DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Posted October 23, 2013 OK well straight from the WoW series we're talking about they having a Japanese official saying dropping the bomb wasn't needed and as long as the Emperor was allowed to be kept as a figurehead the Japanese were more than willing to surrender. Truman wanted unconditional surrender yet they ended up letting the Emperor stay. As I mentioned, actual facts go against that. At the end of the war, many Japanese disappeared into the jungle only to fight on and on. You might be old enough to recall all the Japanese soldiers that fought on individually...some up until the 1960s and 70s! Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 OK well straight from the WoW series we're talking about they having a Japanese official saying dropping the bomb wasn't needed and as long as the Emperor was allowed to be kept as a figurehead the Japanese were more than willing to surrender. Truman wanted unconditional surrender yet they ended up letting the Emperor stay. Japan ended up accepting provisions of the Pottsdam Declaration which was unconditional surrender after the Soviets invaded occupied Manchuria and the Americans nuked them a second time. Smart move.... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Boges Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) True....at least the Nazis were rational ! At least? The casualties on both side of the Battle of Berlin were over 500,000. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Battle_of_Berlin_April_1945_casualties They did surrender (individually) at a much higher clip but Germany fought long after the war was obviously lost. Edited October 23, 2013 by Boges Quote
Boges Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 As I mentioned, actual facts go against that. At the end of the war, many Japanese disappeared into the jungle only to fight on and on. You might be old enough to recall all the Japanese soldiers that fought on individually...some up until the 1960s and 70s! How would have invading Japan and beating them that way changed any of that? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Posted October 23, 2013 How would have invading Japan and beating them that way changed any of that? Who knows? Atomic bombs were dropped instead. Remember, I view the world rather as a pragmatist. There are sides...both winning and losing. You don't want to be on the losing side. There is no award or reward for being the loser. Unless you're the Arabs...lol. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 Nukes are far more "efficient" than bombers full of incendiaries, which actually killed far more Japanese than A-bombs. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Posted October 23, 2013 Nukes are far more "efficient" than bombers full of incendiaries, which actually killed far more Japanese than A-bombs. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/08/30/who-made-that-firebomb/ Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Boges Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Which actually killed far more Japanese than A-bombs. Another reason to believe that the A-Bombs didn't have as much of a shock effect on the Japanese as they had seen 60 plus cities destroyed due to bombing. What's the difference, to the Japanese, if it came from one bomber or 1,000 bombers? Edited October 23, 2013 by Boges Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Posted October 23, 2013 Another reason to believe that the A-Bombs didn't have as much of a shock effect on the Japanese as they had seen 60 plus cities destroyed due to bombing. What's the difference, to the Japanese, if it came from one bomber or 1,000 bombers? As BC said...much more efficient. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Boges Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) As BC said...much more efficient. Fair enough. But the claim is that the A-Bomb was decisive in ending the war. Those cities were going to be destroyed by bombing anyway. The catastrophic fall-out wasn't completely evident to any parties involved at the time. Edited October 23, 2013 by Boges Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Posted October 23, 2013 Fair enough. But the claim is that the A-Bomb was decisive in ending the war. Those cities were going to be destroyed by bombing anyway. The catastrophic fall-out wasn't completely evident to any parties involved at the time. This merely echos many of the various scientists' concerns over the use of the Atomic Bomb. Oppy ultimately said 'drop it'. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Fair enough. But the claim is that the A-Bomb was decisive in ending the war. Those cities were going to be destroyed by bombing anyway. The catastrophic fall-out wasn't completely evident to any parties involved at the time. The Americans had the means and the will to end the war in the Pacific America's way, and that's exactly what happened. Pros and Cons of using nukes were weighed heavily as documented here in earlier threads. And guess what..the U.S. would do it again if necessary. Edited October 23, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Boges Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 This merely echos many of the various scientists' concerns over the use of the Atomic Bomb. Oppy ultimately said 'drop it'. And you don't think any of his reasoning was to show off to the Ruskies? Quote
Boges Posted October 23, 2013 Report Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) They detail it WaW how Truman told Stalin about the Bomb at Potsdam thinking he'd have been blown away but he was like Meh. It was later discovered he already had spies imbedded in the Manhattan Project. Edited October 23, 2013 by Boges Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Posted October 23, 2013 And you don't think any of his reasoning was to show off to the Ruskies? Sure. Stalin was indeed a factor and as you know the Yalta conference already had Europe divided-up into spheres of influence. But, as I mentioned, the Soviets lacked the physical means to hurt Japan. Attacking in China was all they really could do. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Posted October 23, 2013 They detail it WaW how Truman told Stalin about the Bomb at Potsdam thinking he'd have been blown away but he was like Meh. It was later discovered he already had spies imbedded in the Manhattan Project. Yes...Stalin already knew about it but not exactly what it could do. The big push to build the Soviet bomb began soon after. Joe-1 was detonated in 1949 and Joe-4...their first H-Bomb...in 1953 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Derek L Posted October 24, 2013 Report Posted October 24, 2013 I've watched this series and it is great, however they should have had more episodes focusing on the eastern front. The war between Germany and Russia was basically 90% of WWII, but its treatment is definitely lacking in this documentary as well as Western education in general. This Russian made movie looks good.......I hope it comes to North America in 3D: Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted October 24, 2013 Report Posted October 24, 2013 The superb ITV/Thames production from 1973 is online. Twenty-six parts plus extras. Brush-up on your knowledge of WW2. Includes many of the big figures 'in person'. http://www.cosmolearning.com/documentaries/the-world-at-war-1973/ Thanks for the link. Watched the 1st episode, pretty good. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
DogOnPorch Posted October 24, 2013 Author Report Posted October 24, 2013 You're welcome. It's amazing some of the folks they interviewed. It apparently cost a bundle to make. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Boges Posted October 24, 2013 Report Posted October 24, 2013 Does it make you feel somewhat sympathetic to Albert Speer? Seemed to cast him in a positive light for being an inner circle Nazi. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 24, 2013 Author Report Posted October 24, 2013 Does it make you feel somewhat sympathetic to Albert Speer? Seemed to cast him in a positive light for being an inner circle Nazi. Albert Speer...for all his history...was probably the least Nazi of all the Nazis. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Boges Posted October 24, 2013 Report Posted October 24, 2013 Albert Speer...for all his history...was probably the least Nazi of all the Nazis. Yet he was a close friend of Hitler. Apparently the betrayal of Speer hurt Hitler the most, he wasn't furious at him like he was with Himmler and Goering. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted October 24, 2013 Author Report Posted October 24, 2013 Yet he was a close friend of Hitler. Apparently the betrayal of Speer hurt Hitler the most, he wasn't furious at him like he was with Himmler and Goering. Speer was a late-comer to the Nazi Party but truly admired Hitler as the 'sensible' head of the movement. He despised Himmler and Goebbels, etc. Being almost 'powerless' as the Reich's architect also probably helped his relationship with Hitler. If Todt hadn't died in a plane crash, Speer wouldn't have even been Minister of Armaments...a job he did excel at. But, he faced an industrial establishment unwilling to centralize/co-operate at high levels. Even with Heinz Guderian as Inspector General of Armored Forces, they didn't manage to sort out the mess that was the tank/aircraft industry before the Soviet Steamroller crushed all. Because of this failure we see numbers like this.... Number of T-34s built total: 84,000 Number of Pz MkV Panthers built total: Less than 6,000 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
jbg Posted October 30, 2013 Report Posted October 30, 2013 Another reason to believe that the A-Bombs didn't have as much of a shock effect on the Japanese as they had seen 60 plus cities destroyed due to bombing. What's the difference, to the Japanese, if it came from one bomber or 1,000 bombers?The speed at which it happened. As far as the use of A-bombs alienating the target country, Japan seems more a part of the Western world than alienated from it. Thoughts? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
DogOnPorch Posted October 30, 2013 Author Report Posted October 30, 2013 The speed at which it happened. As far as the use of A-bombs alienating the target country, Japan seems more a part of the Western world than alienated from it. Thoughts? That was probably due to the rather benevolent occupation of Japan. The Japanese actually liked MacArthur. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.