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.

 Frazzled wrote:

The fact is they didn't surrender until these events occurred, all of them occurred.

Correlation does not imply causation. We don't know if Hirohito would've been pushed to surrender by the Soviet advance or not.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Feeling out a third party is a joke excuse by apologists to say "look see, they were trying to surrender, but those evil Americans were evilz and wouldn't let us."

They were trying to negotiate, not surrender. Or at least not unconditionally. A less determined (or capable) enemy might have let them do so. But it had been decided that the japanese should be taken out as a threat for good and the means were available. I'd even say the Japanese are now far better off than they would be if they'd been allowed to keep to their old system instead of being subject to occupation. Which doesn't make the nukes less horrible, ofc - but at the time it seemed like the only way to ensure unconditional surrender without totally leveling the islands.

True, and absent very limited conditions, unconditional surrender was the only option.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The fact is they didn't surrender until these events occurred, all of them occurred.

Correlation does not imply causation. We don't know if Hirohito would've been pushed to surrender by the Soviet advance or not.

Considering the effect that being conquered by the Soviets would have had on Japanese culture, I think it's a definite yes.

Stalin wouldn't let the Imperial family remain, you can just look at what happened to the Tsars family to see that. He also would've tried to obliterate the japanese culture and way of life, just like he tried to do in most of the eastern european countries he acquired in that war.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The fact is they didn't surrender until these events occurred, all of them occurred.

Correlation does not imply causation. We don't know if Hirohito would've been pushed to surrender by the Soviet advance or not.

And we don't know if he would have been pushed to surrender once Marines walked into the Imperial Palace. Its an If.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The fact is they didn't surrender until these events occurred, all of them occurred.

Correlation does not imply causation. We don't know if Hirohito would've been pushed to surrender by the Soviet advance or not.

That's the key, really. I believe another Japan was washed up to the point Hirohito would have folded within the following month anyway, invasion or no. And I think the potential for overall lives saved, and the powerlessness of Japanese forces was great enough, for a short breathing space to have been advisable, if you look at it from a moral standpoint.

YMMV.

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, you're utterly ignoring casualty estimates by the Alllies.

Your arguments rests on a lot of maybes, could haves, etc.

The fact is they didn't surrender until these events occurred, all of them occurred.

And it worked.

And your "Casualty estimates" aren't based on maybes and could haves?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, you're utterly ignoring casualty estimates by the Alllies.

Your arguments rests on a lot of maybes, could haves, etc.

The fact is they didn't surrender until these events occurred, all of them occurred.

And it worked.

And your "Casualty estimates" aren't based on maybes and could haves?

Casualty estimates which got bigger and bigger every time they were brought up, especially after the devastation of the bomb became known.

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The fact is they didn't surrender until these events occurred, all of them occurred.

Correlation does not imply causation. We don't know if Hirohito would've been pushed to surrender by the Soviet advance or not.

That's the key, really. I believe another Japan was washed up to the point Hirohito would have folded within the following month anyway, invasion or no. And I think the potential for overall lives saved, and the powerlessness of Japanese forces was great enough, for a short breathing space to have been advisable, if you look at it from a moral standpoint.

YMMV.

Meanwhile Chinese and Koreans would continue to be dying, and Allied POW's would continue to be dying. There's no logical reason for the allies to wait for anything. Time was Life.
If it caused more Japanese casualties who gave a gak?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, you're utterly ignoring casualty estimates by the Alllies.

Your arguments rests on a lot of maybes, could haves, etc.

The fact is they didn't surrender until these events occurred, all of them occurred.

And it worked.

And your "Casualty estimates" aren't based on maybes and could haves?

Again they were based on ACTUAL KILLING in Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again, you're utterly ignoring casualty estimates by the Alllies.

Your arguments rests on a lot of maybes, could haves, etc.

The fact is they didn't surrender until these events occurred, all of them occurred.

And it worked.

And your "Casualty estimates" aren't based on maybes and could haves?

Casualty estimates which got bigger and bigger every time they were brought up, especially after the devastation of the bomb became known.

If the casualties were one more than if they didn't drop the bombs that was too much.

 Frazzled wrote:
[

Meanwhile Chinese and Koreans would continue to be dying, and Allied POW's would continue to be dying. There's no logical reason for the allies to wait for anything. Time was Life.

Perhaps I'm not making this clear.

Event A (the dropping of the nuclear bomb) resulted in X number of definitive casualties. It is possible, that by waiting slightly longer and not initiating Event A, the number of casualties that would have resulted would have been less than that definitive number of casualties. It is also possible it would have been equivalent or greater. But weighing up the evidence, I am inclined to believe it would have been lesser.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
[

Meanwhile Chinese and Koreans would continue to be dying, and Allied POW's would continue to be dying. There's no logical reason for the allies to wait for anything. Time was Life.

Perhaps I'm not making this clear.

Event A (the dropping of the nuclear bomb) resulted in X number of definitive casualties. It is possible, that by waiting slightly longer and not initiating Event A, the number of casualties that would have resulted would have been less than that definitive number of casualties. It is also possible it would have been equivalent or greater. But weighing up the evidence, I am inclined to believe it would have been lesser.

Prove it. On its face its false.
One more allied casualty incurred for not using the bomb was one too many. And yes I am absolutely valuing the lives of the allies and the subject citizens over those of Japan.

 Frazzled wrote:


Prove it. On its face its false.
One more allied casualty incurred for not using the bomb was one too many. And yes I am absolutely valuing the lives of the allies and the subject citizens over those of Japan.

I'll prove it if you can prove the casualty list from an invasion of Japan. Which you can't, because this is 'What if?' history.

I'll hold with my own opinion with regards to making my own judgement on weighing up the evidence of what 'could have happened'. You are free to believe as you will.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Prove it. On its face its false.
One more allied casualty incurred for not using the bomb was one too many. And yes I am absolutely valuing the lives of the allies and the subject citizens over those of Japan.

I'll prove it if you can prove the casualty list from an invasion of Japan. Which you can't, because this is 'What if?' history.

I'll hold with my own opinion with regards to making my own judgement on weighing up the evidence of what 'could have happened'. You are free to believe as you will.

I can prove that, absent a miracle proving the existence of Dog, there will be at least one casualty in any invasion or even a mere few day's delay. Thats one more than actually occurred. Your plan is no go on that basis alone.

There is a casualty list. Its zero allied casualties.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is a casualty list. Its zero allied casualties.

Exactly.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Prove it. On its face its false.
One more allied casualty incurred for not using the bomb was one too many. And yes I am absolutely valuing the lives of the allies and the subject citizens over those of Japan.

I'll prove it if you can prove the casualty list from an invasion of Japan. Which you can't, because this is 'What if?' history.

I'll hold with my own opinion with regards to making my own judgement on weighing up the evidence of what 'could have happened'. You are free to believe as you will.

I can prove that, absent a miracle proving the existence of Dog, there will be at least one casualty in any invasion or even a mere few day's delay. Thats one more than actually occurred. Your plan is no go on that basis alone.

*sighs*

As said, I believe that the total casualties could well have been less. You try and circumvent that by proudly announcing that you care not if a single Japanese person dies, which is fine. That's your opinion, everyone gets one.

I only hope though, that the day your daughter's faces are at risk of being melted off from nuclear fire because of the decisions of a bunch of old men in a room in Washington, the person with the finger on the button is more merciful than you.

I hope his daughter doesn't invade Pearl Harbor!

Proudly? no. You're making it personal.

But that is exactly the calculus the Allied would have used. They had a duty to nothing else but that.

"I only hope though, that the day your daughter's faces are at risk of being melted off from nuclear fire because of the decisions of a bunch of old men in a room in Washington, the person with the finger on the button is more merciful than you. "

If you can't win the argument, make it personal. I'm confident that had the situation been reversed, the bombs would have dropped on the US and this conversation would never have come up.

And on that note I am out. Making it personal was inappropriate and beneath the seriousness of the discussion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
I hope his daughter doesn't invade Pearl Harbor!

You better. She has 20,000 Mongols loitering in the hills. Once that Winchester repeater order comes through its Clobberin Time!

Mmmm...again who would win: Quanah Parker and 50 Comanches or Subotai and 50 mongols. on the next Ultimate Warrior!

There's a very good case to be made that the Soviet offensive was at least as much an impetus for peace as the A-Bombs were. The Japanese had been trying to use the Soviets as an intermediary to initiate peace negotiations in the last few months of the war. When it became clear such was impossible with the Soviet declaration of war, that left largely only one option left, which was agreement to US terms without negotiations. Similarly, the USSR had been the enemy Japan had really been expecting to fight and engage in large scale warfare with for the preceding 40 years, and much of Japan's best troops (depleted though they were) and most valuable resources & installations, were in Manchuria and Korea, and the Red Army overran and destroyed these with shocking ease and swiftness, comparable to the German advances into the Soviet Union in 1941 in many ways. Once this occurred, there were no reserves of troops, vastly fewer resources available, no more negotiation possibility, and no more "empire" left to Japan, and nowhere left to run.

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm

Many of the USAs top commanders felt that the use of the atomic bomb was unnecessary, if these quotes are reliable.

Unnecessary to have peace, probably. Necessary for the peace we ended up getting which was most advantageous, most likely.

Nothing wrong with stacking the odds in your favor.

 Frazzled wrote:


If you can't win the argument, make it personal. I'm confident that had the situation been reversed, the bombs would have dropped on the US and this conversation would never have come up.

And on that note I am out. Making it personal was

Making it personal? I'm wishing your family the absolute best I can, namely that if anyone is ever in a position to harm them without retribution, they choose not to do so. If you take offensive at that, there's not much I can say.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Unnecessary to have peace, probably. Necessary for the peace we ended up getting which was most advantageous, most likely.

Not really. As many of them point out, Japan no longer had the means to wage war. It didn't even have an air force capable of defending its own skies. Japan would have surrendered even if the bomb had not been dropped.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Unnecessary to have peace, probably. Necessary for the peace we ended up getting which was most advantageous, most likely.

Not really. As many of them point out, Japan no longer had the means to wage war. It didn't even have an air force capable of defending its own skies.

Sure, but that is irrelevant. The goal was unconditional surrender. Not just a peace where Japan was left alone.

Japan wouldn't have stopped their aggression if America became unable to strike back, why should we have done any different?

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


If you can't win the argument, make it personal. I'm confident that had the situation been reversed, the bombs would have dropped on the US and this conversation would never have come up.

And on that note I am out. Making it personal was

Making it personal? I'm wishing your family the absolute best I can, namely that if anyone is ever in a position to harm them without retribution, they choose not to do so. If you take offensive at that, there's not much I can say.

A reminder:

I only hope though, that the day your daughter's faces are at risk of being melted off from nuclear fire because of the decisions of a bunch of old men in a room in Washington, the person with the finger on the button is more merciful than you.

That sort of language would rightfully generate a demand for duel at dawn with whippy sticks if we were in the same room.

Whippy sticks...GW's method for the satisfaction of honor since 1982.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Unnecessary to have peace, probably. Necessary for the peace we ended up getting which was most advantageous, most likely.

Not really. As many of them point out, Japan no longer had the means to wage war. It didn't even have an air force capable of defending its own skies.

Sure, but that is irrelevant. The goal was unconditional surrender. Not just a peace where Japan was left alone.

Japan wouldn't have stopped their aggression if America became unable to strike back, why should we have done any different?

The logical answer would be, 'Because you're not them'. I mean, would you want to be judged to be on the same moral level as Imperial Japan? Them doing something should be a good indicator as to why you shouldn't do it, if anything.

That sort of language would rightfully generate a demand for duel at dawn with whippy sticks if we were in the same room.

Whippy sticks...GW's method for the satisfaction of honor since 1982.

I shall remember in the future that wishing for your family's wellbeing to be separate from the actions of your government, is a cause of affront. Perhaps now though, you might have gleaned some understanding as to why an arbitrary decision to kill hundreds of thousands of average joes like you and me isn't necessarily the best thing.

Remember with wars:-

 Grey Templar wrote:


Sure, but that is irrelevant. The goal was unconditional surrender. Not just a peace where Japan was left alone.

Japan wouldn't have stopped their aggression if America became unable to strike back, why should we have done any different?

For the same reason that you don't behead a muslim in retaliation for IS beheading a US citizen.

Different times dude. Civilians have only recently been seen as off limits in wartime because, rightly so, they are indeed part of any war effort. They have always been fair game since the dawn of warfare.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Unnecessary to have peace, probably. Necessary for the peace we ended up getting which was most advantageous, most likely.

Not really. As many of them point out, Japan no longer had the means to wage war. It didn't even have an air force capable of defending its own skies. Japan would have surrendered even if the bomb had not been dropped.

I'm sure you're right. If we had invaded mainland Japan without dropping the bombs, I'm 100% certain that they would have simply laid down their arms, not fired a shot, and no civilian, allied, or Japanese soldiers would have died.

Not one.

 kronk wrote:
I hope his daughter doesn't invade Pearl Harbor!

My mother in law didn't invade Pearl Harbour, she had only just been born when it happened.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I hope his daughter doesn't invade Pearl Harbor!

My mother in law didn't invade Pearl Harbour, she had only just been born when it happened.

That would make her old. OOOLLLLDDD!