Current thinking is it was the combined effect of the two atomic bombs AND the Russian declaration of war that finally convinced the Japanese to surrender. They were marshalling thousands of planes for kamikaze attacks. They would have weaponized the entire civilian population for any invasion of the mainland. In addition, and a fact most overlook, is the Japanese were continuing their slaughter of the Chinese. The atomic bombs were necessary to end the war and bring the killing to an end.
Things are heating up in the Donbass
- Thread starter holdover
- Start date
spat
.950 JDJ
And several leaders of the Japanese military *still* attempted a coup to prevent the emperor from surrendering.
There are direct quotes from other important military figures, it stands to reason McArthur was of the same mind. In the end this was a political decision by Truman.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I have spoken to Veterans that fought on Okinawa, they had no problem with dropping the bomb on mainland Japan.
Robin
Robin
By that time Soviet Army liberated Japanese occupied territories in China, Korea and Mongolia by defeating Japanese Kwantung Army. That was what stopped the slaughter of Chinese, not nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also without a foothold on the mainland, Japan was cut off from supply of raw materials needed to continue to wage war.
Soviet–Japanese War - Wikipedia
Last edited:
In my family my dad was in France with a medical unit U.S., his brother flew bombers for the U.S. over Germany and their cousin was Infantry for the Germans.
Never talked much about what they did, just that it was bad times and glad it was over. Never did killing people come up, only that we should have taken Russia out too.
Never talked much about what they did, just that it was bad times and glad it was over. Never did killing people come up, only that we should have taken Russia out too.
Russian troops took over Manchuria but were nowhere near the southern areas of China where the Japanese were.By that time Soviet Army liberated Japanese occupied territories in China, Korea and Mongolia by defeating Japanese Kwantung Army. That was what stopped the slaughter of Chinese, not nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also without a foothold on the mainland, Japan was cut off from supply of raw materials needed to continue to wage war.
Soviet–Japanese War - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
spat
.950 JDJ
Japan had been cut off from substantial resupply for a long time before that.By that time Soviet Army liberated Japanese occupied territories in China, Korea and Mongolia by defeating Japanese Kwantung Army. That was what stopped the slaughter of Chinese, not nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also without a foothold on the mainland, Japan was cut off from supply of raw materials needed to continue to wage war.
Soviet–Japanese War - Wikipedia
They were preparing to fight to the last man, woman, and child with wooden spears if necessary.
They had a "death before surrender" culture. The fact that they were facing annihilation was irrelevant.
The nukes broke them. There wasn't even a fight for them to die with honor in. No glorious last stand defending the islands, just a sudden end like a bug being squashed.
U.S. had a hard time fighting them, Soviets not so much. They were defeated on the battlefield at Khalkhin Gol in 1939 and in Manchuria in 1945. They certainly didn't fight to the last man.
Battles of Khalkhin Gol - Wikipedia
Soviets also forced them to retreat from Lake Khasan
Battle of Lake Khasan - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I have been pretty busy with the Holiday dinner....
I take it Russia did NOT launch Nukes yet?
I take it Russia did NOT launch Nukes yet?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
If dropping the bomb on Japan was correct, ( I believe it was ) because it would save the lives of Americans and Japaneese ,
Then would it be wrong for Russia to do the same to Ukraine to save lives of Russians and Ukraines?
Then would it be wrong for Russia to do the same to Ukraine to save lives of Russians and Ukraines?
Last edited:
What a ridiculous comment. Japan did not have nukes at the time. The concept of MAD didn't even exist. Did you really think that was a clever post?
Actually it was a thought provoking post.
Mutually Assured Destruction and the fact that Japan had no nuclear weapons is irrelevant. In Bruce Lee's book, Marching Orders, he mentions that US ships off the coast of Okinawa had enough rolling stock, railroad ties, switching equipment, literally everything needed to rebuild and replace every foot of railroad in Japan. That is the level of destruction the US was ready and quite willing to wreak on Japan. In Richard Frank's book Downfall, he shows that Japan was quite willing to fight to the last child and here is a direct quote from the Japanese Prime Minister, Kantoro Suzuki, about how Japan was willing to fight on. " The Supreme Council was making every possible preparation to meet the American landing. They proceeded with that plan until the Atomic Bomb was dropped, after which it was believed the US would no longer attempt to land when it had such a superior weapon; that the US need not land when it has such a weapon; so, at that point they decided that it would be best to sue for peace."
It wasn't just Japan that would need to be invaded. There were well over a million Japanese soldiers that would have fought on in China, Southeast Asia, Malaysia and other places. How many more Iwo Jima's and Okinawa's would the US have to fight, with increasing casualties? Add the little known fact that in October, 1945 Typhoon Louise hit Okinawa, sinking 12 US ships, damaged 32 beyond repair and ran 222 others aground in Okinawa. Imagine the losses if we had the invasion force marshaling there, as was planned. The devastation and losses of American personnel, ships and equipment would have been devastating. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved 100's of thousands of lives on both sides.
It wasn't just Japan that would need to be invaded. There were well over a million Japanese soldiers that would have fought on in China, Southeast Asia, Malaysia and other places. How many more Iwo Jima's and Okinawa's would the US have to fight, with increasing casualties? Add the little known fact that in October, 1945 Typhoon Louise hit Okinawa, sinking 12 US ships, damaged 32 beyond repair and ran 222 others aground in Okinawa. Imagine the losses if we had the invasion force marshaling there, as was planned. The devastation and losses of American personnel, ships and equipment would have been devastating. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved 100's of thousands of lives on both sides.
One would be hard pressed to find any side in any war that didn't proclaim it would fight to the last man. The fact is they didn't in WWII or prior wars.
Japan didn't because of the atomic bomb. At the end of the Guadalcanal Campaign Japanese soldiers were reduced to cannibalism. They still did not surrender. When it was decided to evacuate as many Japanese soldiers as could be done they were told they were being picked up and put on barges to attack another part of the island because the army high command was afraid they would refuse to evacuate. The Battle of Saipan played a huge part in the decision to use atomic weapons when they became available. Japanese civilians jumped to their deaths rather than surrender. School children were given grenades to blow themselves up with, rather than surrender. There is an account in Max Hasting's book, Retribution, of Japanese sailors not just refusing to be rescued after their ship was sunk, but taking shells and striking them against our ships, trying to blow the ship up with themselves. Perhaps the saddest example I can give of the Japanese commitment to fight to the death is the Japanese pilot who was chosen to be a Kamikaze pilot. He wrote home to his wife, saying he could not do it because of her and their 2 children. She drowned herself and their children so he could go to his death with a clear conscience. Even after Japan sued for peace there were kamikaze attacks, there was an attempted coup to keep the war going and Hirohito had to send family members to different airports to try to get pilots to not attack our navy.
Nothing special, this happens in all wars. There were still pockets of German resistance after German surender.
...... and yet there is no record of Japanese women taking up arms to defend their country in numbers similar to Soviets, Yugoslavs, Poles even Germans.
Last edited:
Only because there was no opportunity to. Had we invaded the Japanese Islands they most certainly would have done so.
There were japanese holdouts literally shooting at and fighting Americans on Guam during Vietnam. Reread that previous sentence.
I saw the caves they hid in with my own eyes. It happened literally decades after the war ended. Not hyperbole but fact. The Japanese refused to surrender. They wanted to keep fighting. The Japanese government had to go to Guam to appeal to them to actually accept that Japan surrendered
Japanese holdout - Wikipedia
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
What are you talking about? Ukraine doesn't have nukes either. I thought it was an interesting point.
Here you have the US bombing Japan to save lives over all (which I think it did)
But if Russia were to use them in Ukraine to save lives theres a problem?
Thats a hell of a double standard dont ya think?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Thank you I did too.
They are conflating what's justify with what can get away with and even at that they fall short.
There were japanese holdouts literally shooting at and fighting Americans on Guam during Vietnam. Reread that previous sentence.
I saw the caves they hid in with my own eyes. It happened literally decades after the war ended. Not hyperbole but fact. The Japanese refused to surrender. They wanted to keep fighting. The Japanese government had to go to Guam to appeal to them to actually accept that Japan surrendered
Japanese holdout - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This is because of geographic nature of the conflict. In most of these cases they simply didn't get the word that the war was over, unlike the wars with a single frontline. Only 21 incidents are recorded per Wikipedia, but the way it is talked about one would think this was happening every other week.
The picture of Japanese girls marksmanship training is from 1930's, before U.S. war with Japan. They weren't preparing them to fight invading Americans. Government run marksmanship programs were common in many countries, still are. Unlike their European counterparts, these ladies didn't fight the war in any numbers to speak of.
Last edited:
JaguarJaguarGolf
6.5 Creedmoor
Does Ukraine have biological weapons?
spat
.950 JDJ
Do you think it *would* save Russian and Ukranian lives ?
Or would it lead to a full scale nuclear war, which obviously would *not* save Russian or Ukranian lives.
What the US did in 1945 had no possibility of escalating a conflict that was already total war.
Russians in Ukraine today is obviously not that.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
If it lead to a full scale nuclear war, obviously it wouldn't . it would cost more lives than it saved negating the purpose.Other wise, yes it would save lives .
In the event that US NATO would not escalate thier response to a global nuclear war the Russians would seem justified on humanitarian grounds to drop 2 bombs and end the war in less than a week , call it a day, lets get back to business.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I do not have the specific reference. But, I recall reading that the weapon system responsible for the most deaths in WWII was incendiary bombs. These were extremely effective when bombing Japanese cities that were heavily based on wooden structures. As was already stated, the fire-bombing of Dresden certainly caused as much damage as a period-available nuclear weapon.
Multiple News Outlets are reporting the same story, some even word for word.
Is this to prepare the public for deployment of NATO troops or West backing out of conflict after Oreshnik strike?
abcnews.go.com
apnews.com
www.yahoo.com
www.cnbctv18.com
Is this to prepare the public for deployment of NATO troops or West backing out of conflict after Oreshnik strike?
Desertion threatens to starve Ukraine's forces at a crucial time in its war with Russia
Desertion is starving the Ukrainian army of desperately needed manpower and crippling its battle plans at a crucial time in its war with Russia
abcnews.go.com
Desertion threatens to starve Ukraine's forces at a crucial time in its war with Russia
Some take medical leave and never return, haunted by the traumas of war and demoralized by bleak prospects for victory.
apnews.com
Desertion threatens to starve Ukraine's forces at a crucial time in its war with Russia
Desertion is starving the Ukrainian army of desperately needed manpower and crippling its battle plans at a crucial time in its war with Russia, which could put Kyiv at a clear disadvantage in future ceasefire talks. Facing every imaginable shortage, tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, tired...
Russia Ukraine war: Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are fleeing from the front - CNBC TV18
It was always expected to be a war of attrition and Ukraine seems to be on the backfoot. While many Russian soldiers have also deserted the war, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, with a much smaller army, has much fewer men to lose to fatigue and trauma.
www.cnbctv18.com
Last edited:
Where to begin. It's not a double standard because the situation is entirely different from 1945. Do you really not understand this?
If Putin's goal is to take and control Ukrainian territory it doesn't make much sense to make part of it a radioactive wasteland. Plus it guarantees an ongoing insurgency.
Finally, as spat has patiently explained to you multiple times, there will be no such thing as a limited nuclear war. Once the first nuke flies, they will all start flying. Clearly you live in some fantasy world where Putin can use a nuke in this day and age and the rest of the world shrugs.
So no, it wasn't an interesting point it was a ridiculous and unserious one. Why you thought it had merit is beyond me.
NATO has access to Oreshnick impact site and can easily verify what Putin has said about its capabilities. It wouldn't make any sense for Putin to make claims about Oreshnick that weren't true. The missile didn't carry explosive payload, next one probably will. Power of a nuke, but without radiation.
Putin at the meeting of common defense alliance of former Soviet Republics in Kazakhstan.
Putin at the meeting of common defense alliance of former Soviet Republics in Kazakhstan.
Last edited: