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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Is this the part where sane people discuss how a coup was attempted in Japan to keep the Emperor from announcing surrender or do we just go with the AMERICA EVUIL HURR! Assange line of the day?

Is this the part where you try to change the subject after everyone notices you're claiming north korea is shelling us with the longest range artillery ever made?

Is this the part where you bifurcate and say because they only attacked US forces its not an attack?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Is this the part where sane people discuss how a coup was attempted in Japan to keep the Emperor from announcing surrender or do we just go with the AMERICA EVUIL HURR! Assange line of the day?

Is this the part where you try to change the subject after everyone notices you're claiming north korea is shelling us with the longest range artillery ever made?

Is this the part where you bifurcate and say because they only attacked US forces its not an attack?

Yes, and by U.S. forces, I primarily mean south korean as the number of US personell lost to north korean fire in the last few decades I can't count on my fingers.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Is this the part where sane people discuss how a coup was attempted in Japan to keep the Emperor from announcing surrender or do we just go with the AMERICA EVUIL HURR! Assange line of the day?

Is this the part where you try to change the subject after everyone notices you're claiming north korea is shelling us with the longest range artillery ever made?

Is this the part where you bifurcate and say because they only attacked US forces its not an attack?

Yes, and by U.S. forces, I primarily mean south korean as the number of US personell lost to north korean fire in the last few decades I can't count on my fingers.

More than we've lost to Canada.

No, it is the part where you explain how border hostilities between N & S Korea mean the US are in an actual war, as opposed to a paper one, with N Korea.

As for the coup, you mean the one exercised by a major and a couple of lt. colonels that was prevented by far more senior officers?

But if you want to discuss the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, maybe you can explain how those highly, massively, obviously vital targets were ignored by conventional bombing attacks until such time as it was decided to use nuclear weapons. And that is despite one of the bombs being diverted from its original target, which was also ignored.

Frazzled wrote:Is this the part where sane people discuss how a coup was attempted in Japan to keep the Emperor from announcing surrender or do we just go with the AMERICA EVUIL HURR! Assange line of the day?

Embrace it, love it.





onohedidnt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:No, it is the part where you explain how border hostilities between N & S Korea mean the US are in an actual war, as opposed to a paper one, with N Korea.

As for the coup, you mean the one exercised by a major and a couple of lt. colonels that was prevented by far more senior officers?

But if you want to discuss the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, maybe you can explain how those highly, massively, obviously vital targets were ignored by conventional bombing attacks until such time as it was decided to use nuclear weapons. And that is despite one of the bombs being diverted from its original target, which was also ignored.

The nukes were a calculated strike designed purely to save American lives. Projected casulties from a land assault on Japan were astronomical. They would NOT stop fighting unless we used the banhammer.


Sucks, but we cool now. Tentacle porn and digimons HOOOOOOOOO.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Is this the part where sane people discuss how a coup was attempted in Japan to keep the Emperor from announcing surrender or do we just go with the AMERICA EVUIL HURR! Assange line of the day?

Is this the part where you try to change the subject after everyone notices you're claiming north korea is shelling us with the longest range artillery ever made?

Is this the part where you bifurcate and say because they only attacked US forces its not an attack?

Yes, and by U.S. forces, I primarily mean south korean as the number of US personell lost to north korean fire in the last few decades I can't count on my fingers.

More than we've lost to Canada.

Actually, if you're counting minefields (Which are basically the only things we've died too in that big copy paste of yours) which are an environmental hazard you could probably infer that we've lost more service personell to canadian beer then we have to north korean weapons. Or ice for that matter. You're trumping this vastly beyond what you should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:No, it is the part where you explain how border hostilities between N & S Korea mean the US are in an actual war, as opposed to a paper one, with N Korea.

As for the coup, you mean the one exercised by a major and a couple of lt. colonels that was prevented by far more senior officers?

But if you want to discuss the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, maybe you can explain how those highly, massively, obviously vital targets were ignored by conventional bombing attacks until such time as it was decided to use nuclear weapons. And that is despite one of the bombs being diverted from its original target, which was also ignored.

We had already been heavily engaged in standard firebombing for quite some time. Those cities weren't our first targets of priority. The fact that they were previously unscathed made them better targets for a weapon as supposedly powerful as the nuclear bombs were.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually, if you're counting minefields (Which are basically the only things we've died too in that big copy paste of yours) which are an environmental hazard you could probably infer that we've lost more service personell to canadian beer then we have to north korean weapons. Or ice for that matter. You're trumping this vastly beyond what you should be.

Well, Canadian beer is of such quality that it could be worth dying for...

If it was being done purely to save American lives in a protracted land war (as the sea and air wars had already been comprehensively won), then why not just let the Japanese surrender to the Russians, like they had already attempted to do and been prevented by the Americans?

The bombs were used with the post-war period in mind.

You could probably make a very strong argument, that I could even agree with, that preventing Japan becoming a communist bastion was worthwhile, even if it did require atomic weaponry. You could probably even argue that the horrors of full-scale atomic war in the decades after the war were only averted by the fact that the effects of this bombs was already visible to everyone and no-one wanted to go down that road. There is no case that it was done to save lives in a land war. The land war would actually have been better avoided by letting the Japanese surrender to Russia as it was already a done-deal and didn't risk a new leadership taking over, at all.

Did the Soviets attack Japan before or after this offer?

You guys know that the last officially declared war by the US was World War 2?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Peter Wiggin wrote:
The nukes were a calculated strike designed purely to save American lives. Projected casulties from a land assault on Japan were astronomical. They would NOT stop fighting unless we used the banhammer.

Actually, our conventional bombing campaign against Japanese cities killed far, far more people than the nuclear strikes did.

In fact, its been argued that it wasn't the nuclear bombs that really did the trick, but the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. In essence, Japan was holding out for a more favorable settlement; assuming that the US would be unwilling to invade of its own accord. This wasn't a bad assumption, given that our bombing campaign was directed largely at civilian population centers, and not military targets. However, once the Soviets entered the war, any option of holding out for better surrender terms became entirely untenable due to the proliferation of invasion forces stacked against the Japanese. This is all very well supported by numerous declassified personal memos from the Japanese high command that wrote off the nuclear strikes as either insignificant, or a convenient way to save face in surrender. The latter basically being a declaration of "We didn't lose an even fight, we could not have foreseen these new weapons."

ShumaGorath wrote:We had already been heavily engaged in standard firebombing for quite some time. Those cities weren't our first targets of priority. The fact that they were previously unscathed made them better targets for a weapon as supposedly powerful as the nuclear bombs were.

Hiroshima, despite being a massive priority target, and of huge military importance, was all but ignored by the fire-bombing, which concentrated on Tokyo, Yokohama, even Osaka and Kyoto and other cities. It was saved as a target for the bomb, not selected as a target because it had not been bombed. That is also despite the fact that the rest of the country had been so saturated by this firebombing there were practically no military buildings left standing on most other cities. Kitakyushu, primary target of the other bomb before it was diverted due to cloud cover, also suffered far less than other cities until the atomic bomb.

edit: Forgot Nagasaki - same story. Barely bombed prior to the nuclear bomb. As one of the alernates, it was being left alone so as to make a bigger impact incase it was bombed. Another alternate was Kokura.

edit: spelling.

Gibbsey wrote:You guys know that the last officially declared war by the US was World War 2?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Korea was a UN resolution
Vietnam, Congressional resolution
Desert Storm same

EDIT: I don't think they declared war on the Confederacy either, just went straight to losing battles.

Frazzled wrote:Did the Soviets attack Japan before or after this offer?

After.

Fifty wrote:If it was being done purely to save American lives in a protracted land war (as the sea and air wars had already been comprehensively won), then why not just let the Japanese surrender to the Russians, like they had already attempted to do and been prevented by the Americans?

The bombs were used with the post-war period in mind.

You could probably make a very strong argument, that I could even agree with, that preventing Japan becoming a communist bastion was worthwhile, even if it did require atomic weaponry. You could probably even argue that the horrors of full-scale atomic war in the decades after the war were only averted by the fact that the effects of this bombs was already visible to everyone and no-one wanted to go down that road. There is no case that it was done to save lives in a land war. The land war would actually have been better avoided by letting the Japanese surrender to Russia as it was already a done-deal and didn't risk a new leadership taking over, at all.

Don't disagree, it was a complex issue that involved a ton of American nationalism. Its in the past, giant robots unite us with our brothers on the island!

Fifty wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Did the Soviets attack Japan before or after this offer?

After.

How many days was it that they sued for peace after the first bomb?
How many holdouts where there on islands up through the 1970s?
Why was it stated army policy for the nation to effeectively commit suicide fighting the Americnas before they would surrender?

Frazzled wrote:

Fifty wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Did the Soviets attack Japan before or after this offer?

After.

How many days was it that they sued for peace after the first bomb?
How many holdouts where there on islands up through the 1970s?
Why was it stated army policy for the nation to effeectively commit suicide fighting the Americnas before they would surrender?

Cause they were hardcore?

Japan began negotiations with Russia at the end of June, through July.

On 26th July, the Potsdam declaration was signed by the US, UK and China, requiring unconditional surrender.

In the following days, Japan realised Russia would not accept their surrender.

August 6th: Hiroshima hit.

August 9th: Russia invades Japanese-held territories on mainland. Japanese leadership realise war cannot be won with Russians against them. Split on what terms of surrender to offer.

Nagasaki bombed the same day.

Emperor Hirohito intervened to convince the war leaders to surrender.

August 10th: Japan surrenders, with the only condition being that the Emperor be retained.

August 14th: Emperor records an announcement to publically announce surrender.

August 15th: Attempted coup fails. Emperor's surrender announcement broadcast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
holdouts


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And they were ordered to keep fighting for much the same reason as Churchill exhorted us Brits to fight on the beaches, but never ever surrender. As a way of building morale. In the martial history Japan had, it was phrased entirely differently. Only America gives up and goes home when the going gets tough. *coughs*Vietnam*coughs*

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

So 4 days after the first nuke, after months of firebombing, and after the crushing destruction of their forces in manhcuria in what can only be described as the mother of all Blitzkriegs, only after repulsing an attempted coup did they surrender. Mmm yea...

Frazzled wrote:So 4 days after the first nuke, after months of firebombing, and after the crushing destruction of their forces in manhcuria in what can only be described as the mother of all Blitzkriegs, only after repulsing an attempted coup did they surrender. Mmm yea...

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Fifty wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Did the Soviets attack Japan before or after this offer?

After.

How many days was it that they sued for peace after the first bomb?
How many holdouts where there on islands up through the 1970s?
Why was it stated army policy for the nation to effeectively commit suicide fighting the Americnas before they would surrender?

Cause they were hardcore?

Fifty wrote:holdouts


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And they were ordered to keep fighting for much the same reason as Churchill exhorted us Brits to fight on the beaches, but never ever surrender. As a way of building morale. In the martial history Japan had, it was phrased entirely differently. Only America gives up and goes home when the going gets tough. *coughs*Vietnam*coughs*

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

"If it wasn't for those damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another 10 years!"

Thats my point. There may have been a peace feeler by part of the government to the USSR (who wasn't exactly the guys kicking their asses), but the guys with the power were having none of it.

Its a nice convenient line of thought for those who like to push the USA is Evil EVVVVVIIILLLLL!!! slant.

Frazzled wrote:Thats my point. There may have been a peace feeler by part of the government to the USSR (who wasn't exactly the guys kicking their asses), but the guys with the power were having none of it.

Its a nice convenient line of thought for those who like to push the USA is Evil EVVVVVIIILLLLL!!! slant.

We are, just embrace it.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats my point. There may have been a peace feeler by part of the government to the USSR (who wasn't exactly the guys kicking their asses), but the guys with the power were having none of it.

Its a nice convenient line of thought for those who like to push the USA is Evil EVVVVVIIILLLLL!!! slant.

We are, just embrace it.

Embraceit ? Feth that. Live it!

@ Frazzled: I meant declare full-blown 'We're going to nuke the feth out of you. Seriously' war.
Not 'technically at war...' war.

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:@ Frazzled: I meant declare full-blown 'We're going to nuke the feth out of you. Seriously' war.
Not 'technically at war...' war.

I'd proffer any war where divisions are involved is seriously trying to kill you war. Any time you're being shot at it would do it for me personally.

Korean War ended when Eisenhower threatened to start dropping nukes, like MacArthur wanted. I think that matches.
Casualties in Korean and Vietnam wars were greater than War of 1812, Mexico War, Spanish War, Revolutionary War, and Indian Wars, and Quasi War.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats my point. There may have been a peace feeler by part of the government to the USSR (who wasn't exactly the guys kicking their asses), but the guys with the power were having none of it.

Its a nice convenient line of thought for those who like to push the USA is Evil EVVVVVIIILLLLL!!! slant.

We are, just embrace it.

Look at it this way, you get Lex Luthor for president.

Man, I'm jealous.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats my point. There may have been a peace feeler by part of the government to the USSR (who wasn't exactly the guys kicking their asses), but the guys with the power were having none of it.

Its a nice convenient line of thought for those who like to push the USA is Evil EVVVVVIIILLLLL!!! slant.

We are, just embrace it.

Look at it this way, you get Lex Luthor for president.

Man I'm jealous.

Let freedom ring!

Frazzled wrote:Thats my point. There may have been a peace feeler by part of the government to the USSR (who wasn't exactly the guys kicking their asses), but the guys with the power were having none of it.

It wasn't the coup that caused the Japanese to surrender. It was, ultimately, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, as that's what took negotiations with the USSR off the table. This is all the more evident given the speed with which a meeting was called after it became known that the Soviets had broken the neutrality agreement.

Even the members of the army and war ministry that wished to fight a decisive land battle were largely looking to force more favorable terms out of the United States (Anami in particular). Once they realized that was impossible, given the loss of all Imperial holdings, the purpose of the battle was lost and it was possible for Hirohito to order an end to hostilities; regardless of a small attempted coup amongst lower ranking officers.

As I said above, this has all been well substantiated by a number of authors.

Frazzled wrote:
Its a nice convenient line of thought for those who like to push the USA is Evil EVVVVVIIILLLLL!!! slant.

Sometimes, but most often its used as a way to remove emphasis from nuclear weapons in the course of inducing the Japanese surrender, and as a counter to the inviolate way that many people in America tend to regard the decision making that went on during WWII. This doesn't necessarily mean that the bombs were dropped in order to show off to the Soviets, though that may have indeed been a factor, but it does have significant implications for the conversations regarding modern nuclear security, and disarmament.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12067735

Oshi- It's on.