Sources: North Korea test-fires missile

[Azure]

Well... I'm certainly not advocating the fire-bombing campaign, but from what I've read/heard, Japan was basically destroyed by fire before the a-bomb's were dropped. In "Fog of War" they go over the statistics of lives lost in major Japanese cities due to firebombing - beyond staggering. #'s like over 50% were common for city death-rates (according to Robert MacNamarra).

You're probably right. I'm just pointing out that HAD the US and the rest of the allies actually attacked Japan by military force instead of with an A-Bomb, more innocent civilians would have died.

I actually think there are millions of Japanese who are still 'miffed' about it. But they're the LOSERS, so they don't have a right to complain. They're not friends with the US by choice, they're friends with the US because the US constructed their current political/economic systems... and they're working great, no need to complain. That said, Japanese xenophobia is still fairly rampant, and it doesn't exclude Americans.

The US "helped" reconstruct their economic and political system, but by no means did they do it without Japanese help. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" a phrase that the US should severly examine with the situation in Iraq. Japan played a major role in their shift to a democratic nation, and now, they have the second biggest economy in the world.

Well, as much as I (apparently) can't say that the a-bomb wasn't necessary, you can't say that 'the US or the Soviet Union would have dropped it on the opposing country'. Neither happened, so we can't know. All I know is the sorry state of affairs Japan was in pre-bomb.

Can't argue with that.

Yeah, but for whatever reason you kept responding to it. I think I was commenting on someone else' post and you jumped in.

For what its worth, I like debating about history and such, so I hope you don't mind me taking your comments towards other people and responding to them.

This is all inconsequential. Germany was NOT defeated upon the entry of the US into the war. While we now believe, in hindsight, that the allies always had the upper-hand (long-term), at the time it was a toss up. People didn't 'know' in 1942 that Hitler was going to be defeated, not by a longshot. Hell, I dont' think the world 'knew' it was over even after Normandy, it was a pitched battle in Europe.

I said the defeat was inevitable, not instant. The US was like a breath of fresh air for the allies, and everyone knew Germany couldn't hold out much longer. Not to say that the US came and won the war, because there is still a good chance that the allies, without the US could have done the same, but you had a Germany that was falling apart, Hitler making bad military decisions, and suddenly you add another superpower to the equation.

Result? Defeat of Hitler and the Third Reich.

My point was that, at the time of the bomb, Japan was finished. I don't really believe the arguments that 'they could have kept fighting for months'. They could... but only with their fists and feet... everything else was on fire.

Well the Japanese certainly weren't short of people willing to die by suicide for their country. Who knows how the rest of the country would have acted?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're probably right. I'm just pointing out that HAD the US and the rest of the allies actually attacked Japan by military force instead of with an A-Bomb, more innocent civilians would have died.

Sure. And my point is they didn't have to attack Japan (time was certainly on the Allies side at this point). They could have (and were) burned the entire island with another month of bombing.

The US "helped" reconstruct their economic and political system, but by no means did they do it without Japanese help. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" a phrase that the US should severly examine with the situation in Iraq. Japan played a major role in their shift to a democratic nation, and now, they have the second biggest economy in the world.

Japan did not develop its political/economic institutions intially. The US did not 'help', they 'forced' these institutions in Japan. They also pardoned thousands and thousands of Japanese war criminals so that they could re-enter Japanese industry and get things going there again. MacArthur ruled that place like a God. He wasn't there 'helping out and tidying up'. He was re-making the nation, western-style.

For what its worth, I like debating about history and such, so I hope you don't mind me taking your comments towards other people and responding to them.

No, I don't mind, except that you were in agreement with me about why the US comes up in conversation (apparently), so I wasn't sure what we were talking about here.

I said the defeat was inevitable, not instant. The US was like a breath of fresh air for the allies, and everyone knew Germany couldn't hold out much longer. Not to say that the US came and won the war, because there is still a good chance that the allies, without the US could have done the same, but you had a Germany that was falling apart, Hitler making bad military decisions, and suddenly you add another superpower to the equation.

And like I said earlier, while hindsight may prove that the allies were probably going to win, at the time it was a total toss-up, up to and even after D-Day, from the point of view at the time. The allies did not 'know' that Hitler's defeat was inevitable when the US entered the war. Not even close.

Well the Japanese certainly weren't short of people willing to die by suicide for their country. Who knows how the rest of the country would have acted?

I heard they were training very young boys and women to fight at that point. Sounds like they were running short of people trained to die, if not willing. I'm sure the US Marine Corps. would have made short work of armed Japanese civilians, despite their willingness to die for their cause... especially with a path of fire leading the way.

[Azure]

Sure. And my point is they didn't have to attack Japan (time was certainly on the Allies side at this point). They could have (and were) burned the entire island with another month of bombing.

Micheal Savage(I know you don't like him, as most people here won't) was talking about this the other night. I usually don't listen to him, but he had a very good point. The US has on one carrier ship more military strength and power through the Air Force then any other Air Force in the world.

Yet they still send their "boys" to run into building, into an inevitable suicide situation, instead of making use of that military might.

You make a very good point.

Japan did not develop its political/economic institutions intially. The US did not 'help', they 'forced' these institutions in Japan. They also pardoned thousands and thousands of Japanese war criminals so that they could re-enter Japanese industry and get things going there again. MacArthur ruled that place like a God. He wasn't there 'helping out and tidying up'. He was re-making the nation, western-style.

So whats the problem in Iraq? History teaches us a lot of things, so to look at history, it is sucessful to force democracy on such people, as 60 years down the road they're loving every minute of it.

No, I don't mind, except that you were in agreement with me about why the US comes up in conversation (apparently), so I wasn't sure what we were talking about here.

Ah heck, neither do I.

And like I said earlier, while hindsight may prove that the allies were probably going to win, at the time it was a total toss-up, up to and even after D-Day, from the point of view at the time. The allies did not 'know' that Hitler's defeat was inevitable when the US entered the war. Not even close.

Fair enough.

I heard they were training very young boys and women to fight at that point. Sounds like they were running short of people trained to die, if not willing. I'm sure the US Marine Corps. would have made short work of armed Japanese civilians, despite their willingness to die for their cause... especially with a path of fire leading the way.

I have no doubt that Japan was falling apart, but I do not know how far their citizens would have gone to protect their homeland. How far would you go to protect our great country?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

So whats the problem in Iraq? History teaches us a lot of things, so to look at history, it is sucessful to force democracy on such people, as 60 years down the road they're loving every minute of it.

This is actually a point I like to make a lot; people are often too willing to ignore the past and its lessons when dealing with the future. At the same time, though, contemporary realities have to be included in context. We could look at much more recent history, the Vietnam War, and draw conclusions that you cannot 'force democracy' on a people successfully. Now there are differences between Iraq and Vietnam... but I believe these conflicts are probably closer in nature, scope, and relevance, than any WWII examples. More has happened in the previous 60 years technology/development-wise than any period in history. Things are fundamentally different today, comparisons with 40's Japan and Germany are tough. But obviously a difficult point to debate, given that we'll never know.

I have no doubt that Japan was falling apart, but I do not know how far their citizens would have gone to protect their homeland. How far would you go to protect our great country?

Pretty far. And this viewpoint is a fairly commonly held one - that the US saved US lives by using the A-bomb rather than invading. For all I know its the truth, but when I look at the dire situation in Japan, I can't fathom how much longer the resistance would continue while A) Japan was entirely cut off from resources, B) Japan had already lost millions of its most able soldiers, C) Japan was on fire.

[Azure]

This is actually a point I like to make a lot; people are often too willing to ignore the past and its lessons when dealing with the future. At the same time, though, contemporary realities have to be included in context. We could look at much more recent history, the Vietnam War, and draw conclusions that you cannot 'force democracy' on a people successfully. Now there are differences between Iraq and Vietnam... but I believe these conflicts are probably closer in nature, scope, and relevance, than any WWII examples. More has happened in the previous 60 years technology/development-wise than any period in history. Things are fundamentally different today, comparisons with 40's Japan and Germany are tough. But obviously a difficult point to debate, given that we'll never know.

Yep, the lessons of history. How many times do we forget about them?

I agree 100%.

Pretty far. And this viewpoint is a fairly commonly held one - that the US saved US lives by using the A-bomb rather than invading. For all I know its the truth, but when I look at the dire situation in Japan, I can't fathom how much longer the resistance would continue while A) Japan was entirely cut off from resources, B) Japan had already lost millions of its most able soldiers, C) Japan was on fire.

I would go pretty far too.

But, what you're saying is that the US/Allies could have continued their "siege" and eventually Japan would have given up?

I understand your viewpoint, but like the situation in Iraq, I'm sure there were people calling for the brutal war to end.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

But, what you're saying is that the US/Allies could have continued their "siege" and eventually Japan would have given up?

Well... eventually (like within weeks/months) the entire place would be destroyed by fire. Their cities were (largely) made of paper and wood. The death-rates pre-bomb were staggering... I wouldn't be surprised if something like 5-10% (or more) of the entire population was killed due to bombings (many cities lost 50%+). They were highly effective, and Japanese officials later claimed that they realized when the whole island was on fire that they could not continue on. The Bomb was just icing on a ready-to-eat cake.

I understand your viewpoint, but like the situation in Iraq, I'm sure there were people calling for the brutal war to end.

I'm pretty sure this is the era of the Nip and Jap, I doubt there were thousands of hippies calling for mercy for the Japanese people, unfortunately.

[Azure]

Well... eventually (like within weeks/months) the entire place would be destroyed by fire. Their cities were (largely) made of paper and wood. The death-rates pre-bomb were staggering... I wouldn't be surprised if something like 5-10% (or more) of the entire population was killed due to bombings (many cities lost 50%+). They were highly effective, and Japanese officials later claimed that they realized when the whole island was on fire that they could not continue on. The Bomb was just icing on a ready-to-eat cake.

All at the cost of more innocent life. As wierd as it may seem, I'm glad that the US dropped the A-Bomb, and made Japan into what they are today.

I'm pretty sure this is the era of the Nip and Jap, I doubt there were thousands of hippies calling for mercy for the Japanese people, unfortunately.

Maybe not with such a large population, but I'm positive there were people calling for the US to get out of the war. The whole idea of isolation comes to mind.

[FireFly]

The Japanese were known for their kamikaze approach to war. It wasn't just the planes that did it, all Japanese soldiers had that attitude. For the life of me I can't remember the name of the Japanese island outpost the US was forced to take, but even when it was long clear that the Japanese government was not sending further supplies, the soldiers there still held out to the point that when they finally surrendered, there were only something like 15 soldiers remaining.

If the US did not drop the atomic bomb, they would have had that same attitude for quite a while and the war likely would have lasted for months longer with thousands more US casualties. By that time the world was sick of the war and it needed to end.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

If the US did not drop the atomic bomb, they would have had that same attitude for quite a while and the war likely would have lasted for months longer with thousands more US casualties. By that time the world was sick of the war and it needed to end.

Firebombing was much more devestating and effective than atomic weapons. The A-Bomb was not required to defeat the Japanese, the island was already on fire, with massive amounts of their population destroyed. Despite your claim, the war would not have dragged on, there's nothing really to point that way. Maybe a few more months of bombing, tops, at which point they could choose to all die, or surrender. There was never a need to invade the island, they were doing just find obliterating it from the sky.

[Cowperson]

The Japanese were known for their kamikaze approach to war. It wasn't just the planes that did it, all Japanese soldiers had that attitude. For the life of me I can't remember the name of the Japanese island outpost the US was forced to take, but even when it was long clear that the Japanese government was not sending further supplies, the soldiers there still held out to the point that when they finally surrendered, there were only something like 15 soldiers remaining.


You can pick pretty much any naval, land or air campaign involving the Japanese in World War II and find most of those involved fighting to the death and or committing suicide rather than surrendering . . . . casualty rates usually topped 95% to 99% for Japanese soldiers.

It wasn't just one island. It was every island. Every campaign.

In one of the last major land campaigns of the conflict, thousands of Japanese CIVILIANS committed suicide rather than surrender.

You can debate whether or not Japan could have been starved into surrendering by a naval blockade and aerial bombardment versus use of the bomb . . . . . but there was nothing in prior campaigns to that point where anyone should get any idea that the Japanese wouldn't have inflicted a bloodbath on any invaders.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

I think I've read that, in the end, the A-Bomb's did not force Japan's surrender, the Emperor's capitulation did. Supposedly, without that, the Japanese would have all fought to the end. I assume the A-Bomb helpd the Emperor along in that decision, but I'm not sure that the firebombing wouldn't have done the same thing over another month or two. The devastation would have been even worse than the A-Bombs.

But obviously history is done, kind of hard to surmise what would have/could have happened at this point.