(June 3, 2017 at 2:17 am)Tizheruk Wrote: accept Japan didn't start the war they were pressured into it

---

(June 2, 2017 at 10:19 pm)Fireball Wrote: The consensus is that this cost fewer lives than a land based invasion of Japan. Hate and shame all you want. That shit happened over 70 years ago. Go bring some of your fellow believers into the present, and have them leave their Semtex at home, while you are at it. If you are a True Muslim™ you might think about approaching your radicalized fellow believers and educating a few of them so that they can live in a civilized society.

Actually those statistics have been seriously challenged. And it's been argued that statistically German would take more men  . And thou nuking Berlin had been considered it was considered to awful to do . So I don't buy number of men argument .  The real reason was to intimidate Russia and a general feeling that "Japan Deserved it". And even then they could have gone with one of the earlier suggestions proposed and launched it on an inhabited Island  off the coast .

Berlin wasn't nuked because the Germans surrendered 2 months before the Bomb was ready.

(June 3, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 3, 2017 at 2:17 am)Tizheruk Wrote: accept Japan didn't start the war they were pressured into it

---

Actually those statistics have been seriously challenged. And it's been argued that statistically German would take more men  . And thou nuking Berlin had been considered it was considered to awful to do . So I don't buy number of men argument .  The real reason was to intimidate Russia and a general feeling that "Japan Deserved it". And even then they could have gone with one of the earlier suggestions proposed and launched it on an inhabited Island  off the coast .

Berlin wasn't nuked because the Germans surrendered 2 months before the Bomb was ready.

The invasion numbers have been challenged based on the lie MacArthur told  Marshall when the Chief-of-Staff said that Truman was disturbed by those numbers. Mac wanted his hero points, so he just changed them. 

But let's look at the "numbers". They don't include casualties from the ten atomic bombs Marshall was to be give to use to force defensive positions on Kyushu and Honshu. Tens of thousands of GIs would have been exposed to radiation  because the plan was to march our troops through the target areas as soon as the fires died down, about 30 minutes after the bombs were dropped. 

Also, every adult Japanese was considered by their government to be a combatant, so the Japanese casualties would have been horrific. We also knew that school girls were to be given wood awls and told to stab the tall Americans in the groin. One or two such incidents and young ladies would have shot on sight. So the Allied casualties would have been the lesser of the two total.

(June 3, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 3, 2017 at 2:17 am)Tizheruk Wrote: accept Japan didn't start the war they were pressured into it

---

Actually those statistics have been seriously challenged. And it's been argued that statistically German would take more men  . And thou nuking Berlin had been considered it was considered to awful to do . So I don't buy number of men argument .  The real reason was to intimidate Russia and a general feeling that "Japan Deserved it". And even then they could have gone with one of the earlier suggestions proposed and launched it on an inhabited Island  off the coast .

Berlin wasn't nuked because the Germans surrendered 2 months before the Bomb was ready.

Even if the US had the bomb in time.   Berlin was allocated to the Soviet Union. It was evident Stalin would pay any price to take the city.    It was clear the soviets were going to take most of the remaining allied casualties needed to subdue Germany.   In the end the soviets suffered half million casualties in taking Berlin.  The US was not about to nuke the city and risk weakening German defenses and allowing the soviets to take the city more cheaply.

In any case, Berlin was still one of the world's Great metropolis, on par with London, Paris or Tokyo and much more important than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It was clear German ability to resist was coming to an end.  Nuking Berlin could have very damaging effects on European public opinion, and hand the soviets a great post war propaganda gift.

There was no analogous condition with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It was widely believed the Japanese still had plenty of capacity to resist, the two cities are relatively minor urban locations.  If the war were to continue the US would absorb the bulk of remaining casualties required to subdue Japan.

I'm not sure when for sure, but when Roosevelt told Stalin we had a new weapon of unusual power, Stalin already knew about the atomic bomb and had for long enough to already have started efforts to build a Soviet version.. If Stalin were to have been advised we were contemplating nuking Berlin, he would have been all over himself to help. Clearing troops, secreting diagnostic and test samples in the blast zone, redoubling spying efforts on the technology, anything to gather more intel on the device.

Also, he would have soon learned stealing the device wasn't feasible, but he would have made absolutely sure before gave up the idea.

(June 3, 2017 at 12:38 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(June 3, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Berlin wasn't nuked because the Germans surrendered 2 months before the Bomb was ready.

Even if the US had the bomb in time.   Berlin was allocated to the Soviet Union. It was evident Stalin would pay any price to take the city.    It was clear the soviets were going to take most of the remaining allied casualties needed to subdue Germany.   In the end the soviets suffered half million casualties in taking Berlin.  The US was not about to nuke the city and risk weakening German defenses and allowing the soviets to take the city more cheaply.

In any case, Berlin was still one of the world's Great metropolis, on par with London, Paris or Tokyo and much more important than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It was clear German ability to resist was coming to an end.  Nuking Berlin could have very damaging effects on European public opinion, and hand the soviets a great post war propaganda gift.

There was no analogous condition with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It was widely believed the Japanese still had plenty of capacity to resist, the two cities are relatively minor urban locations.  If the war were to continue the US would absorb the bulk of remaining casualties required to subdue Japan.

Eisenhower made the decision to stop short of Berlin. That had nothing to do with the strategic bombing program. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki were prefect capitals, and the military command centers for their areas.

Quote:It was widely believed the Japanese still had plenty of capacity to resist

This statement is false to quote various figures involved

Quote:“During his [Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives ,” he said. [emphasis added]

Quote:“I was unable to see any justification…for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated Japan. My conclusion, with which the naval representatives agreed, was that America’s least expensive course of action was to continue to intensify the air and sea blockade…I believe that a completely blockaded Japan would then fall by its own weight. Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy

And Truman himself had a 1000 expert panel study the idea and they came to the following conclusion

Quote:“Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945,…Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. [emphasis added

Not to mention the fact Japan was already willing to surrender as the

Quote:a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price.”

The Japanese had 5,000,000 barrels of fuel, 5,000 aircraft reserved for kikusui tactics against the invaders, 3,000 suicide boats, 2,000 midget submarines and manned torpedoes ready to go. The entire population, ~70,000,000 had been ordered to "eat grass and chew dirt" to sustain them while resisting the invasion. Millions would have died if we had to invade. And Japan would have had up to TWELVE Hiroshimas to honor at the Yasukuni Shrine.

---

(June 3, 2017 at 8:22 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:It was widely believed the Japanese still had plenty of capacity to resist

This statement is false to quote various figures involved

Quote:“During his [Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives ,” he said. [emphasis added]

Quote:“I was unable to see any justification…for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated Japan. My conclusion, with which the naval representatives agreed, was that America’s least expensive course of action was to continue to intensify the air and sea blockade…I believe that a completely blockaded Japan would then fall by its own weight. Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy

And Truman himself had a 1000 expert panel study the idea and they came to the following conclusion

Quote:“Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945,…Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. [emphasis added

Not to mention the fact Japan was already willing to surrender as the

Quote:a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price.”

Japan was "ready to surrender" if they got everything they had started the war to achieve. The ambassador in European countries were begging for instructions and the Gaimudaijin wasn't sending them.

(June 3, 2017 at 8:54 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The Japanese had 5,000,000 barrels of fuel, 5,000 aircraft reserved for kikusui tactics against the invaders, 3,000 suicide boats, 2,000 midget submarines and manned torpedoes ready to go. The entire population, ~70,000,000 had been ordered to "eat grass and chew dirt" to sustain them while resisting the invasion. Millions would have died if we had to invade. And Japan would have had up to TWELVE Hiroshimas to honor at the Yasukuni Shrine.

Apparently not  if the above is to be believed

---

Quote:Japan was "ready to surrender" if they got everything they had started the war to achieve. The ambassador in European countries were begging for instructions and the Gaimudaijin wasn't sending them

.
Nope it was peace at any cost. and might I add the Japanese first offer was no different then one that was accepted in the end

(June 3, 2017 at 8:56 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(June 3, 2017 at 8:54 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The Japanese had 5,000,000 barrels of fuel, 5,000 aircraft reserved for kikusui tactics against the invaders, 3,000 suicide boats, 2,000 midget submarines and manned torpedoes ready to go. The entire population, ~70,000,000 had been ordered to "eat grass and chew dirt" to sustain them while resisting the invasion. Millions would have died if we had to invade. And Japan would have had up to TWELVE Hiroshimas to honor at the Yasukuni Shrine.

Apparently not  if the above is to be believed

---

Quote:Japan was "ready to surrender" if they got everything they had started the war to achieve. The ambassador in European countries were begging for instructions and the Gaimudaijin wasn't sending them

.
Nope it was peace at any cost. and might I add the Japanese first offer was no different then one that was accepted in the end

Where do you get this bullshit?

War and terrorism are different by definition. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war, not terrorism. Just because something is terrifying does not make it terrorism. That said, it was horrific.