Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Killionaire wrote:
The US Pacific Command estimated an invasion of Japan would result in literally over a half million casualties. Not a crazy number considering how die hard and hard fought invasions of half a dozen craphole Islands in the pacific were, much less a homeland.

Add on the mass suicides of families at Okinawa, the minimum cost of ANY invasion of the Japanese home islands would put the rest of the pacific war to shame.

Dropping the atomic bombs was the most moral possible thing to do. It stopped the killing as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Good job reformulating what we've been discussing since page one. Now that you've told us how things are we're sure to change our minds.

Nothing will change your minds.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree. It is quite clear that the Germans deliberately planned and executed the most dreadful crimes against humanity, in pursuit of a strategic plan to aggressively enslave the whole continent.

The western allies, who after all were only defending themselves, had some incidents in which war crimes such as execution of prisoners took place -- these were few in number, small in scale, unplanned, and took place in hot blood retaliation for newly discovered German crimes. With about 10 million men in arms, it would be impossible for every single one of them to be squeaky clean forever.

It is silly and immoral to equate the criminality of the two sides.

While I would accept that as broadly true, it wasn't quite that clean, and there was a lot more than just isolated instances of bad behavior. For instance, in the Pacific it was almost official written open US policy to not take prisoners, even in the rare cases the Japanese did attempt to surrender, until very late in the war. Then there were the large scale bombing raids were conducted on both Japanese and German cities, with the specific and planned intention, of killing large numbers of civilians and destroying private property and civil infrastructure for its own sake. And of course the joint British-Soviet invasion of neutral Iran, and more.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree. It is quite clear that the Germans deliberately planned and executed the most dreadful crimes against humanity, in pursuit of a strategic plan to aggressively enslave the whole continent.

The western allies, who after all were only defending themselves, had some incidents in which war crimes such as execution of prisoners took place -- these were few in number, small in scale, unplanned, and took place in hot blood retaliation for newly discovered German crimes. With about 10 million men in arms, it would be impossible for every single one of them to be squeaky clean forever.

It is silly and immoral to equate the criminality of the two sides.

While I would accept that as broadly true, it wasn't quite that clean, and there was a lot more than just isolated instances of bad behavior. For instance, in the Pacific it was almost official written open US policy to not take prisoners, even in the rare cases the Japanese did attempt to surrender, until very late in the war. Then there were the large scale bombing raids were conducted on both Japanese and German cities, with the specific and planned intention, of killing large numbers of civilians and destroying private property and civil infrastructure for its own sake. And of course the joint British-Soviet invasion of neutral Iran, and more.

You didn't take prisoners in the Pacific because the majority of the time they would pull out a grenade or weapon and try to kill you. Up through Okinawa that was occurring. If you were taken prisoner, as WarDaddy said: "they'll hurt you real bad, then they'll kill you real bad."

 welshhoppo wrote:
Another point made on bombing accuracy.


When we sank the Tirpitz, we managed to hit it squarely with tallboys and grand slams, whilst it was hiding in a fjord.

As for Donitz, the American Chief of the Submarine Corps actually defended him during the trial, stating how American Submarine tactics were identical and that they didn't take prisoners.

Under the prewar submarine code of honour. A submarine was supposed to surface and demand a surrender. Then let everyone get off the Submarine before sinking it. In practice however. It was Impossible to do, because it makes the Submarine a giant sitting duck.

The Laconia incident refers to the controversial events surrounding the sinking and subsequent aborted rescue attempt of a British troopship in the Atlantic Ocean during World War II. On 12 September 1942, RMS Laconia under the command of Capt. Rudolph Sharp and carrying some 2,732 crew, passengers, soldiers and POWs, was torpedoed and sunk by German U-boat U-156 off the coast of West Africa. Operating partly under the dictates of the old prize rules, the U-boat commander, Korvettenkapitän Werner Hartenstein, immediately commenced rescue operations, broadcasting their humanitarian intent on open radio channels to all Allied forces in the area, and were joined by the crews of other U-boats in the vicinity. Heading on the surface to a rendezvous with Vichy French ships under Red Cross banners, with their foredeck laden with survivors, U-156 was deliberately attacked by a USAAF B-24 Liberator bomber. The bomber, which had confirmed and reported the U-boat's intentions and the presence of survivors to higher command, was explicitly ordered to attack the ship anyway. The B-24 ended up killing dozens of the Laconia's survivors with bombs and strafing attacks, forcing U-156 to cast their remaining passengers into the sea and crash dive to avoid being destroyed. The pilots of the B-24 inexplicably reported that they had sunk U-156, and were awarded medals for bravery.

The event seriously chilled the general attitude of Germany's naval personnel towards rescuing stranded Allied seamen, and the commanders of the Kriegsmarine (German navy) were shortly issued the "Laconia Order" by Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz which specifically forbade any such attempt, thus helping to usher in unrestricted submarine warfare for the Kriegsmarine. Neither the US pilots nor their commander were ever punished or even investigated, and the matter was quietly forgotten by the US military until the Nuremburg Trials, when a prosecutorial attempt to cite the Laconia Order as proof of war crimes by Dönitz and his submariners badly backfired and embarrassed the US when the full story of the incident emerged. One international bestseller and numerous articles on the subject have been published, and a 2011 television film produced about the incident.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Killionaire wrote:
The US Pacific Command estimated an invasion of Japan would result in literally over a half million casualties. Not a crazy number considering how die hard and hard fought invasions of half a dozen craphole Islands in the pacific were, much less a homeland.

Add on the mass suicides of families at Okinawa, the minimum cost of ANY invasion of the Japanese home islands would put the rest of the pacific war to shame.

Dropping the atomic bombs was the most moral possible thing to do. It stopped the killing as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Good job reformulating what we've been discussing since page one. Now that you've told us how things are we're sure to change our minds.

Nothing will change your minds.

We're certainly not going to change our minds because someone's parroting what's already been said in the thread without taking into account any of the criticism of (then) seven pages' worth of discussion. We're also not going to change our minds because someone declares that we're not changing our minds.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Another point made on bombing accuracy.
When we sank the Tirpitz, we managed to hit it squarely with tallboys and grand slams, whilst it was hiding in a fjord.

Three lancaster raids on the tirpitz, all of them involving 20+ bombers, one scored one hit, one scored no hits and the third scored two hits, which sunk her. Impressive considering the mitigating factors, but as a whole high level bombing was not a good way to sink ships

 welshhoppo wrote:
When we sank the Tirpitz, we managed to hit it squarely with tallboys and grand slams, whilst it was hiding in a fjord.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Even by late war, American bombers still had trouble even hitting the correct country at times. Switzerland was bombed several times. So often in fact, that the Swiss airforce started shooting down American bombers on sight.

Can you provide a source for that?? It sounds, well... out there, but would be a good bit of info to hang onto for later

Wow he isn't wrong...

But it is not due to inaccurate bombs but navigation mistakes I will point out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombings_of_Switzerland_in_World_War_II

 Jihadin wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Another point made on bombing accuracy.


When we sank the Tirpitz, we managed to hit it squarely with tallboys and grand slams, whilst it was hiding in a fjord.

As for Donitz, the American Chief of the Submarine Corps actually defended him during the trial, stating how American Submarine tactics were identical and that they didn't take prisoners.

Under the prewar submarine code of honour. A submarine was supposed to surface and demand a surrender. Then let everyone get off the Submarine before sinking it. In practice however. It was Impossible to do, because it makes the Submarine a giant sitting duck.

IIRC the UBoat commanders tried to follow a some sort of maritime warfare honor code. In the beginning a Uboat commander hit a troop ship or something. Surfaced. Radio in the open for help/assistance in saving the survivors and was in turned attacked by British forces. After that orders were issued for that type of practice to stopped.

Edit
Fuzzy nugget of info in back of my mind

Edit II

The Laconia incident refers to the controversial events surrounding the sinking and subsequent aborted rescue attempt of a British troopship in the Atlantic Ocean during World War II. On 12 September 1942, RMS Laconia under the command of Capt. Rudolph Sharp and carrying some 2,732 crew, passengers, soldiers and POWs, was torpedoed and sunk by German U-boat U-156 off the coast of West Africa. Operating partly under the dictates of the old prize rules, the U-boat commander, Korvettenkapitän Werner Hartenstein, immediately commenced rescue operations, broadcasting their humanitarian intent on open radio channels to all Allied forces in the area, and were joined by the crews of other U-boats in the vicinity. Heading on the surface to a rendezvous with Vichy French ships under Red Cross banners, with their foredeck laden with survivors, U-156 was deliberately attacked by a USAAF B-24 Liberator bomber. The bomber, which had confirmed and reported the U-boat's intentions and the presence of survivors to higher command, was explicitly ordered to attack the ship anyway. The B-24 ended up killing dozens of the Laconia's survivors with bombs and strafing attacks, forcing U-156 to cast their remaining passengers into the sea and crash dive to avoid being destroyed. The pilots of the B-24 inexplicably reported that they had sunk U-156, and were awarded medals for bravery.

The event seriously chilled the general attitude of Germany's naval personnel towards rescuing stranded Allied seamen, and the commanders of the Kriegsmarine (German navy) were shortly issued the "Laconia Order" by Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz which specifically forbade any such attempt, thus helping to usher in unrestricted submarine warfare for the Kriegsmarine. Neither the US pilots nor their commander were ever punished or even investigated, and the matter was quietly forgotten by the US military until the Nuremburg Trials, when a prosecutorial attempt to cite the Laconia Order as proof of war crimes by Dönitz and his submariners badly backfired and embarrassed the US when the full story of the incident emerged. One international bestseller and numerous articles on the subject have been published, and a 2011 television film produced about the incident.

EDIT III
Like I said fuzzy nugget info in back of my mind remembering way the Hell back. US Forces not British Forces

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Now with that information it makes sense Dönitz was not convicted.

 sebster wrote:


They later interviewed a Pacific War historian about the decision to drop the bomb, and this guy said it remains highly controversial and without a clear answer, but his personal opinion was that he was sceptical that the peace overtures sent out by the Japanese were unlikely to be close to what the Allies were after, and so the bomb was necessary.