"But Pie! Why not just drop a bomb in the ocean to spook them?" First, we only had three on hand, let's not waste one by dropping it on some fish and poisoning the sea. Second, we sent warnings in leaflets, they were ignored and confiscated by the Japanese government. Scare tactics didn't work.

Scare tactics did work, that's what the bombings were. They weren't targeting military facilities, they were targeting civilians. That's terrorism, or as you'd call it, scare tactics.

Except when you look at the statistics and stories, every last man, woman, and child was trained to fight to the death with whatever they could find. There were often less Japanese captives than there were bullets in a magazine.

The Germans were also trained for this, and were instructed to start a guerrilla war against the allies. Guess what, as soon as the local few Nazi officials were killed or captured (which is usually the first thing the Americans would do), the German civilians wouldn't do much.

That's because the offer left most of the Japanese empire intact, it just turned many regions to little puppets or returned them to their previous rulers, and they kept a large portion of China. It also left their government around. The Allies had already agreed on unconditional surrender, and they needed to get it.

They didn't need to get it, and if Japan kept Korea as a puppet, guess what, no Korean War and no split Korea. And what do you mean turn them over to their previous owners? You mean return Eastern China to the Republic of China, like they did otl?

Except even following the second atomic bomb,and the declaration by the Soviet Union, the council who decided such a surrender was STILL split 50/50. It took intervention from a man who was regarded as an actual GOD to make them end the war. That really doesn't sound like "about to surrender" to me.

That is about to surrender, Japan was in a state of ruins and folk were rapidly turning towards peace. A nuclear bomb in a field and a message to Tokyo saying it was Washington, and that ought to be enough without murdering 200,000 civilians.

And yet the Japanese slaughtered millions of innocents, including their own citizens and soldiers (via suicidal culture). The Americans aren't the friendliest military monsters in the world, but they look like the damn Swedes compared to the Japanese.

And the American government slaughtered millions of innocents. Should we nuke New York?

Stop giving America shit for something they did, AND APOLOGIZED FOR (which they shouldn't have done), when the Japanese haven't even admitted they did anything yet.

I'm not giving America shit, I'm giving Truman and the idea that the bombs were necessary shit.

Scare tactics did work, that's what the bombings were. They weren't targeting military facilities, they were targeting civilians. That's terrorism, or as you'd call it, scare tactics.

Only because all the military facilities were already burned holes in the ground. Killing civilians isn't scare tactics, its war strategy.

The Germans were also trained for this, and were instructed to start a guerrilla war against the allies. Guess what, as soon as the local few Nazi officials were killed or captured (which is usually the first thing the Americans would do), the German civilians wouldn't do much.

The Germans weren't even CLOSE to as well indoctrinated and crazy as the Japanese. The Germans followed an elected leader who seized power. He was terrifying, but he was a man. The Japanese followed a man that to them was a living GOD. Defying him was worse than dying. In the invasions of islands like Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima, civilians would rather throw themselves from cliffs than be captured by the Americans, even when all the soldiers were dead or captured.

They didn't need to get it, and if Japan kept Korea as a puppet, guess what, no Korean War and no split Korea. And what do you mean turn them over to their previous owners? You mean return Eastern China to the Republic of China, like they did otl?

So, they should've let the Japanese off scott-free (aside from all the deaths already incurred), and made themselves look weak in the face of the looming Soviet Union and the whole damn world? There might not have been a Korean war, it probably would've been a Japanese War, with the USA and USSR fighting for influence in Japan instead. They only returned China because they were forced to unconditionally surrender.

That is about to surrender, Japan was in a state of ruins and folk were rapidly turning towards peace. A nuclear bomb in a field and a message to Tokyo saying it was Washington, and that ought to be enough without murdering 200,000 civilians.

Even if it is "about to surrender" it was only BECAUSE of the bombs that they reached this point. The only other methods that would've reached this were X-Day (the codename for the allied land invasion of Japan), and an expansion of the firebombing campaign to every major city in the home islands (an even MORE Destructive method). The Japanese leaders were not sensible at this point, they'd do anything to hold onto their power, even if it meant the death of everyone in Japan. A bomb in a field would not have convinced anyone.

And the American government slaughtered millions of innocents. Should we nuke New York?
Please, elaborate one event besides the retaliation strikes against the Germans and Japanese where the Americans slaughtered innocents for no real reason. The Americans didn't skewer Chinese babies on bayonets just because they could. You know who did do that? The Japanese.

I'm not giving America shit, I'm giving Truman and the idea that the bombs were necessary shit.
Ah, so you're saying Truman should've gone ahead with X-Day, and caused more than one million deaths. ONE. MILLION. DEATHS. In a single invasion attempt? Five times the casualties of the Atomic bombs, and from both sides, not just one? Because that was his other choice. There was no accepting some half-assed surrender. There was no just waiting for the Russians to come and turn the whole damn place communist. Truman had two choices. Drop the bombs or get a hell of a lot of people killed. Or he could just firebomb everything, destroy the infrastructure too. Then the Reds couldn't get it, but nobody else could either. The enemies lives are of less value to me than my own men's, I'm sorry, but that's war.

Japanese would have surrendered but they would have kept the emperor

Killing civilians isn't scare tactics, its war strategy.

It's terrorism.

The Germans weren't even CLOSE to as well indoctrinated and crazy as the Japanese. The Germans followed an elected leader who seized power. He was terrifying, but he was a man. The Japanese followed a man that to them was a living GOD. Defying him was worse than dying. In the invasions of islands like Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima, civilians would rather throw themselves from cliffs than be captured by the Americans, even when all the soldiers were dead or captured.

The Germans were following a unelected(he was appointed as chancellor, not elected) dictator with a brainwashing ideology that controlled the education system. Guadalcanal wasn't a Japanese colony, and as for Iwo Jima, if American conduct during Okinawa was any clue, they likely didn't want to get raped and beaten to death.

So, they should've let the Japanese off scott-free (aside from all the deaths already incurred),

Those civilians didn't do shit. Stop acting like civilians are responsible for everything their government does.

and made themselves look weak in the face of the looming Soviet Union

How would it look weak? America had just destroyed most of Japan's and Germany's military.

Please, elaborate one event besides the retaliation strikes against the Germans and Japanese where the Americans slaughtered innocents for no real reason. The Americans didn't skewer Chinese babies on bayonets just because they could. You know who did do that? The Japanese.

The Americans raped and murdered across Okinawa, raping and killing women as young as five.

Ah, so you're saying Truman should've gone ahead with X-Day, and caused more than one million deaths. ONE. MILLION. DEATHS. In a single invasion attempt? Five times the casualties of the Atomic bombs, and from both sides, not just one?

The actual estimates for American casualties were around 50,000 to 20,000, and Japan's resistance would effectively collapse as soon as the Americans landed. It'd be likely as much of a shock as the bombs, and would get the Japanese to surrender.

There was no accepting some half-assed surrender.

The majority of surrenders throughout history were "half-assed"

There was no just waiting for the Russians to come and turn the whole damn place communist

So the Russians are going to get through the American blockade?

Drop the bombs or get a hell of a lot of people killed.

Or accept a surrender and start negotiating terms. Like a civilized person.

The enemies lives are of less value to me than my own men's, I'm sorry, but that's war.

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions."- Eisenhower

"I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over." - Hoover

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." - Interviewer of MacArthur

The actual estimates for American casualties were around 50,000 to 20,000, and Japan's resistance would effectively collapse as soon as the Americans landed. It'd be likely as much of a shock as the bombs, and would get the Japanese to surrender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall Hop on down to "estimated Castualties" and look at all the sources. Investigate those sources. Consider yourself proven at least partially wrong (That was likely at least one possible estimate, but in the face of so many others, seems unlikely it was the right one). ALso, there was plenty of aerial reconnaissance and other investigation that the Japanese not only knew exactly where the landings were going to take place (there were only a few real options), but they were completely ready for an attack. All citizens were trained and armed for once the Americans broke the beach defenses. It was going to be a bloodbath, like it or not.

The Germans were following a unelected(he was appointed as chancellor, not elected) dictator with a brainwashing ideology that controlled the education system. Guadalcanal wasn't a Japanese colony, and as for Iwo Jima, if American conduct during Okinawa was any clue, they likely didn't want to get raped and beaten to death.
And yet Hitler was still a man. The German people realized once they started losing that their fearless leader was really not that mighty after all. On the other hand, the Japanese were convinced they couldn't possibly lose because of their God-Emperor
Guadalcanal was controlled by the Japanese, I meant Okinawa, my error.
Perhaps the Americans "raped a murdered" (which i've literally NEVER heard about) because the Japanese were such monsters to everyone they came across.

Or accept a surrender and start negotiating terms. Like a civilized person.
There was no negotiating terms. Unconditional surrender, remember? Which brings me to my next point:

How would it look weak? America had just destroyed most of Japan's and Germany's military
False. The USSR had destroyed most of Germany's military. But generally, when you make a promise with some friends to do something, and then when the person you're doing it to (who deserves it) gives you an easy way out, and you take it, you look like a weak little shit. Letting the Japanese off easy probably would've cost Truman some serious credit in the election as well. The Russians would see the USA backing out, and take it as evidence that the USA wasn't morally willed enough to eliminate a threat. (Even if we were doing out of mercy, the Russians would still think this).

At this point, i feel like I'm arguing with a Holocaust denier. You continue to deny that the Japanese were madly fanatical and suicidal (including the civilians, despite plenty of the evidence to the contrary). You call the majority of actions terrorism (which, if it is the case, both sides perpetrated anyway). You quote the same article over and over again, which is one of the only sources I can seem to find used by those taking your side. On the other hand, you can look at mountains of US military data to see real estimates and comments from several figures. As this is the case, I wont be responding to this thread again. You can call me any manner of things, but I'm not continuing this insipid argument with someone there is no way I can convince.

It was going to be a bloodbath, like it or not.

A military that would break apart and retreat as soon as the Americans came into contact with them, and civilians who wouldn't fight back. Much less of a bloodbath, especially since the Japanese were likely to surrender just a small while after the Americans land in the first island.

There was no negotiating terms. Unconditional surrender, remember? Which brings me to my next point:

The majority of wars had terms of peace, remember?

Perhaps the Americans "raped a murdered" (which i've literally NEVER heard about) because the Japanese were such monsters to everyone they came across.

Are you a fucking retard with your head so far up your ass that you never heard about that? Shut up, they murdered and raped civilians, not soldiers you fucking idiot. They didn't deserve it, you barbaric fuck.

False. The USSR had destroyed most of Germany's military

Sorry, meant that they had done in Germany's industry and Japan's military.

But generally, when you make a promise with some friends to do something, and then when the person you're doing it to (who deserves it) gives you an easy way out, and you take it, you look like a weak little shit

Sorry, but if you haven't noticed, nations are not people that have opinions and emotions. They don't "deserve" anything. Civilians don't "deserve" to be nuked because someone else did something.

Letting the Japanese off easy probably would've cost Truman some serious credit in the election as well

So he should have committed a war crime because that'd get him the election?

The Russians would see the USA backing out, and take it as evidence that the USA wasn't morally willed enough to eliminate a threat.

Stalin might see it this way, but he wouldn't act on it.

At this point, i feel like I'm arguing with a Holocaust denier.

I'm arguing with a holocaust advocate.

You continue to deny that the Japanese were madly fanatical and suicidal (including the civilians, despite plenty of the evidence to the contrary).

Do you not understand the concept of self-preservation? All folk have this, especially untrained civilians. Why if a boy from West Germany that was indoctrinated from birth to serve Germany doesn't attack American troops, why would a Japanese boy do it?

You call the majority of actions terrorism (which, if it is the case, both sides perpetrated anyway).

Were they acts designed to cause terror among a populace for political goals?

On the other hand, you can look at mountains of US military data to see real estimates and comments from several figures

These were all post war figures parroting Truman.

I wont be responding to this thread again. You can call me any manner of things, but I'm not continuing this insipid argument with someone there is no way I can convince.

Good, no ones going to convince me to support a nuclear holocaust, and most holocaust advocates like you have no semblance of morality, so it's usually useless to try and argue with you folk.

War is war. Nothing you can do will change the fact. If humans are good at anything its coming up with ways to kill eachother.

America wasn't the first nation to be a dick in war times, won't be the last either.

None of us can change the fact civilians died.

The truth is none of us know who's right. History is interesting to speculate with, but with so many alternative scenario it's impossible to know who's right or wrong.

Personally I see it as there is no right in war, only survival, gambling, and a whole lot of hoping and praying.

The entire point is that Truman could have not killed loads of civilians.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff never formally studied the decision and never made an official recommendation to the President. Brief informal discussions may have occurred, but no record even of these exists. There is no record whatsoever of the usual extensive staff work and evaluation of alternative options by the Joint Chiefs, nor did the Chiefs ever claim to be involved.

In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.

Seven weeks before the bombs fell by Admiral Leahy:

It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression

Rear Admiral Strauss

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal at that time that the weapon should be demonstrated. . . . Primarily, it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate. . . . My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to the Japanese observers, and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a good place--satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomaria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomaria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood. . . . I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest . . . would have laid the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they had been matchsticks, and of course set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities, their fortifications at will. . . .

Curtis LeMay:

LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?

. . .

LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

From Averell Harriman about Spaatz and his deputy commanding general:

Both men felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why the second bomb was used.

Spaatz himself:

I thought that if we were going to drop the atomic bomb, drop it on the outskirts--say in Tokyo Bay--so that the effects would not be as devastating to the city and the people. I made this suggestion over the phone between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and I was told to go ahead with our targets.

Richard Nixon talking about MacArthur:

[General Douglas] MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off.

A break from quoting here, MacArthur is probably the person best suited to talk about having cities he loves being destroyed. It happened to him with Manilla. Well back to quoting folk that all have a better system of morality than folk seventy years later.

I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria.

You know, I doubt any of you care to read much, so here's something short from Eisenhower that sums it up:

It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing

Cringe for free, i like it.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/915/822/7b2.jpg

Edited 7/24/2016 15:39:39

The point that Truman didn't need to drop the A-bomb is nothing spectacular or ground breaking. It's like saying the Armenian genocide or the raping of Nanking wasnt needed.

The point that Truman didn't need to drop the A-bomb is nothing spectacular or ground breaking. It's like saying the Armenian genocide or the raping of Nanking wasnt needed.

There's still folk who think that decision was good.

There are a lot of people here on earth. Lots of opinions and beliefs. I'm sure there are people who believe Stalin was the greatest leader ever or who think Lincoln was a saint.

Note, an important thing to consider is that the Soviets only had 8000 to 12,000 casualties during Operation August Storm in Manchuria, where they faced a force of around a million Japanese soldiers and they had around 1.5 million. The Japanese had roughly the same number of men in Kyushu. While the geography would make a quick victory difficult, it wouldn't be a situation similar to the islands attacked earlier, as Kyushu is much larger, and has space for Japanese forces to keep retreating, instead of being forced into a corner where they have no choice but to fight. Note, Operation Olympic was not a plan to take all of Kyushu, but to take the southern portion to provide support to Operation Coronet, which would be an attack on Tokyo and the plains around it.

It is likely after Operation Olympic, the US could get Japan to go for the unconditional peace most of you folk want.

Were atomic bombings needed? No

Were atomic bombings good? Yes

There are a lot of people here on earth. Lots of opinions and beliefs. I'm sure there are people who believe Stalin was the greatest leader ever or who think Lincoln was a saint.

If they think it was justified here, they might think it'll be justified elsewhere.

Edited 7/24/2016 17:23:08

And a game forum is the best place to change opinions?

Changed Adrian Waco's opinion.