Japan Should Say, "Thank YOU" for The Bomb!

Nimitz needed a calendar apparently.

August 6: Hiroshima

Very early August 9: Soviets declare war and overrun Manchuria
Midday August 9: Nagasaki

August 10: Japan's first surrender offer is received by the US.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

 

I tend to believe the statements of the military professionals that new the conditions at the time better than anyone. You can choose to not believe them if you wish but you have no evidence to back your opinion

 

If you value "direct knowledge during the war" over "the wisdom of hindsight", that delegitimizes all these quotes from hindsight that you've been offering.

For the most part, "military officials during the war who knew the conditions better than anyone" said nothing whatsoever about Japan being close to surrender.

There was one single exception, but it was a minor event that didn't amount to anything.

Almost all the quotes about imminent Japanese surrender came only with the wisdom of hindsight.

I do in fact have evidence to back my position. I have the same advantage of hindsight that the people who you've been quoting had.

 

Instead of relying on what Gar Alperovitz had to say about the war, why not read about why the Japanese surrendered and their plans on what they would do if they were invaded?

Operation Ketsugō would be a good place to start and then you can learn your way toward the tunnels and the many thousands of kamikaze pilots. You'll then probably realize that Gar may not have as firm a grasp on this history as you might think.

Perhaps you can take a look at this as well. http://www.authentichistory.com/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-abombdecision/2-support/

 

You have nothing

- - - Updated - - -

Read the quotes. Our military high command said an invasion was unecessary

 

Instead of saving lives or shortening the war, I like to argue that the bombs were just one more step in the progress of the war.

Obviously each time you land a blow that brings the enemy closer to surrender, it is shortening the war. And if you can make the enemy surrender before an invasion that kills lots of your soldiers, it will save lives.

But to think of dropping the bombs as "this will shorten the war" or "this will save lives" is overthinking it. When the bombs were dropped no one had any idea what it would take to make Japan surrender. They weren't thinking "now there won't have to be an invasion" or "now the war will end early". They just knew that they were taking one more step in the progress of a long war.

 

No one except the generals and admirals who all said invasion was not needed.

 

I have facts and history.

You may want to deny facts and history, but denial doesn't make facts and history go away.

Not during the war they didn't. And you've just said that direct knowledge during the war trumps the wisdom of hindsight in your view.

 

So if a general says invasion was not necessary.....he is lying? They are all in on one big coordinated lie? Are you kidding?

 

Wrong. Only a single general said that during the war. He only told a single person, who was not convinced and didn't think it was worth repeating to anyone else.

 

So after the war they all lied about it? Are you kidding? Do you think these guys are stupid? Why would they all get together and coordinate this lie? It is ridiculous and you know it

 

During the war, only one general said that it was not necessary. He only told one person, who called him an idiot and didn't bother telling anyone else.

When only one person says something, there is no plural "all".

No. I'm introducing you to facts and reality.

 

So after the war they all lied about it? Absolutely ridiculous and anyone can see that

 

No. After the war they had the advantage of hindsight, which they did not have during the war.

No.

No.

When someone revises their views upon receiving the wisdom of hindsight, that does not make them liars.

Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.

- - - Updated - - -

No. After the war they gained the wisdom of hindsight.

Facts are facts.

 

What are you talking about "the advantage of hindsight"? You have no evidence they revised anything and none of then said they revised anything. You are just assuming that. They gave their opinions about whether the bomb was needed. These were the best of the best with all the most accurate information. You have nothing but assumptions. The facts are in and you got nothing

 

When people look back on situations in the past, they can apply new knowledge to come to conclusions that they did not reach back when they didn't know as much.

I have the fact that they didn't say it before Japan surrendered, when they didn't have the advantage of hindsight.

I have the fact that they did say it after Japan surrendered, when they did have the advantage of hindsight.

It's kind of funny that you are trumpeting the notion that "direct information during the war" trumps "the wisdom of hindsight" when the people who were acting on direct information during the war tended to disagree with the position that you advocate.

Wrong. I have facts and historical records.

You look pretty foolish when you make such bold statements after the facts are all against your position.

 

Of course they are, since the structures were specifically used by civilians.

 

Nope. The structures were used by weapons factories.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe he mentioned arming them as well.

Although without logistics you cannot win a war.

Nope. All the genocide was carried out by Japan and company. No genocide on the part of the US.

 

Japan was not about to be attacked by the US. Japan was not under the illusion that they were about to be attacked by the US.[/QUOTE]

Nope.
The US took a fanatic side against Japan. The US banned trade with Japan, while supporting China with money and weapons. They had a meeting about it, where Japan suggested they would retreat out of most of China and no more wars in South East Asia if the US and the UK would lift their sanctions against them. The US declined and 6 days later the Japanese left for Pearl Harbor. The US already was building up their military presence near Japan. And a poll that Gallup made just before the Pearl Harbor attack pointed out the majority of the Americans thought they were about to be in a war with Japan.

 

One of the facts that you're in error about is bombing through cloud; weather forecasting was then, and remains, an inexact science and forecasts of clear skies over a target were not guaranteed to be accurate. If you had bothered to read my earlier link you would have known that bombing through cloud cover was very common indeed. Read from 'The campaign continues', here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtml

 

Thousands of Kamikaze pilots aren't much use if their aircraft have no fuel. That was the situation that August 1945.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/node/243

Spring 1945 [Retired admiral] "Kantaro Suzuki ordered a survey of Japan's fighting ability to determine if they were sufficient to carry on the war, and the report issued in mid June 1945 indicated that while fuel oil in 1937 was 29.6 million barrels, by July 1, 1945 it would be just 0.8 million barrels and, for all practical purposes, Japan was out of oil".

 

Your "facts", as I have already demonstrated, frequently conflict with documented history!

 

You have made assumptions that these generals are REVISING their opinions without stating that they are doing so. You are essentially calling them liars. And it is disgraceful

 

In fact it's clear you're not reading all of what was said at the time, either by American or British leaders. If you are not going to read up on the subject why do you bother involving yourself in a debate? You can have your beliefs, of course, but there has to be some perspective, and access to all the facts available at the time.