OK than, I am back, and I must say that I have yet another few posts of swill to clean up.
First thing is first, Ushgarak, I REFUSE to take your pathetic attempt to divert my attention to the Elbe River invasion UNTIL, and not one second before, you have found and read The Heat Before the Cold by the rather good Mr. Fettel. Until then, I refuse to hear one word of your whining. But there are other things to discuss in the meantime.
The fact of the matter is that I am, apparently, the only person who knows that there are different types of surrender and what those differences are. Ushgarak tries to pathetically pin this sort of thing on me, while at the same time forgetting that I HAD ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS, ALBEIT BRIEFLY, ON ONE OF MY PREVIOUS POSTS! See the latter part of the fifth paragraph on my third post, to those of you who can scroll back. Whoever, for the benefit of people (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely) like Ushgarak, who cannot tax their minds around the complex idea of READING THE ENTIRE POST before commenting, I will sum this up this way (in nice big letters so that Ushgarak can read at least part of them).
WHAT THE JAPANESE WERE OFFERING AS TERMS FOR THEIR "SURRENDER" WAS NOT EFFECTIVE!
The Japanese were only offering to "surrender" if they could keep their military operational, avoid tribunals for all but a few small fish (out of a sea of barracudas who burned Eastern China down with their Three Alls policy, butchered around the Pacific Rim, and freely terrorized civilians in ways even MORE heinous than our carpet bombing), keep Manchuria and several of their conquests on the Chinese Seaboard, and allow the continuation of the Emperor's "Divinity."
Now, those of you who know military and political history more than as some useless talking points will know what this was likely to cause. To those who do NOT, let me spell it out for you: The Imperial regime would be filled with the same sludge as before the war, the Japanese army and navy could be rearmed and reforged, and, possibly most importantly, it would allow the JAPANESE TO CLAIM THEY HAD WON!
Now, some might ask how someone standing in a sea of their own dead can claim victory, and why it is important, but it is. The Japanese would claim that, after appalling losses, they had achieved victory over the West and their "Chinese mercenaries" in that they had kept their conquests in China and the possibility of regrouping a force that could hope to expand those conquests after maybe a decade or so.
This was unacceptable on so many levels, from political to home front to military. It would NOT create even the semblance of a lasting peace more than a year, and we would eventually have to clash again with a Japanese army that had grown in experience, equipment, and training as well as having the benefit of hindsight, barring the idea that somehow Hirohito's heir was someone akin to Gandhi or that the Imperial Junta would be overthrown.
So, no. We did not accept Hitler's offers of ceasefire due to the fact that they would merely lead us into conflict with him in the future or allow the Soviets the full bounty of Central Europe, and we could not, would not accept the same from Japan.
We pushed for what is called Unconditional Surrender. Now, to some people who may have trouble with so many letters, let me sum this up for you. Unconditional Surrender is the practice of the defender to submit without conditions (hence Unconditionally) to the victor. It was a far cry from the "surrender" the Japanese were pushing for that had so many limits it was unfit to be considered a peace, let alone a surrender.
It would allow us to try and execute the Junta and its underlings that had burned and raped the Pacific Rim dry for around a decade, it would allow us to restructure Japan out of its feudalistic authoritarian state into a democratic nation, and it would put to rest the idea of a Japanese Imperialist army rampaging around the Pacific in the decades to follow.
See the difference, or do I have to draw an e'ffing picture with crayons for you lot?
And secondly, to the person attempting to claim I am anti-Asian, you will have to see myself and my friends to understand how miserably stupid you look right now. Is it so hard to believe that a nation/people's culture will affect their fighting? If you think not, than get the h*ll off the board and go to whatever the historical equivalent of Supershadow is.
And thirdly, it is not like the Japanese were the only people to fight to the point of dissolution as a whole. To those who doubt that, I have but five words. War of the Triple Alliance. Google them in, and you WILL see why I briefly mentioned Paraguay previously.
And thirdly, to Ushgarak and his self-deluded idea that the Japanese were begging to surrender (ignoring for a moment how pathetically weak said "surrender" was), let me put it this way. Let us assume that, for a few seconds, we will do an Ushgarak and throw away the facts and believe that the Japanese are protesting against their Emperor, likening their Emperor and the Junta to Hi--- err, I mean Kaiser, hosting stand-ins, calling Japan "Qingist", burning Japanese Imperial Flags, and in general trying to force a peace.
Than WHY DID THEY NOT CAPITULATE UNCONDITIONALLY AFTER HIROSHIMA? That is one thing that must have "slipped your mind," given the fact that the news of Hiroshima was known to the Japanese public, and we in fact waited three days to give the Imperial cabinet enough time to overcome any technical problems in said surrender, disarm, right their wills etc.etc.etc, and yet THEY DID NOT.
Thus, thanks to the Japanese refusal to capitulate even AFTER Hiroshima, we were forced to nuke Nagasaki. Those deaths in the second bombing can be primarily laid at the door of the Japanese regime for their refusal to capitulate after Hiroshima. And guess WHAT? Do you know how eager for peace the Japanese were after Nagasaki? They were so "eager" that they sent a large patrol to the Emperor's private residence to find and destroy the surrender broadcast before it was aired, with the only thing preventing them from doing so being a firebombing that cut the power!
And yet you call ME self-delusional!
And, on that note, I will get to my last point for now. In Ushgarak's posts, you will notice that he smears me from here to the actual site of the bombings and back again, with things like "self-delusional", "trying to pass of my opinions as facts", and "wearing blinders", blahblahblah blah blah.
But, in noticing his character hitjobs that do not change the facts one damned iota, notice a few things that are NOT present in his posts.
He does NOT counter the point I presented about the Japanese government arming the populace with weapons for an apocalyptic struggle.
He does NOT counter my point about Operation Downfall save for some half-@ssed comment about it being "speculations" (yes, but so was Overlord until it was undertaken and so was Hannibal's March on Rome before he crossed the Alps, and so was Napoleon's trek across aforemented Alps to force Vienna to the peacetable when the Army of Italy was on the verge of mutineering itself out of existence, so it is a moot point.)
He does NOT counter my points about Soviet expansion in the Far East, and as a matter of fact does not mention this massive factor AT ALL save to quote from the arguments about the bomb that it was "only" done to send a message to Moscow (this is partially true, doubtless, but it was also done to prevent that same Moscow from seizing Japan for itself, to negate the losses on both side that an invasion of Japan would cause, and to remove the deaths from starvation that would occur in Japan in any blockade, And to prevent the Kwantung army from rampaging any more than was avoidable. But let's not waste Ushgarak's wonderful virtrol with nasty little FACTS).
He also DOES NOT answer the point that the Japanese were arming and preparing for a suicidal defense against an invasion by the day, and they knew where we were heading, which would cause massive casualties for BOTH sides.
He chooses not to address these points, substituting them instead for a mile of slander that is completely devoid of any academic benefit whatsoever.
And that is because he CANNOT, and hopes that I will not notice his evasions.
The fact is that there is no doubt that the bomb killed massive amounts of people, and that it is a watershed moment. If there was some fifth option to the bomb, the blockade, the useless pen, and the landing barges that could somehow topple the Japanese regime, while at the same time building both a lasting democracy and a peace in the Pacific as stable as historical without leveling two cities, do you think I would not choose it? Do you think anyone would not choose it? Do you think that Truman and his staff would not have chosen it on those fateful days?
And, finally, to those who are so certain of the inhumanity and needlessness of the bomb, than PLEASE tell us how YOU would have handled the situation with Japan in those final days while managing to circumvent the "needless" slaughter of the bomb, the butchery of an invasion, the cost and starvation of a blockade, and the Kwangtung army going on a rampage?
Sure, it looks daunting, but since you all apparently know more than me, than the Allied leaders, than some of the largest and most efficient intelligence services in history, and than the President of the United States himself, I am SURE you can pull it off.
Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki-Worth it?
Yes. It's estimated that ~500,000 American soldiers would have been killed in a land invasion and the subsequent battle. Between that and what actually happened, I think Truman made the best* choice.
*It wasn't a very pleasant ultimatum, but he played the hand he was dealt and made the sacrifice he felt he had to.
OMFG I made this long post and deleted it. In short:
To say the Japanese were not going to give up because they are more stubborn because of Bushido code is ethnocentric since one could make that argument for any army.
Made comments on lack on innate belief in humanitarianism and so on.
Maybe later I'll do it again. That took a while. Freak!
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
Newsflash to chithappens: YOU ARE GOING TO NEED AN IN-DEPTH POST IN ORDER TO DEBATE HERE!
Ok than, here I thought you might have something of a clue to the Japanese War Machine and WWII, unlike Ushgarak.
I am apparently wrong.
So, your argument is that Bushido would not make the Japanese fight to the death (except for what are apparently isolated incidents like Iwo Jima, Saipan, Ten-Go, Guadalcanal, Tulagi, Leyte Gulf, Midway, Okinawa........), and that believing that it would affect Japan that way means that you lack "on" (read an) innate belief in humanitarianism. And than you show your intellectual superiority and well-researched arguments by calling me a "freak."
Wonderful, just wonderful. And here I thought that the fish do not jump in the boat.
At least Ushgarak cherry-picked facts and figures or invented ones out of the air, while it looks like that would be too much difficulty for you.
Now, how do I disassemble a nonexistent argument? Well, first-off, you call the "RACIST" card on Bushido, and claim that it could be applied to "Any" army. WTF. Of COURSE you can find cases throughout history where soldiers fought to the last man in many nations, from the "Hot Gates" of antiquity to the Alamo to Chapultapec to the diehard SS who were mopped up in Austria, Germany, and Czechslovakia.
This much is true. However, these cases were primarily isolated incidents or were made by diehard forces trying to save themselves from certain destruction. This is nothing like the Pacific War, where dozens of thousands of Japanese would die almost to the last (if the "almost" was even applicable in that particular case) in order to try to slow down the "foreigners." There is more documentation of this fact then you can shake a stick at, and can be found by using GOOGLE!
Thus, if you cannot do the arduous labor of typing in a few letters and clicking "search," you will neither appreciate nor understand the many,many,many documents, interviews, and books that would quash that unbelievably stupid talking point like a bug.
And as for mentioning humanitarianism, I cannot see the reason for that. You say it like it will suddenly make all the kamikaze figures, civilian mobilization, suicidal tactics, Japanese honor codes, intelligence figures, military plans, and estimates fade away into the air and have everybody say that "how could we have been so blind, all the nonexistant atrocities, last-stands, reserves, documentation, and timetables are all completely BS!"
"We all now know the bomb is inhumane because saying that a people who largely saw themselves as a warrior peoples and made no mystery of it will fight ferociously for a centuries-old code of honor that was heavily impressed into Japan by the education and culture of the Imperial Junta suffers from a lack of humanitarianism! Let us instead all gather around with Tojo, Hitler, Stalin, Chiang, Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Chavez, Pol Pot, Osama, Assad, Castro, Che, and all the rest of the gang of poor, misunderstood butchers and sing Kumbayaya around the fire!"
And to cap it off, you "threaten" me by saying that "Maybe later I'll do it again." To which I can only say PLEASE DO. I am positively groveling on my knees due to my stupidmoronswhocannotmakeasemiintelligableargument
phobia.
I hope, for your sake, that you have kept a copy of that long post, cause you are gonna need it to salvage something from your previous post.
First off, I made a loooooong post and just deleted the tab in between quoting you.
Second, the "freak!" was not calling you a freak. It was a substitute for "****!" for deleting all that crap by mistake.
Third, ethnocentricity is not the same thing as racism, and even racism is not necessarily always a product of hatred. Bushido code about the same as either side of the Crusades, for example.
Fourth, humanitarianism was mentioned as a way of trying to envision what you meant by the "best solution." I have to leave that loose ended for now because I do not have time to go into detail right now.
Don't take the short post as an insult. When I had time I screwed up by deleting the post. I just don't have a chance right now. I should this evening.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
But Tortoise, wouldn`t the Japanese surrender if Emperor ordered them to, bomb or no bomb?
__________________ Yet the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accursed, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men are a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days.
"… his name is Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedeom, and he shall make you stronger than they."
Sauron to Ar-Pharazôn
Yes, they probably would have. However, Hirohito either was unwilling to do so due to either his worries that he would be tried as responsible for the Junta and its actions, or being intimidated by the Junta itself into silence, depending on which version of Hirohito you believe is true (puppet master or puppet). However, Ringleader or Ring-led, the result is more-or-less identical: Hirohito will not or cannot speak up to force the Junta to capitulate to the inevitable.
Thus, this left us none the better, and planned anyway. Thus, we hoped that the Atomic bombs would force Japan to collapse or would at least make Downfall (which was still regarded as inevitable) less bloody (Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd Army, in control of the defense of the whole southern part of the country, and Nagasaki was important to the arms industry and a major port city that was housing much of the remnant of the IJN) which was why we picked cities with mixed military and civilian importance. As you probably know, the Emperor's announcement on the Radio is what forced Japan to bow to the inevitable and surrender, but you do not know how close that came to never being delivered at all.
When Hirohito finally made plans to speak up after Nagasaki, the Junta raided his personal residence in search of the surrender ordinance. There are disputes as to how close they got to actually finding it, but a fortunate event prevented them from getting any closer.
A wave of B-52s firebombed Tokyo that night, and their bombing destroyed/crippled (sources disagree) the electricity provider to downtown Tokyo, which forced the Pickets in charge to cut the search short. The day after, The Emperor officially announced his decision to surrender. It was THAT close. It also shows the lengths to which the Junta were willing to go to continue the fight, and should be noted as such.
The Japanese NEVER would've surrendered, ey. Ask any WW2 historian or expert. It was against their religion, and Japanese propaganda of the time said that American G.I.'s barbequed and ate Japanese babies, and they believed it.
There is propaganda in every war. A lot of people say the Spartans would have never surrendered and the such.
Religion and war ALWAYS come hand in hand. It can never be said with certainity that they would not have quit. Any religion with ideas of submission to a single deity would basically say it would be a spit in the face of that particular god to surrender. Democracy and Christianity go hand in hand, for example.
Trust, I get what you are saying, but it seems ethnocentric to say they would not give up because of their god as if no one else AT THAT TIME ALSO were not on the same sort of thing.
All this stuff about the Japanese civilians being armed and ready to fight makes sense regardless of religious beliefs or propaganda - all you need to know is that the Allies are about to surround Japan and kill you all. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN CIVILIAN LIFE INTO ACCOUNT; EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO DIE. The atomic bomb certainly does not dispute this.
Japan was going to lose certainly, but some of this stuff you are saying is not even about strictly religious beliefs. The East has never had respect for the West and that continues today. Asia saw what happened to Africa (I'm talking BC era, not colonization; although Asians came in from East Africa, but yea...) and have always been careful when dealing with Europeans because they saw them as barbaric; hence, stuff like the Great Wall of China and Chinese mythology that going beyond the wall would lead to all sorts of evils and you could never return after crossing westward beyond the walls.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
Yeah, the Spartans never would've surrendered. Ever hear of the Battle of Thermopylae?
The Axis Japanese were just as stubborn. Of the 20,000 Japanese soldiers that defended Iwo Jima, only 216 were captured. In fact, in battles where they lost against US forces, the Japanese had a 92% mortality rate. And these were just individuals. It took TWO atomic bombs to bring Japan to the negotiating table, because the idea that surrender was an abominable, actrocious, pathetic act was so ingrained into them.
No, not really. The German soldiers (who were almost all Christians) had no problem putting their hands up and waiving a white flag.
Ethnocentric? How?
Actually, Japan was the only country that would do that, porque out of the six main players (USA, UK, USSR, Germany, Italy, Japan), they were the only theocracy.
No it doesn't make sense regardless, because religion and propaganda were the only reason they would take up arms. If I beleived that my backyard was being invaded by a bunch of 7-foot-tall, half-ape, barbaric creatures who wanted to barbeque my children, I sure as hell would shoot them.
The Japanese leaders knew that they could never win a prolonged war against America.
And actually, the Great Wall was designed to keep out Mongolians, who are also Asian.
I'm not arguing against that. It takes beating an army down to a pulp to get them to surrender. Any army will continue to fight if it has a chance. The Germans knew they did not have ANY chance at victory PERIOD once they surrendered. The Spartans, however unlikely it was, convinced themselves they had a chance and they did given certain circumstances.
No one surrenders unless it is utter defeat. The Germans were defeated no matter what they did. What does the Germans being mostly Christian have to do with your point? It would not take away shame of not "standing up for God" and achieving His goals. Besides, the base that most people consider for Germany of WWII is nationalism and that still is saying screw anyone unlike them in belief, appearance or ability.
Because no one WOULD WANT TO GIVE UP. If you are in the war (keep this in line with the late 40s) and of the Axis, the grand assumption would be that the ramifications of losing would be catastrophic with the Treaty of Versailles being the precedent. That being said, the loser was liking going to be on the decline for a very long time.
To say that Japanese were only stubborn for religious reasons would be negligent to the complexity of world history.
**** the propaganda. If the U.S. lost it's military power and I knew armed soldiers were coming, I would take up mass arms. Who cares about propaganda? All /i need to know is that they are going to try to kill me and my family and friends. Locke's Social Contract goes right out the window.
I already said that about the Japanese leaders and the Great Wall was not just for the Monogolians - that's unrelated but we can discuss that in PM.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
Depends on orders, circumstance, mentality and morale.
Well that's an obvious statement. No one has any hope of victory once they surrender. Just like you can't get a raise or a promotion if you quit.
The Spartans, never had a chance in hell and they knew it. They were just following orders, and the Oracle (religion). Thermopylae was a diversion; their goal was to slow down the Persians long enough to give Athens time to evacuate. A defending force of 7,000 can't hold back 180,000 for ever and ever. It's impossible.
They could've withdrew on the third night, but Spartan religious beliefs wouldn't let them.
The fact that you said "Religion and war ALWAYS come hand in hand." I disagree with that. Unlike the Japanese, the German soldiers weren't fighting for a god.
No, it would be true. It's against Bushido to surrender. The Germans had no trouble surrendering to American soldiers, because they knew they would be in good hands if they did. The Japanese would rather commit suiced in a banzai charge, harakiri, or by pulling the pin from a grenade and blowing themselves up, than recieving hot square meals and watching American movies every day.
It was apart of their religious text and their brainwashing in boot camp.
Me too. But that's not very comparable to the situation in WW2 Japan. American soldiers didn't behead civillians, or bayonet babies of the countries they occupied. The Japanese did. And Tokyo Rose lied her ass off about American GI's coming to eat Japanese babies, and as a result the people needed to take up arms against Joe*.
*Japanese slang term for GI's.
The Emperor who had it built in 200 BC had it done to keep out the "Northern Barbarians". And guess what country is due north of China?
Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki-Worth it?
sure, we were in war. The japanese were well on their way to splitting the atom. Had they had a few more months, they probably would have had a nuke equal to little boy. The most certainly would have utilized their technology. They had no quarrels with provoking a country not involved in the conflict by invading their territory and bombing the shit out of hawaii. This leads me to believe that they would have had no reservations on dropping a nuke or two around the world to enforce their beliefs.
The first drop was comepletly warranted and should never be questioned on a humanitarian level. Warnings were given to the civilians. The second drop however, was nothing more than an attempt for America to show their dominance.
It all worked out for the japs anyway. America rebuilt their shit and eventually gave them the means to exceed as one of the most powerful and successful economies in the world.
Before you ***** about Americans being devils and assholes. Look at our enemy at the time. There were no enemy more ruthless than the japanese. Also consider what America gave the japanese afterwards.
War is shitty, people die babies die and yes...,even puppies die. I suppose the goal os to one day reach a world wide awareness that war is not needed. War is needed though, so this will never be an agreement
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Overall, I agree, but that "attempt by America to show their dominance" was IN RESPONSE to Japan's refusal to capitulate after Hiroshima, and even with Nagasaki, the Imperial Junta tried to suppress the Emperor's surrender declaration and fight on anyway. Just a note.
The Japenese would of not surrendered, or if they did, it would of happen near the end of the invasion of Japan.
Soldiers would of died. They dropped the bomb to stop it. I agree with that decisoin. As horrible as it is, you want to protect your boys.
Comparing the Japenese to the Germans is friutless. Most of the Germany that surrendered near D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge were not Germans but Polish, Russian, and etc who had to fight because an SS officer was behind them with a gun.
Near the end on the otherhand, the Germans did surrender, but the war was lost and it was just a matter of time.
I have phrased the case out far more often than I would like, but, since you cannot bother reading, I will spell it out as simply as I can for you: THE BOMBINGS WERE QUITE FRANKLY THE LEAST BLOODY WAY WE COULD HAVE REALISTICALLY FORCED A JAPANESE SURRENDER! An invasion would have been a meatgrinder, would have made us very weak in the face of the Soviets, and would have ALSO likely wiped the native Japanese OUT to a VERY large extent.
Do you even know anything about what you are talking about? I am inclined to think not, as you say we should have "Fought the fighters, not the everyday citizens."
NEWSFLASH TO APOC! THE JAPANESE HAD BEEN PREPARING TO USE EACH AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE DAMN ISLAND CHAIN AS EITHER A BAMBOO-PIKE WIELDING RESERVE, OR A LIVING BOMB, BE THEY ADULT, ELDER, CHILD, OR BABY!
Orders and processes to this effect were found throughout the Islands. By the thousands. Evidence that they were putting them into effect can be found both by eyewitnesses, documentary evidence, and actual accounts by those old enough to have gone through it themselves.
Also, if you had the slightest idea as to what a "GENOCIDE" really is, you would have not applied it to this case. Since when did the Germans, Soviets, Chinese, or Japanese repeatedly and officially warn their victims and beg them to surrender before doing what thy did?
KMC Community Forums
Sep 28th, 2007 09:56 PM
