan with Germans and vice versa...The Soviet railways definitely could do it!That would make a change, wouldn´t it!

 

Oktoberfest in Yokohama! And the F1 championship won by Schumacher-San!

 

Cripes, those fanatics would have held out for years without an invasion, or the bombs.
Even with the TOTAL submarine blockade, and the B-29 efforts.

Kamikaze ring any bells? Alot of em were just waiting to die gloriously in battle for the Motherland/way of life/heritage, yada yada yada!

After starting all of it, they then hide behind human rights, when they showed NONE to China, Korea, Indo China, Indonesia, Micro nesia, the Solomons, and definately would have done the same to Austrailia, New Zealand, and any/everyone else they could have gotten their Bloody hands on!

They may have even started eating their dead, just to get their chance to die with honor.

Hello, you lost your honor when yer troops were eating dead Austrailian soldiers on New Guinea, and took young women from all occupied territoties and made them into "Comfort" Women for their troops. That's a PC word for prostitute (un-paid).

This (Cannabilism) was admitted in letters home from Japanese soldiers.

I don't know exactly what the "Bushido" (or however it's spelled) code allows, but it seems pretty flexible in its individual interpratations when it comes to anything.

These people Knew "NADA" but what their government/leaders told them. Which was propaganda at its utmost! You were shot if you tried to read the leaflets dropped by allied planes warning of attacks.

That group would have let their whole country die, to avoid admitting DEFEAT.

The A-Bomb is the only thing that broke that Silence, Oppression, Repression, Suppression, and Depression!

With the least damage.....to all.

 

Amen...Skunkworks... They packed the bombs in two by two, with an oxe , a camel and a "too hell with you", a Oh my Lord!....Lord, Lord, Lord!!!!, a oh my Lord!...Lord, Lord, Lord.....LOL...

(Song from the movie "Glory" revised by MARNE)

Regards,
MARNE

 

Quote
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Could they be defeated by bombing and starvation? I mean that would be fine and Ok with me, but how long would you expect that to take? A couple of months, a year, more?
_____________________________________________________________________________________


About 2-3 months according to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey on........ www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm - 164k

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering and would have done so before Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, set to begin in November 1945.

The submarine campaign had practically wiped out the Japanese merchant fleet, and food and fuel were at a critical stage by August, plus the bombing was to be stepped up, destroying crops as well as infrastructure.

 

Anouther factor over looked by western history was the Russians would have invaded Japan if the US did not. The Russians took an island or two in the north and it is still Russian to this day.
That put pressure on the Japanese to find a way out of the war and put pressure on the allies to end the war in their favor instead of the Russians.
It could have ended up like Korea, the northern islands communist and southern islands under US control.

 

Good point TA I agree and the Islands you are reffering to are the Kurile islands.

 

The fact that the SU had just given the Japanese a mighty wallop in invading Manchuria (Op. August Storm, started the very day after Hiroshima) and wiping out the largest concentration of Japanese forces may have given the Japanese Government yet another slight incentive to reconsider surrender...

 

Quote
______________________________________________________________________________________

Anouther factor over looked by western history was the Russians would have invaded Japan if the US did not. The Russians took an island or two in the north and it is still Russian to this day.
That put pressure on the Japanese to find a way out of the war and put pressure on the allies to end the war in their favor instead of the Russians.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Ive seen very good arguments for both sides of that proposition of the the Soviets invading Japan.

The Soviets made amphibious landings in the Kuril islands, Sakhalin island and North Korea, but they were very small compared to the enormous task force the U.S. was planning for Operation Olympic.

The combined Allied naval armada would have been the largest ever assembled, including forty-two aircraft carriers, twenty-four battleships, and four hundred destroyers and destroyer escorts. Fourteen U.S. divisions were scheduled to take part in the initial landings in what was going to be a gigantic blood bath.


By all accounts the Soviets were confident they could invade and Glantz seems to think that they had a good chance of invading Hokkaido, so I'd probably go along with that, but others have argued that it was beyond the Soviets amphibious capabilities.


Quote
____________________________________________________________________________________

The fact that the SU had just given the Japanese a mighty wallop in invading Manchuria (Op. August Storm, started the very day after Hiroshima) and wiping out the largest concentration of Japanese forces may have given the Japanese Government yet another slight incentive to reconsider surrender...
______________________________________________________________________________________

yes,thats right, as I posted some Japanese sources have stated that the atomic bombings themselves weren't the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was not the American atomic attacks on August 6 and August 9, but the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced Hirohito's message of surrender on August 15, 1945 [without a Guarantee for the Emperor]. Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened imperialistic Japan's acceptance of defeat.

 

Couldnt agree more.

 

Can I pose this question?............

If you were the American C in C, with complete control in the campaign against Japan, would you A.... continue the blockade and bombing for as long as it took to force surrender [B-29 casualties in the last series of raids was 0.9%,] or B....invade to try and finish the war sooner and take up to a million casualties?

Naturally this is on the proviso that the bombs didn't force surrender.

 

If you insist on gaining the nickname 'Butcher', go for option B

 

lol, yes

 

Don't think iv'e ever seen a compelling argument for invading.

 

You don't aim at civilians (means you don't make civilians the main target of a military operation)

even to win a war faster, even to spare your soldier's lives.

If you do, you've just made the first step towards terrorism, straight out.

That's my point.

 

I agree Chocapic, but keep inmind that Heroshima and Nagasaki were military towns with Naval Bases

 

That's a good point, when is bombing cities a crime, or 'terror' bombing, and when is it a legitimate warfare target?

As far as I know there were 43,000 soldiers based in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was an industrial city that had turned out the torpedoes used at Pearl Harbor. Its shipyards had built some of Japan's biggest warships.

Were they legitimate targets?

 

probably the most legitimate out of the choices the U.S. had.

Yes im sure there were a few exceptions.

 

Did some cops turned the world trade center into a legitimate target ?

Do you agree on shooting random civilian in retaliation to partizan actions ?

Do you think the potential industrial/military targets can justify the bombings on Varsaw or Belgrade or Dresde or London ?

why the hell US did bother in Vietnam jungle, when they could have nuked Hanoi ?

Like if police used to shoot down somebody with a missile in a crowded street.

I'm not saying nuking Japan was a "bad" option, I'm just saying you don't aim at civilian.

If only the US could admit : "we comitted a crime by deliberatly killing thousands of civilians in order to win the war faster and with less US casdualties" it would be OK with me

 

I say, Chocapic, you are not going to tell me that the French army never killed any civilians, did they? I remember the Algerian war, for instance, to be quite a dirty affair where every FNL was a civilian. Insurgents might be armed, but were civilians anyway. So?

And with less Japanese casualties too, as I thiunk was mentioned somewhere above