Do you think the allies have any blood on their hands for Heroshima and Nagasaki ...

[Jaguar]

They didn't fully concede defeat until September 12, IIRC.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Two or three people have said this so far, and I have a question: is there no hierarchy of casualties in a war?

Leaving aside the question of whether the numbers are right, the "millions of people" killed in an invasion would have been, overwhelmingly, soldiers; the hundreds of thousands killed by the bombs were civilians. In wartime, are these really equivalent lives?

(BTW, I'm of the strong belief, based on entries in truman's diaries, that the bombing was more about scaring the bejesus out of the USSR than subduing the Japanese.)

Your premise about invasion casualties being primarily military is faulty. Taking Okinawa as an example, civilian casualties were higher than military casualties, and this on an island with very little in the way of a major city. Combat casualties aside, had the war continued the real killers would have been starvation and disease, which would have disproportionately effected civilians. As it was there was plenty of starvation over the winter of 1945-46 even with the U.S. shipping in food.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

You're the second person to point this out, Sikander. I can't remember who the first was, but I stand corrected by you both.

[Mr. Harley]

Not only is Sikander correct, one of the "hidden facts" of WW2 is the fact the US submarine campaign against Japan, coupled with the ineffectually opposed bombing, had already pretty much shut down the movement of food (and almost everything else) in the Japanese islands. What's terrible is that it wasn't until after the war that the US actually realized how brutally effective the submarine warfare had become. Submarines were surfacing to shell junks because there weren't any other targets. The deaths due to starvation, and its compatriot disease, would have been horrendous. That's why I called Truman's decision BAD - Best Available Data. Nobody knew how effectively the Japanese infrastructure had been destroyed, and I suspect, though I don't have a timeline handy (I'm on break at work) that if they were already involved in the post-European bombing analysis, they may have just been discovering how ineffective the bombing had been against Germany with the exception of fuel/oil related targets. With even the beginning of that analysis, it would only have strengthened the decision to drop the bomb as a necessity.

[Ned]

shawnmmcc, I think Curtis LeMay and Douglas MacArthur, among others, knew that Japan was totally defeated and helpless prior to the A-bombs being dropped. I can give you links, if you want. They all expected Japan to collapse within weeks regardless of the A-bombs.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
You're the second person to point this out, Sikander. I can't remember who the first was, but I stand corrected by you both.

I dont get no respect

[Mr. Harley]

Sikander, I'm aware of MacArthur's arguments. His credibility in strategic circles was a bit strained at this point. People forget that we took losses of approximately 40,000 in the Phillipines, the second bloodiest campaign for the USA in that theatre. I have from a single source (I cannot remember where) that MacArthur badly underestimated the casualties for that campaign, and that his credibility, in strategic circles, was strained because of this. I wasn't aware of LeMay, but he was known to be a very biased in favor of the power of aviation. Since I am fairly sure that the USA was just getting back some of the post-analysis in Europe, and finding out just how ineffective most of our strategic bombing had been on a direct basis (except for fuel supplies as stated before), again, the credibility of this spokesman is going to be limited in the context of 1945.

Just about everybody knew that Japan no longer had the ability to mount any kind of offensive operation, and in fact their ability to mount a defensive operation was limited at best. However, what was scaring many in the military was the ability of Japan to still mount a defense.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Battle-of-Okinawa

At some battles such as Iwo Jima, there had been no civilians, but Okinawa had a large indigenous civilian population, and the civilian loss in the Typhoon of Steel was at least 130,000. American losses were were over 72,000 casualties, of whom 12,000 were killed or missing, over twice Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal combined. About a quarter of the civilian, and Japanese and American populations about the island in spring 1945 were killed. There were about 100,000 Japanese killed

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/frame1.htm

The battle for Peleliu was largely unnoticed by the American public, even though it was one of the deadliest battles. The landing in the Philippines and events in Europe eclipsed it. The 1st Marines suffered so many casualties, the Army 81st Division was added to the forces on Peleliu. Both units would suffer over 50% casualties, totaling over 6800 deaths. The Japanese lost over 12,000 men...

Yama****a was hanged in Manila for war crimes in 1946. He had ordered a withdrawal on Manila without unnecessary violence, but 19,000 soldiers under Vice Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi were encircled. They turned on the civilian population of Manila, killing 100,000. Almost all the Japanese were killed, including Iwabuchi. The war crimes trials hastily blamed Yama****a, and he was convicted.

Look at both those quotes. I have read extensively on the Okinawa campaign, including the brilliant defense mounted by the general there. He knew he was going to lose, he knew the allies were going to have total air superiority and massive naval gunfire resources, and he still managed to outdo the Waffen SS, Germany's elite, in casualties inflicted. That was what we were scared of.

Even if you minimize the civilian casualities in Manila, after all no dictator will perpetrate war crimes against his own people , look at the casualties for Okinawa. They were horrendous. So when people sarcastically refer to killing civilians to save them, they don't understand the intelligence and numbers facing American decision makers. From their vantage point, an invasion meant massive casaulties for the US military, Japanese military, and unbelievable civilian casualties. It is already well documented they were using Okinawa as their primary example. It was recent and included total US air and naval superiority. They found it frightening.

Now many people state we didn't need to invade. They're correct, but the statement is meaningless. The US army had a problem. Doctrine. Look at Okinawa. With modern doctrine all we would have done was seize the necessary airfields, cordon off the island so those airfields were out of light artillery range, and let the Japanese commit suicide on minefields and prepared defenses. So why didn't we?

A doctrine had been taught in the US military espousing Grant's policy of destroying enemy forces . Please, I know about Sherman. The US military does not necessarily always learn the right lesson (look at our occupation policies in Iraq, except if we do, let's do it with it's own thread, PLEASE). That policy more or less had dominated US military doctrine thru WW2, though a few generals realized the world had changed. The US Army could not conceive leaving Japan alone to starve through 1946. A few far-sighted generals might have, for example as you state MacArthur and LeMay, but not the US Army as an entitiy. They were actively preparing for the invasion. Would an invasion of Japan have been an act of monumental stupidity? Yes. How often has that stopped the military before? Not just the US military, either.

In the context of the choices available to Truman, there were the invasion or the bomb. If you sent either you or me back in time, could we have presented additional alternatives? Of course. That's why I said before, and I will say it again, Truman made a BAD - best available data - decision.

[Mr. Harley]

Oh, and I forogt . Sikander, I actually would like those references, especially LeMay. It will save me time from looking them up some time, I'm especially interested in what he was saying, and how he was spinning the strategic bombing analysis coming out of Germany.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
seeing as how Japanese civilians are not guilty under the laws of war, that is not directly relevant to this discussions.

I disagree. Seeing how the Japanese population as a whole was supportive of the Japanese invasions, even having celebrations when the IJA captured cities etc., the civilians have to be considered an active participant of the war.

[Ted Striker]

HELL NO

[Elden]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I disagree. Seeing how the Japanese population as a whole was supportive of the Japanese invasions, even having celebrations when the IJA captured cities etc., the civilians have to be considered an active participant of the war.

So if most civilians who support a war they are a fair target in your opinion?

Meaning if another major terrorist attack occured against America it would somehow be ok in your opinion this time because they support the war in Iraq?

You can't have it both ways.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elden
Meaning if another major terrorist attack occured against America it would somehow be ok in your opinion this time because they support the war in Iraq?

Are you equating that a terrorist attack with a war against an inhuman aggressor?

[Elden]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Are you equating that a terrorist attack with a war against an inhuman aggressor?

No, read more carefully you were saying the nuclear bombings were "ok" because "every" Japanese citizen there supported Japan's war effort.

I merely pointed out an obvious flaw in your logic but you seem to have misinterpreted my intent.

[DaShi]

The population may have been supportive of the invasion, but I doubt that they were supportive of the atrocities. Such racism and disregard for human life sickens me.

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC almost every member of Japanese society able to stand and walk, including women, school children and the elderly, was being trained to use bamboo spears against Allied soldiers. I wonder, if the bomb had not been used and the US had been forced to invade, how many civilians would have died in futile attacks on armed soldiers? In the end, when the war had been lost anyway, how would the Japanese people have felt about having been asked to make such insane sacrifices? How long would it have taken for Japanese society to have healed?