Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

:EDIT: Nevermind, I forgot half of what I was going to post.

Frazzled wrote:Strategic level nukes.

So MIRVs. Yeah, dumb. Very dumb.

The Japanese soldier was much more zealous and hard charged about their side than any other soldier in WW2; bayonet charges anyone? Kamikaze? While suicide attacks may be a tactic used by all sides - these such qualities were found nowhere to the extent than the desperate Japanese.

In the right kind of circumstance, anyone can be led to believe in what they're doing is "right" or "justified". 9/11 for a more recent example; doesn't mean that their attitudes hold any real weight beyond face value though and more of a byproduct of social conditions. Lets not forget that Japanese used a ton of chemical weapons against China and pretty much raped and pillaged their neighbors until they poked at the wrong country.

Sorry, I seem to remember a lot of similar things earlier on in WW1. The Somme ring a bell? Trench warfare was notorious for throwing men into machine gun fire. The officers ordered it, and the soldiers went. Were they fanatical? No. They were obeying orders, the primary task of the soldier.

The second paragraph is irrelevant.

True they were down but they would never have considered themselves out. Look at North Korea and Cuba as examples of how resilient nations and their leaders can be or at the WW2 Japanese survivors found on remote islands. The Japanese still had a substantial amount of military infrastructure and their pride was nearly invincible; they would've kept fighting the enemy especially if he was just floating next door.

Substantial amount of military infrastructure? Sorry. Let me get this straight. Japan had so little in the way of fuel, they sent their navy on a one way trip. Firebombing had leveled about two thirds of Japan already. Economically, they had hit rock bottom. If you're referring to the command structure, I'd agree. Everything else was falling apart. Japan has nor resources to produce war material. Once they've used up what they've got left inr eserve, that's it. Kaput. They'd be reduced to throwing rocks and harsh language. By the time the nukes were used, Japans capacity to make war had been all but destroyed. This is a fact, however you try and look at it.

And what does their patriotism have to do with their ability to make war? Like I said, you can want to make war if you like, but if all you've got left is a plank with a nail in, don''t expect to get very far. (I'm aware this is an exaggeration and that there no doubt would be have been ample rifle bullets, but Japan would unable to profuce armed naval vessels, or any kind of aircraft or aerial defenses. In other words, they would trapped on their island without the capability to make war)

I think you seriously underestimate the Japanese leadership and their people's mentality; these guys make Kim Jung Il look like Luke Skywalker than Darth Vader (hyperbole). It took TWO nukes to get Japan to surrender. TWO. Thats just bonkers.

I think you seriously overestimate it. They were extremely patriotic and nationalistic. That's true. However, they were not fanatics. Portraying the entire Japanese culture and society as a bunch of fanatics every bit as dedicated as Al-Quaeda is ridiculous. This is an entire country full of people. That's like saying all Americans are Amish. It's nothign more than a sterotype. I would like to to see some hard concrete proof to establish the entire Japanese people as a bunch of fanatics at every level of society before I accept it as fact.

Right, there's going to be bias everywhere and concepts like bushido was bastardized by the Japanese government and people themselves in order to be used as a way to control people and fight mindlessly and selflessly. However considering that you have a Japanese anime name, avatar, and signature --- its safe to say you're pretty biased in this topic as well, or at least can be perceived as such since it seems you underestimate the mentality the Japanese had.

The Japanese name is actually a variation on a Japanese word which I invented, whilst learning the Japanese language. I like anime, but I am not a Japanophile. Certain aspects of the culture, such as the sexism, disgust me. I'm a Ken-Jutsu student(that means I've learnt how to actually use a katana, and the principles behind much of Japanese society). I'd like to say that from where I'm sitting, I think I understand the Japanese mentality pretty well. Since my own personal opinion on thew Japanese seems to have become relevant however, can I ask for your credentials? What qualifies you to make such a generalised statement as the Japanese soldier fighting 'mindlessly'? What are your sources? So far, you just seem to have gone on endlessly about how brainwashed and fanatical they were without providing any evidence.

By bias, I'm referring to the many American historians who got most of their source material from American soldiers and the press shortly after WW2. The Japanese were exceedingly driven, and more dedicated than most soldiers. That is true. However, the prtrayal of the entire Japanese nation as a bunch of fantics fighting mindlessly , and being completely unamenable to any kind of negotiation is a Western stereotype that taints textbooks to this day with it's inaccuracy.

Speaking as someone who was born and lived in South Korea; Japanese relations with other Asian nations have always been rocky. They routinely deny and edit their textbooks in a fashion not too far from Iranian leaders' denial of the holocaust - this is one of many reasons why Japan/China/SK/etc can't seem to get along.

Two nukes, accepted use of desperate suicide attacks, surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese soldier's incredible resilience and courage (Iwo Jima anyone?), the fact that North Korea is still around, and the findings of Japanese WW2 survivors still ready to fight long after the conflict was over; these all point towards a blockade being just about useless in stopping the proud and armed Japanese from trying to rise up again and killing off gaijin.

I'm not too sure why you keep referring to North Korea, or whether you are trying to make some kind of analogy between the nations. If you are, would you please clarify it?

The Japanese probably do edit their textbooks to make themselves appear better. I'm not surprised. Textbooks the world over are edited in order to make your nation seem better, and other people's seem worse. Russia and America are two other evry guilty participants in this practice. But then again, so are most, if not all countries in the world. The Japanese did some pretty nasty stuff. I was documenting the results of their chemical weapons tests on Chinese peasants during WW2 a while back. Interestingly enough, the second Japan was conquered, the USA hired virtually all the scientists, and granted them an amnesty in exchange for their results. Most of these war criminals were never prosecuted due to being sheltered by Good ol Uncle Sam. I'm not passing judgment, It was just to try and stop Uncle Joe getting his hands on 'em, but it shows how flexible morality could be in the American military.

American top brass and leadership realized what kind of opponent they were dealing with and the last thing they wanted to do was prolong any kind of war effort especially since the Nazi's surrendered and Japan was on the other side of the world which presents a logistical nightmare.

A-bombing Japan was the lesser of the evils involved and just for the sake of mentioning it, American firebombing did more total damage than the two nuclear strikes. The Japanese were simply too tough and proud to end it by blockading and the manpower and infrastructure required for it was something that allied leaders of the time would readily drop in order for a quicker and less deadly end.

That's the truth of it. It was quicker and easier. I'm not saying the blockade was any better or worse than the A-Bomb. I'm not looking at this from a moralistic perspective. But I'm pretty damn sure a few years of blockade would have had the same results. It's just the A bomb was less effort, less time consuming, and less expensive.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Strategic level nukes.

So MIRVs. Yeah, dumb. Very dumb.

Why? A crater where Tora Bora was would have solved a lot of problems and kept a lot of people alive.

Ketara wrote:

The Japanese soldier was much more zealous and hard charged about their side than any other soldier in WW2; bayonet charges anyone? Kamikaze? While suicide attacks may be a tactic used by all sides - these such qualities were found nowhere to the extent than the desperate Japanese.

In the right kind of circumstance, anyone can be led to believe in what they're doing is "right" or "justified". 9/11 for a more recent example; doesn't mean that their attitudes hold any real weight beyond face value though and more of a byproduct of social conditions. Lets not forget that Japanese used a ton of chemical weapons against China and pretty much raped and pillaged their neighbors until they poked at the wrong country.

Sorry, I seem to remember a lot of similar things earlier on in WW1. The Somme ring a bell? Trench warfare was notorious for throwing men into machine gun fire. The officers ordered it, and the soldiers went. Were they fanatical? No. They were obeying orders, the primary task of the soldier.

WW1 =/= WW2. The Japanese didn't care so much for true tactics as they did their code.

The second paragraph is irrelevant.

What a cop out!

Substantial amount of military infrastructure? Sorry. Let me get this straight. Japan had so little in the way of fuel, they sent their navy on a one way trip. Firebombing had leveled about two thirds of Japan already. Economically, they had hit rock bottom. If you're referring to the command structure, I'd agree. Everything else was falling apart. Japan has nor resources to produce war material. Once they've used up what they've got left inr eserve, that's it. Kaput. They'd be reduced to throwing rocks and harsh language. By the time the nukes were used, Japans capacity to make war had been all but destroyed. This is a fact, however you try and look at it.

And what does their patriotism have to do with their ability to make war? Like I said, you can want to make war if you like, but if all you've got left is a plank with a nail in, don''t expect to get very far. (I'm aware this is an exaggeration and that there no doubt would be have been ample rifle bullets, but Japan would unable to profuce armed naval vessels, or any kind of aircraft or aerial defenses. In other words, they would trapped on their island without the capability to make war)

Hmm yea I retract the substantial amount of military infrastructure comment, its more like they had an incredible amount of small arms and still very much had the capability to defend themselves and continue launching offensive efforts towards an ill-conceived idea of a blockade. They've more than demonstrated the will and ability to fight to the death when the chips were down; look at how you described the state Japan was in...their leaders and people were more than willing to go on and it took two nukes and a Soviet invasion for key leaders to be persuaded otherwise - and conflict was far from over after the surrender since many Japanese leaders refused to give up. If Vietnam, Iraq, etc. has shown us anything its that supposed military dominance fails to destroy a people's spirit and IED's are easy enough to make without a lot of materials.

I think you seriously overestimate it. They were extremely patriotic and nationalistic. That's true. However, they were not fanatics. Portraying the entire Japanese culture and society as a bunch of fanatics every bit as dedicated as Al-Quaeda is ridiculous. This is an entire country full of people. That's like saying all Americans are Amish. It's nothign more than a sterotype. I would like to to see some hard concrete proof to establish the entire Japanese people as a bunch of fanatics at every level of society before I accept it as fact.

Of course we're generally speaking, not everyone in America hated blacks and non white people either. However the majority were trained from birth to believe that the Japanese were more than just superior than their counterparts, they were on a divine level and lived and breathed this concept and despised gaijin. The Empire of Japan's leadership and much of their society revolved around a fanatical, selfless concept unprecedented in cultural anthropology. "Flags of our Fathers" is a great book that touches upon this not to mention the plethora amount of information easily available on Google. I think you're the one that needs to back up your claims in this area. Look up Iwo Jima casualty rates if you want numbers.

The Japanese name is actually a variation on a Japanese word which I invented, whilst learning the Japanese language. I like anime, but I am not a Japanophile. Certain aspects of the culture, such as the sexism, disgust me. I'm a Ken-Jutsu student(that means I've learnt how to actually use a katana, and the principles behind much of Japanese society). I'd like to say that from where I'm sitting, I think I understand the Japanese mentality pretty well. Since my own personal opinion on thew Japanese seems to have become relevant however, can I ask for your credentials? What qualifies you to make such a generalised statement as the Japanese soldier fighting 'mindlessly'? What are your sources? So far, you just seem to have gone on endlessly about how brainwashed and fanatical they were without providing any evidence.

My sources are biased but I was born in Korea and have an incredible amount of relatives with their prejudices towards the Japanese due to their raping and pillaging history. As for fighting mindlessly and the like, read up on Iwo Jima, Kamikazes, bayonet charges, island survivors still ready to fight, conversations of Japanese leadership, their school and training methods, bastardized bushido, etc.

By bias, I'm referring to the many American historians who got most of their source material from American soldiers and the press shortly after WW2. The Japanese were exceedingly driven, and more dedicated than most soldiers. That is true. However, the prtrayal of the entire Japanese nation as a bunch of fantics fighting mindlessly , and being completely unamenable to any kind of negotiation is a Western stereotype that taints textbooks to this day with it's inaccuracy.

Look up Iwo Jima. Of course not every single Japanese was a gaijin hating raper willing to commit suicide; but thats definitely some of the major contributions their empire added before and during WW2; authorized from their living god Emperor on down.

I'm not too sure why you keep referring to North Korea, or whether you are trying to make some kind of analogy between the nations. If you are, would you please clarify it?

Sure, its an example of how resilient relatively crazy and dedicated people and their nations can be. Kim Jung Il and the rest of his leaders have managed to keep NK around despite all the embargos and such placed on them; they're even to the point of being able to launch nukes. Not the same as a blockade but NK and Cuba are great examples of how governments similar to the Empire of Japan's can stay alive.

The Japanese probably do edit their textbooks to make themselves appear better. I'm not surprised. Textbooks the world over are edited in order to make your nation seem better, and other people's seem worse. Russia and America are two other evry guilty participants in this practice. But then again, so are most, if not all countries in the world. The Japanese did some pretty nasty stuff. I was documenting the results of their chemical weapons tests on Chinese peasants during WW2 a while back.

Sure it makes Japan 'look better' just like how Iran 'looks better' for denying the Holocaust in the same light, its fething despicable. The amount of controversy over the denial and editing in Japanese textbooks is an international crime that China, SK, and others resent vehemently and proof of the kind of mentality and homogeneous nation Japan has been and still is.

Interestingly enough, the second Japan was conquered, the USA hired virtually all the scientists, and granted them an amnesty in exchange for their results. Most of these war criminals were never prosecuted due to being sheltered by Good ol Uncle Sam. I'm not passing judgment, It was just to try and stop Uncle Joe getting his hands on 'em, but it shows how flexible morality could be in the American military.

Ditto with the research used from the Holocaust; simply the lesser of the evils involved in order to be able to preserve and use such knowledge rather than having those perpertrators burn their documents like they did their subjects.

That's the truth of it. It was quicker and easier. I'm not saying the blockade was any better or worse than the A-Bomb. I'm not looking at this from a moralistic perspective. But I'm pretty damn sure a few years of blockade would have had the same results. It's just the A bomb was less effort, less time consuming, and less expensive.

Again, a nation that refused to officially surrender until a second nuke was dropped and was invaded by the Soviets - even then some of the Japanese leadership still wanted to wage war to the bitter end and many did since several military units continued to fight long after the surrender; not to mention those island survivors found a few decades ago. All these points towards a blockade being just about useless since the Japanese leadership and mentality simply wouldn't allow it.

A blockade is simply an unrealistic method to handle this kind of nation and imo largely ignores how the Americans and their leaders were feeling at the time which is a grave mistake since the Japanese acted like douchebags from the start to the end of the entire conflict, generally speaking of course. Last thing they wanted was more war against Japan.

Well, I guess it comes down to both of our own opinions as to the Japanese psyche of the era. I doubt I'll convince you here, and I doubt you'll convince me, so I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Thank you for an intelligent debate on the subject matter though. Discussions like this are one of the many reasons I think DakkaDakka is one of the best forums out there.

Agreement to disagree accepted...PUNK!

Frazzled wrote:
Why? A crater where Tora Bora was would have solved a lot of problems and kept a lot of people alive.

Who would it have kept alive, the 200 members of the Taliban killed in the assault on the complex? Because there were no coalition casualties during the battle.

But hey, its not like we would mind setting a precedent for the deployment of nuclear weapons. That wouldn't do anything at all to accelerate arms programs within the various states we don't like.

Frazzled, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree to agree there.

The people killed by AlQaeda since then.

Yea this was an interesting and engaging debate and anytime when people can exercise a relatively civil discussion about a grotesquely uncivil subject like war is always a plus. Props and respect is something rarely seen!

I think this thread has finally run its course but we'll see

Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Flyboys" is a great book about this subject and goes into detail about how Japanese and American relations/politics were before and during WW2 including much of the darker chapters of American endeavors like shooting kids in the Philippines (ordered from the top brass down).

Ketara wrote:

The Japanese probably do edit their textbooks to make themselves appear better. I'm not surprised. Textbooks the world over are edited in order to make your nation seem better, and other people's seem worse. Russia and America are two other evry guilty participants in this practice. But then again, so are most, if not all countries in the world. The Japanese did some pretty nasty stuff. I was documenting the results of their chemical weapons tests on Chinese peasants during WW2 a while back. Interestingly enough, the second Japan was conquered, the USA hired virtually all the scientists, and granted them an amnesty in exchange for their results. Most of these war criminals were never prosecuted due to being sheltered by Good ol Uncle Sam. I'm not passing judgment, It was just to try and stop Uncle Joe getting his hands on 'em, but it shows how flexible morality could be in the American military.

I know for a fact from seeing the surprise my Japanese friends had in learning of Korean comfort women from a television special that Japanese schools fudged a bit on the history.
As far as US history goes, I can't deny there's glossing over, but we are also one of the more open, apologetic and self critical nations going in the way we wage war. Here's an example:
The picture of the South Vietnamese policeman shooting the captured Viet Cong suspect in the head during the Tet offensive is one of the more enduring images that is used to critisize US involvement in that country. There was absolutly no mercy for the policeman nor the US because of it in the world view from the news reports I saw at the time it happened. The thing that wasn't brought out was the fact that the guy being shot was captured in the home of the policeman's friend's house and he was standing in the middle of the where bodies of the entire freshly murdered family lay, yet the US news media really downplayed that part. They only focused on the summary execution..

I wonder If the French Text books Include how a French solider shot a child in the Ruhr in 1925. But that was never realy proved.

Frazzled wrote:The people killed by AlQaeda since then.

Um, ok, so Al-Qaeda, a multinational terrorist network, would have been obliterated by selective nuclear strikes on Afghanistan. A course of action which also would never have produced additional terrorists due to the use of ridiculously disproportionate force. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Should we nuke Cairo to? There were Al-Qaeda operatives there. Maybe Tehran, or Islamabad, why not any American city where they might be at. Hell, let's drop end all life on the planet, no terrorism then.

Say you dropped a nuke a Tora Bora, that's maybe 300 terrorists dead. Are you going to drop nukes on every suspected Al Qaeda facility? That's half the country. Worst. Idea. Ever.

To be honest Frazz I never heard any notion of nuking Afghanistan until your post. I really don't think it would have been a wise move, and am glad they didn't.

Do you have a source (besides Glenn Beck) for your nuke afghanistan idea.

GG

I don't think people understand fully the environmental and health impacts of Nuking anywhere...

What is the 1916 film by D.W. Griffith?

LunaHound wrote:So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )

Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.

Your question above is silly and I’m disappointed that you asked it.

I was talking about the specific use of nuclear weapons in one circumstance. Use of nukes in other circumstances should be judged, shockingly enough, by those circumstances.

It was probably better that humanity used the bomb and learned of it true devastating potential when there wasn't a whole stockpile of them. It is most likley what kept us from blowing ourselves up in the cold war.

Think of this as we learned something something positive out of a great big negative.


Edited for sentence structure

Emperors Faithful wrote:So many (too many) are posting on and on about how dropping the atom bomb on a city or two was the 'lesser evil' but here are two questions for you.

1) Why was there no warning or demonstration?

2) Would YOU do it?

1) The jingoist mentality of the Japanese Cabinet would've dismissed any verbal/clandestine warning as BS, and I don't mean battle sisters. The big 5 of the inner circle of the Imperial Japanese cabinet were constantly jockeying for position to improve the lot of their own departments. The Army and Navy were practically at war with each other on a political level and resource level from the time of the Marco Polo bridge incident. These men had their reputations, their family's reputations (coming directly from Samurai roots)and their branches of the government to consider when making any decisions. "Patriotism", or "Aikoku", was not only seen as a virtue but in a lot of cases the only leverage any of them had. In essence, be more patriotic than your peers or disprove their peers' patriotism. Materially, a 3rd A-bomb would've been too expensive to manufacture as the US had the Soviets to worry about in Europe and the massive debt they had already accumulated over the 4 years during their direct involvement in the war. The "Human" factor in the equation is dwarfed by political and economic ones for both the United States and Japan.

2) No. You can't get to Valhalla that way.

sebster wrote:

LunaHound wrote:So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )

Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.

Your question above is silly and I’m disappointed that you asked it.

I was talking about the specific use of nuclear weapons in one circumstance. Use of nukes in other circumstances should be judged, shockingly enough, by those circumstances.

Oh w/e. The circumstances viewed during a war is never the same as after the war. You make it sound like
no one ever attempted to use propaganda.

LunaHound wrote:

sebster wrote:

LunaHound wrote:So if China and USA go into a war , and China want to make sure they win , they should send ALL their nukes (to make sure there is enough after the
intercepted ones are destroyed ) into USA just to ensure it end the war? ( no one left to retaliate )

Basically thats whats used to justify it isnt it? Hit Japan so hard that it'll shock them to the point of surrendering.

Your question above is silly and I’m disappointed that you asked it.

I was talking about the specific use of nuclear weapons in one circumstance. Use of nukes in other circumstances should be judged, shockingly enough, by those circumstances.

Oh w/e. The circumstances viewed during a war is never the same as after the war. You make it sound like
no one ever attempted to use propaganda.

I don't see that conclusion at all.

LunaHound wrote:
Oh w/e. The circumstances viewed during a war is never the same as after the war. You make it sound like
no one ever attempted to use propaganda.

You make it sound as if the people creating the propaganda should be considered subject to its influence, which is not particularly astute.

Emperors Faithful wrote:So many (too many) are posting on and on about how dropping the atom bomb on a city or two was the 'lesser evil' but here are two questions for you.

1) Why was there no warning or demonstration?

2) Would YOU do it?

1. There was a warning. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_leaflets.html

2. That is a difficult question for me since my wife is Japanese so I have relatives by marriage who were involved in the war. For example, my mother-in-law has no family photographs taken before the late 1950s because they were all burnt in the Tokyo firestorm attack, and she was too poor to afford a camera until Japan's economy started to recover.

On balance, however, if I am thinking as a Allied strategist I would have to say I would have dropped both bombs, given the circumstances prevailing at the time.

Isn't it funny that much of society is more intolerant of Gays rather than Lesbians...

Gays are lesbians.

All of them?

Yup. from my understanding of the terms, 'gays', and 'homosexuals' are labels that cover both genders. 'Lesbian' on the other hand, only covers women.

Oh. We're in agreement, then.

Cryonicleech wrote:Isn't it funny that much of society is more intolerant of Gays rather than Lesbians...

That's because 'society' is still largely directed by white men, many of whom find homosexuals threatening but who are somewhat excited by the thought of lesbians.

Thinking about it rationally, heterosexual men should welcome homosexual men because it reduces the competition for women.