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

Yes, terms which the US eventually gave them anyway. Demanding unconditional surrender just leads to unconditional war. Is this a rap battle to you? People were dying and you're hung up on looking tough?

 

Nope. The Japanese wanted to surrender. No need to commit further war crimes.

 

You've already been corrected once on this.
Everyone must assume then you just prefer to be deceitful and to crap all over the truth. Doesn't say much for you.

 

Agreed
It took an act of the Emperor to bring about a surrender!


What I marvel at is;
when the Japanese surrendered, there were no attacks I know of on the American occupiers
as occurred after the Nazi surrender in Germany.
Please correct Moi if I am wrong.
The Japanese people were much more orderly about their surrender, to endure the unendurable, at home
than NaziLand.

And by the mid, late fifties both Japan and NaziLand had steel production that was more profitable than factories in America.
We should have given them the old factories and built the "new" ones.


Moi

r > g

No!
View attachment 43385
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

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

did trump say that?

 

* "the japanese wanted to surrender" is not how these things really work - especially in Japan. They had been fighting each other for centuries, so to think of the Japanese as some borgian collective consciousness is ridiculous. The vast majority did, and some didn't. In the end, it took Hirohito to order the government to surrender, and that was directly attributable to the atomic bombs. Whether it would have took one or two isn't really known, but I think that waiting a bit before dropping fat man probably wouldn't have hurt things any. The Hiroshima bombing was enough to throw the government and the military into disarray.

* Americans at home were not interested in saving Japanese lives at the time. I think the actual soldiers were because after taking Okinawa, they had seen first-hand both the effects of the war on the local population who were not their enemies. There were some Japanese that were particularly vicious, but many more were simply just like they were. The Americans knew what war is like, and everybody wanted it over. The only question was on what terms. We could have requested that they sign a conditional surrender after taking Okinawa. By then, it was all over and the only question was how it would end.

* Most Japanese were as happy as Americans were on VJ day. Everybody had suffered enormous losses, and regardless of the outcome, it was over.

* Wars are generally planned to be quick one-two punch battles, ending in a resounding defeat for the enemy. The worst case scenario, as had been seen in WW1 was to have a long protracted war with enormous casualties on both sides. Long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the battle of the pacific had lasted far too long for everybody's taste. So again, yes, the Japanese would have readily agreed to an armistice, but that's not what Truman wanted. He knew that a mere armistice had allowed Germany to return from complete ruin following the end of WW1 to having to go back a few years later and fight another big war. He wasn't going to allow Japan the same hollow defeat.

* Japanese of today view the pacific war a bit differently than Americans do. For Americans, the war started with the bombing of pearl harbor. We call this "WW2", but for the Japanese, this was the war of the pacific, and the attack on pearl harbor was the result of an embargo by the allied navies during the pacific war. That's the same thing as a declaration of war, and would be considered as such by Americans even today if some foreign power decided to start blasting away at American cargo ships.

Furthermore, they see what happened to Korea, and know that things could have easily resulted in the Russians taking over half of Japan and the Americans talking over the other half, if the war had continued on the main island of Honshu.

I know it's easy to be an armchair general and think of "what if..." while enjoying a beer and feeling guilty for dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on civilian targets. The problem with that is that in war, there are no civilian targets. Either you're in the trenches armed with a gun, or you're at home making guns. Maybe you're just aunt betty knitting socks for your cousin who is stationed on guam. That still makes aunt Betty a military target because she is providing moral and material support for some guy that is shooting at you. Maybe tackling the cheerleaders during a football game isn't the most well-known play in your play book, but it's still there.

* Hopefully this little known aspect of Japan during the final months leading up to signing the official surrender papers will give those that think the Japanese government were all just scrambling over themselves to sign the papers themselves prior to the completely unnecessary bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsushiro_Underground_Imperial_Headquarters

edit: One other thing to consider would be the decision not to bomb Kyoto for historical purposes. That is the heart and soul of Japan, and I wonder what would have happened if, instead of dropping atomic bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki, we had dropped leaflets on kyoto that read something like "First we leveled Tokyo, and next we level Kyoto. Surrender now".

 

I've cited two sources about the terms which Japan wanted and which the US gave. Why did Roosevelt and then Truman demand unconditional surrender anyway? Stalin and Churchill only supported it because the US did. War throughout history was always ended through negotiation or genocide. As they say in Game of Thrones, you only make peace with your enemies. Distasteful as that is, that's the way war works. You give your enemy some terms in order to get to peace, because peace is preferable to continuing a bloody war. As we saw in the end of WW1, pushing harmful terms on to the enemy is not a recipe for a successful peace. I suppose you'll never see this, as all you see is your anger and hatred and it's consequential desire for revenge. I see that peace is better for everyone, on all sides. You can't see this.

 

I'm not sure that the cost of losing ww1 is what led to the rise of the Nazis. The great war has so many lessons for us, and yet, it appears we have learned none of them. No foreign entanglements, no wars unless absolutely necessary, and if you do go to war, you have a decisive victory. Don't forget that we have kept a very substantial military footprint in both Japan and Korea following those two wars. This is something that we didn't do after WW1.

 

You seem to have an educated take on WWII. I'd like to know your thoughts on how the current world war we are in (just the start of right now), against Islam, will end? You don't think we can achieve peace on "reasonable terms" with Islam, do you? I don't, but hopefully I'm wrong.

 

Did you really stop and think about how Japan has been doing since the end of WW2 before you posted this? They seem to have survived our "anger and hatred".

 

If that's true, then the nukes were a good idea because we helped stop a terribly imperialistic endeavor (in addition to all the Japanese and Allied lives it saved.)

That also shows that the Japanese were not serious about peace. I bet our boys sensed that.

 

In case you didn't know. Russia is calling the shots in Syria in attacking ISIS, and Iran does that in Iraq (in fact there seems to be a foto around of the Iranian special forces general is near fallujah, the major city controlled by ISIS in Iraq). The current world war "we" are in,... "we" bombed the Serbs much harder than we are bombing ISIS now.

So it's mostly muslims fighting ISIS, since the west... who created ISIS by bombing Iraq in total chaos... is too chicken scared to have boots on the ground and win battlefields.

 

You're blaming the victim.
No, the Islamic promise of paradise for killing non-Muslims (who oppose Sharia Law) is what created ISIS - or at least what created the world-wide Jihadist infestation that we are in the longest war in US history against, with no end in sight. Getting a bunch of virgin sex slaves, and staying out of "hell", are two very powerful promises that Mohammad used to get people to plunder for him (Q8:41 says give some of the booty plundered to Mohammad, etc.)

Seriously, most people don't know what Q8:41 says.

 

The average gi joe on the ground didn't know what was happening. If they did, it was relegated to "scuttlebutt" which meant rumors that could be true, or could be complete nonsense. During a war, the "boys" don't have much sense of anything except what's happening in their little corner of god's scorched earth. They really started getting a sense of what had happened to Japan when the battle for Okinawa got under way. That was, without a doubt, the bloodiest battle of the war. the Japanese were going all out with everything they had. The troops were also getting their first sense of what average Japanese citizens were undergoing. When you see starving kids with that thousand yard stare, women and children and senior citizens all suffering the effects of a long and drawn out war, you realize that they aren't your enemy. They are victims, just as so many else are.

Maybe this will help you realize what the allied troops did when they started fighting in Okinawa.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/communi...nawa-americas-good-war-gone-bad/#.V0zZVp7kL0o

They were forced to fight a war they didn't want to fight, and the allied troops understood this.

 

Yes, Muslims seem to be very very good at fighting each other. Over 1400 years they've perfected it. Too bad the "all-knowing, all-powerful" Allah is not actually real, or of course he would have championed democracy (representative republics) big-time in his book. I would have, how about you, notme, if you had Allah's alleged super-powers? Your reply?

- - - Updated - - -

I blame the JAPANESE....for attacking us in the first place, and for their mainland imperialistic desires, and for not surrendering sooner. They have only themselves to blame.

- - - Updated - - -

That's because Putin seems to be a better leader than Obama/Hillary/Kerry are.

 

Actually, Americans attacked first. Placing an embargo on ships entering and leaving your country during wartime is an act of war.

 

Ok, Obama pulled us out - no US ground combat troops awhile back. NOW it's up to the Muslims to try to stop killing each other. But they've been killing each other for centuries, so it's hard for them to change their ways. Japan pulled together after we defeated them, and so did Germany - two great peaceful nations now. But Islam doesn't tend to create great peaceful nations - just chaos. Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.

- - - Updated - - -

We bombed the Japanese equivalent of Pearl Harbor?
Nope.

 

Peaceful, democracy-loving people would have said "thanks, George W for the democracy, we'll take it from here!", and created a world-class democracy after we removed the dictator Saddam. Instead, they are behaving like Mohammad behaved (warlord, torturer, dictator, be-header, sex-slaver, etc.)

 

Then I guess we have to disagree. These things are a lot more complex than the propaganda we get fed, and WW2 was certainly full of it.

 

They still believe they were the victims and we were the aggressors and the use of the bomb a tragedy committed against them.

 

There were estimates of 250,000 people being slaughtered by the Japanese military every month the war continued through the region in the lands they occupied. They had a million soldiers and militia ready to fend off the invasion for as long as they could and would have cost between 250,000 and 1,000,000 US lives. Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been firebombed anyway.

And NO surrender was NOT to be on Japanese terms, the terms were set the day after the committed that day of infamy after THEY turned down the terms for peace. And they NEVER offered surrender terms, they sought to open peace negotiations through the Soviets but that went nowhere. The terms of the surrender were negotiated AFTER the second bomb, it is what brought them to surrender.

 

If that was the case, they wouldn't be one of America's staunchest allies ever since the signing of the surrender treaty. There is, of course, some resentment that it had to come to that, but they are well aware that their own government was responsible for what happened.

That government is long gone, and they have yet to amend the constitution that MacArthur gave them. In fact, after the occupation and they were trying to decide who would be the prime minister, one rather vocal, if not linguistically competent group decided to try and get MacArthur to run for office with the slogan "We support MacArthur’s Erection".

 

Spin and Deflect huh?
At least I know what the truth is buddy.

 

And that changes what? They wanted it on the terms, we dropped the bombs, and they gave up? Don't get off your moral high horse, Japan's military did more war crimes then the US.

 

My father, a young naval officer who had just been commissioned in the spring of 1945, was assigned to a 40MM Triple A gun on a battleship and his ship would have been part of the invasion until he was pulled from active duty right after he started it when his older brother, a Naval Aviator, was KIA while doing bombing runs against Japanese positions on Okinawa that spring. Now by that time, the USA had complete air superiority and it was essentially a death sentence for a japanese pilot to try to attack USN vessels. SO the Triple A gunners were starting to rig their high angle cannons and quad fifty HMGS for use against terrestrial targets. Films captured from the enemy showed Japanese women and children being given bamboo spears for use in wave "Banzai" attacks against the predicted beach assault forces the USA would land in an invasion. As my father noted, his duty would have been to rake the charging wave attack with high explosive 40MM cannon rounds while the Machine gunners on the ship would have unleashed thousands of rounds a minute on the same attacks while Naval fighters would have strafed and napalmed the attacking Japanese. They figured Japanese casualties of close to 95% in a matter of minutes

Yes nuking the Rising Sun saved millions of Japanese lives and thousands of our men. Given what the fire bombing of Tokyo did (killed far more than the nukes) the massacre would have been of astounding proportions.