Were the yanks correct with this call?

**jamescollister** · 08-08-2013, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by socal

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Read a book years ago, can't remember the name, but it was written by a Japanese General. It told the Japanese side of the war and they didn't see the A bomb as any thing other than a big bomb.
From his side the surrender was about the Emperor, not the bomb.
The Emperor was Japan, it's culture, it's meaning, if he was executed for war crimes by the inferior westerners. That would be the end of the social order, the god king that the masses had fought and died for would turn out to be just a man.
The surrender was more about keeping the social order, than saving lives and it worked, the Emperor lived, the order remained and Japan re built. Jim

And what do you think would have happened to the Emperor if there was a third bomb dropped ? (It was in the planning stages)

And a forth ?

The powers that be and the military were dug in. There was nothing left from the normal bombing to bomb. Just nuking rubble and starving people.
Someone may be able to post a pic of Tokyo at the end of the war, no nuke and still no city.
Think of it from our day perspective, we are not that fanatical, but do you think the USA, UK, USSR would surrender because they were threaten by a nuke attack, or had a few cities wiped out. No they would have kept going to the bitter end and civilian casualties would be way down the list of priorities. Jim

**hazz** · 08-08-2013, 01:27 PM

Not just tokyo, Ive seem photos of cities all over japan that looked the same. by the time the bombs were dropped the only cities that didn't look nuked were the 4 designated targets of the two A bombs, kyoto, nara and a few other heritage sites in kansi. I think circumstances created by both sides made the dropping of the bombs inevitable

The allies had a general principle of requiring unconditional surrender, in order to prevent the surrendering party from having any excuse to restart the conflict. Given that japan had a very very long record of doing this very thing with agreements with the russians..... I suspect there was no practical alternative to requiring an unconditional surrender from japan whatever the price.

The japanise leadership believed that the alies had limits to the cost they would be prepared to pay in dead soldiers to take japan. All they had to do was make them belive that japan was a nation of fanatics that would commit suicide killing as many ailed soldiers rather than surrender. the kamkazi missions were a core part of this effort.
the problem was it was a miss calculations, the americans and russians were prepared to pay that price and their invasion plans weer prepared with the expectation of massive losses.

Truman was clearly a chap with a eye to history; in that context how could he send 100k's of soldiers to their deaths and then tell their families that he held back from using a weopon because its use would be at best morally ambiguous?

It made the use of the bomb inevitable, and his warning to japan asking them to surrender or face a terrible weapon was again a president looking at his place in history. he was about to do a terrible thing with those bombs, and his speech was about shifting the moral responsibility for the use of the weapon from him to the Japanese leadership.

its rather a shame that the Japanese leadership read this speech as evidence that the Americans were loosing their nerve and issuing empty threats.... rather than a western leader relieving himself of the moral responsibility of a very dubious act by putting you, the intended victim of this act, in position of forcing his hand. the Japanese should have been shiting themselves after that speech... making it quite possibly the host deadly cultural misunderstanding in history.

**socal** · 08-08-2013, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Originally Posted by socal

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Read a book years ago, can't remember the name, but it was written by a Japanese General. It told the Japanese side of the war and they didn't see the A bomb as any thing other than a big bomb.
From his side the surrender was about the Emperor, not the bomb.
The Emperor was Japan, it's culture, it's meaning, if he was executed for war crimes by the inferior westerners. That would be the end of the social order, the god king that the masses had fought and died for would turn out to be just a man.
The surrender was more about keeping the social order, than saving lives and it worked, the Emperor lived, the order remained and Japan re built. Jim

And what do you think would have happened to the Emperor if there was a third bomb dropped ? (It was in the planning stages)

And a forth ?

The powers that be and the military were dug in. There was nothing left from the normal bombing to bomb. Just nuking rubble and starving people.
Someone may be able to post a pic of Tokyo at the end of the war, no nuke and still no city.
Think of it from our day perspective, we are not that fanatical, but do you think the USA, UK, USSR would surrender because they were threaten by a nuke attack, or had a few cities wiped out. No they would have kept going to the bitter end and civilian casualties would be way down the list of priorities. Jim

That is malarkey

Total delusion. The emperor was living in Japan. They could have nuked his holdout

**hazz** · 08-08-2013, 07:22 PM

Socal I know this will come as a shock.
the emperor of japan was not bombed because the americans didn't want to kill him, they wanted him alive and well. The emperor had social authority to make it easier for the americans to control japan post surrender.
Then emperor had to cooperate with the americans, as his life someone depended on their decision not put him on trail. symbosis in motion

**mao say dung** · 08-08-2013, 08:20 PM

The original intention was to have Hirohito deposed and tried as a war criminal and to set up a republican form of government in Japan. The decision to maintain the throne and keep Hirohito in it came later and was made by MacArthur alone, against the urging of just about everyone else, including Truman.

One of the things that delayed the Japanese surrender was the American refusal to guarantee that Hirohito would be allowed to continue as Emperor.

Some historians emphasize the role of highly-placed Japanese in manipulating MacArthur into sparing Hirohito. The same writers usually point out that most of the Japanese "embrace" of both defeat and American-imposed reform was also little more than manipulation and that not all that much had really changed once the occupation was brought to an end.

**jamescollister** · 08-08-2013, 09:25 PM

Social, they were crude atomic bombs, not guided missiles. What were the yanks going to do, use their net work of land based spies and satellite surveillance to find his bunker and launch a bunker buster from a sub.
They couldn't locate Saddam Hussein, with all the high tech stuff, and we have conventional bombs in the kiloton range.

The most devastating bombing raid on Japan was not the A bomb, but a fire bombing of Tokyo.

History is written by the winners, but there are a lot of players and there will be more than one truth, wheels within wheels and deals within deals. No black and white answers. Jim

**socal** · 09-08-2013, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by hazz

Socal I know this will come as a shock.
the emperor of japan was not bombed because the americans didn't want to kill him, they wanted him alive and well. The emperor had social authority to make it easier for the americans to control japan post surrender.
Then emperor had to cooperate with the americans, as his life someone depended on their decision not put him on trail. symbosis in motion

They wanted him to surrender and if he did not, I see no reason why the Americans would not threaten his life to get their demads.

**socal** · 09-08-2013, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by jamescollister

Social, they were crude atomic bombs, not guided missiles. What were the yanks going to do, use their net work of land based spies and satellite surveillance to find his bunker and launch a bunker buster from a sub.
They couldn't locate Saddam Hussein, with all the high tech stuff, and we have conventional bombs in the kiloton range.

The most devastating bombing raid on Japan was not the A bomb, but a fire bombing of Tokyo.

History is written by the winners, but there are a lot of players and there will be more than one truth, wheels within wheels and deals within deals. No black and white answers. Jim

There is a reason that all of the powers were spending so much time and energy on their nuclear programs. Because they all knew, whoever got the A-bomb first wins the war. The Americans were the first to get the bomb and the first to use it. They won. Its pretty fucking simple innit.

**barbaro** · 09-08-2013, 03:33 AM

[QUOTE=jamescollister;2528700]Someone may be able to post a pic of Tokyo at the end of the war, no nuke and still no city.[QUOTE]

Tokyo was hit repreatedly by "fire bombs," and buildings and houses were made of wood.

More Japanese died during the fire bombs but you never hear about it.

We only hear about the atomic boms.

edit in - Troy and Boon Me, thanks the info on the transpacific voyage and operation downfall.

**socal** · 09-08-2013, 04:04 AM

[quote=barbaro;2529345][quote=jamescollister;2528700]Someone may be able to post a pic of Tokyo at the end of the war, no nuke and still no city.

Tokyo was hit repreatedly by "fire bombs," and buildings and houses were made of wood.

More Japanese died during the fire bombs but you never hear about it.

We only hear about the atomic boms.

edit in - Troy and Boon Me, thanks the info on the transpacific voyage and operation downfall.

The point is, whoever found the A bomb won. Because whoever found it could just make it as big as they please.

Destroy Berlin and Tokyo with 2 bombs ? No problem

Thread: Were the yanks correct with this call?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions