We want change

[Rex Kickass]

That is what this country elected when helping create the U.N. and contribute most of the money for it. Based on your post, then it was a mistake entering WWI and WWII.

 

The same President during the creation of the United Nation was the same President who authorized the only wartime deployment and use of atomic weapons.

[Cubano]

I didn't say anything about it being a mistake (although that is true, invading those countries because we don't like their governments would be a horrible mistake), but it's just something that's not going to happen. Even a Republican president with a Republican Congress wouldn't go that far.

 

plus the UN was created in, what, 1947?

 

 

Let me remind you that all these rogue states promote anti-USA policies around the world. In others words, they would destroy us if they could. We do not know what they do under the table for terrorists, etc.

[Cubano]

The same President during the creation of the United Nation was the same President who authorized the only wartime deployment and use of atomic weapons.

 

 

Would the Japanese surrender without a fight?

 

Could the USA had sent lots of troops to fight Japan in addition to the the European front?

 

How many American lives were saved by not fighting Japan with a conventional army?

 

Droping an atomic bomb among civilians is truly horrible, but I am not sure what the USA could had done differently. Didn't the USA warn the Japanese about the atomic bomb?

[lostfan]

Let me remind you that all these rogue states promote anti-USA policies around the world. In others words, they would destroy us if they could. We do not know what they do under the table for terrorists, etc.

If they could. but they cant. so they dont. it just doesnt work that way. Even if we wanted to invade countries for being anti-american, we couldn't. Our army is not big enough. We don't have enough money. We don't have enough ordnance to use in these wars. Besides, what if venezuela attacked the US for promoting anti-venezuela policies around the world? Would that make any sense for them to do?

[Rex Kickass]

Would the Japanese surrender without a fight?

 

Could the USA had sent lots of troops to fight Japan in addition to the the European front?

 

How many American lives were saved by not fighting Japan with a conventional army?

 

Droping an atomic bomb among civilians is truly horrible, but I am not sure what the USA could had done differently. Didn't the USA warn the Japanese about the atomic bomb?

 

The same President who presided over the creation of the UN also was the President who presided over the bulk of the Korean conflict.

[Nixon]

Let me remind you that all these rogue states promote anti-USA policies around the world. In others words, they would destroy us if they could. We do not know what they do under the table for terrorists, etc.

[Balta1701]

Would the Japanese surrender without a fight?

After the war, a decade or so later, Truman as asked whether he regretted his decision to drop the bomb. His response was intriguing...knowing what he knew at the time he'd have done so, knowing what he learned after the war he would not. There were indications within the Japanese government that even without the bomb, the leadership was on the verge of being broken. They'd already had a hell of a fight, and if the Soviets had entered (they did after we dropped the bomb) that might have been enough. It's really a fascinating subject and there are absolutely no easy answers.

Could the USA had sent lots of troops to fight Japan in addition to the the European front?

Yes. The European was was over in May of 1945. The invasion of the first Japanese Home Island wouldn't have been until late 1945 or 1946 at the earliest.

How many American lives were saved by not fighting Japan with a conventional army?

See answer #1. It's possible 1 million. It's possible zero.

 

Droping an atomic bomb among civilians is truly horrible, but I am not sure what the USA could had done differently. Didn't the USA warn the Japanese about the atomic bomb?

Not directly. Truman issued repeated statements threatening Japan with something big if they did not surrender, but did not explicity state what he meant. There were other alternatives considered...like testing the bomb on an island near Japan (i.e. the Aleutians or something like that) such that the Japanese could see the power of the weapon without having it deployed against them. The U.S. decided that their supply of the weapons was too limited and the Japanese weren't going to surrender without being hit by it. Again, without having actually seen the alternate decision play out, who knows?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Not directly. Truman issued repeated statements threatening Japan with something big if they did not surrender, but did not explicity state what he meant. There were other alternatives considered...like testing the bomb on an island near Japan (i.e. the Aleutians or something like that) such that the Japanese could see the power of the weapon without having it deployed against them. The U.S. decided that their supply of the weapons was too limited and the Japanese weren't going to surrender without being hit by it. Again, without having actually seen the alternate decision play out, who knows?

 

As you said, it's one of those situations where you'll never what would have/could have been. However, doesn't it say something about the Japanese when even after the first bomb dropped, it took a second to convince them to surrender? If they were even teetering towards the "let's surrender" option, wouldnt you think after the first bomb dropped it would have led to an almost immediate action by the Japanese? Who knows? But I think it does say a lot for the mentality they had at the time. Regardless, I think it's wrong to criticize that decision because it wasnt like Truman did it recklessly. From all accounts that decision bothered him to the day he died.

[lostfan]

As you said, it's one of those situations where you'll never what would have/could have been. However, doesn't it say something about the Japanese when even after the first bomb dropped, it took a second to convince them to surrender? If they were even teetering towards the "let's surrender" option, wouldnt you think after the first bomb dropped it would have led to an almost immediate action by the Japanese? Who knows? But I think it does say a lot for the mentality they had at the time. Regardless, I think it's wrong to criticize that decision because it wasnt like Truman did it recklessly. From all accounts that decision bothered him to the day he died.

I definitely would never want to be responsible for making a decision like that.

 

Plus, to that point, we never really even had much of a beef with Japan, and vice versa.

[NorthSideSox72]

I definitely would never want to be responsible for making a decision like that.

 

Plus, to that point, we never really even had much of a beef with Japan, and vice versa.

Japanese history was at the end of a strange spasm of imperialsim in WWII. They had spent so many centuries preferring to be isolated. But then starting around the 1880's, they embarked on a series of huge wars, getting into tangles with China, Russia, and of course there was WWII. Then they kind of rewound and went back to that chosen isolation, though not economically, and that change worked well for them.

 

ETA: I believe that the Russo-Japanese War, around 1899-1901 (peace treaty helped by Teddy R), was the third bloodiest war ever, having more deaths than any other than the 2 WW's.

 

[Balta1701]

As you said, it's one of those situations where you'll never what would have/could have been. However, doesn't it say something about the Japanese when even after the first bomb dropped, it took a second to convince them to surrender? If they were even teetering towards the "let's surrender" option, wouldnt you think after the first bomb dropped it would have led to an almost immediate action by the Japanese? Who knows? But I think it does say a lot for the mentality they had at the time. Regardless, I think it's wrong to criticize that decision because it wasnt like Truman did it recklessly. From all accounts that decision bothered him to the day he died.

The response to that is; we're too used to our modern age of communication. If an atomic weapon went off right now, we'd have the pictures on the news within a day, even if it wasn't safe to go in to the area.

 

Put yourself in 1945 Japan. A city has just been completely obliterated out of no where. The country has been at war for years, its supplies are strained, virtually every city except for a handful, including the capitol, have been fire-bombed to pieces. There's no electronic communication. There's no email. There's phone and telegraph service and radio, but the bomb took all of those out. If you want to get pictures of the devastation, you literally have to be in the area, take the film, have it not destroyed by radiation, not die yourself, process them, and then ship them across a bombed-out country. And at the same time, the Russians attacked in Manchuria and overwhelmed the Japanese army, so the army itself was incredibly distracted.

 

The 2nd bomb was being dropped before the Japanese had anything but the most basic of an understanding of what had happened in Hiroshima.

[BearSox]

I definitely would never want to be responsible for making a decision like that.

 

Plus, to that point, we never really even had much of a beef with Japan, and vice versa.

 

Yeah, except until they bombed pearl harbor... however, when you look back at it, Japan had a legit reason to consider us an enemy. It is no secret that FDR wanted to enter the war and he was providing a ton of help to Britian. Japan figured we'd join sooner or later, so they decided to strike first.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, except until they bombed pearl harbor... however, when you look back at it, Japan had a legit reason to consider us an enemy. It is no secret that FDR wanted to enter the war and he was providing a ton of help to Britian. Japan figured we'd join sooner or later, so they decided to strike first.

Japan was a complete surprise for the people at the top, especially how they did it. FDR wanted to help Britain in its war against Germany. The U.S. was almost neglecting Japan as an enemy, moving ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic, etc., in 1940-41. A lot of people sort of understood that war was coming, but it really didn't get its due until the 7th.

 

The thing that really pushed Japan over the edge was that the U.S. began embargoing oil shipments from Indonesia to Japan in 1941 in protest of the Japanese invasion of China. Japan basically had to either come up with a supply of oil or run out of energy within 6 months. They chose to seize the supply they needed, and getting the people enforcing the embargo out of the way was a mandatory step.

[lostfan]

Japanese history was at the end of a strange spasm of imperialsim in WWII. They had spent so many centuries preferring to be isolated. But then starting around the 1880's, they embarked on a series of huge wars, getting into tangles with China, Russia, and of course there was WWII. Then they kind of rewound and went back to that chosen isolation, though not economically, and that change worked well for them.

 

ETA: I believe that the Russo-Japanese War, around 1899-1901 (peace treaty helped by Teddy R), was the third bloodiest war ever, having more deaths than any other than the 2 WW's.

Yeah from what I can tell, the imperial conquest route wasn't a consensus, but Japan wasn't a democracy either, so that didn't matter. Admiral Yamamato kept trying to warn the military that going to war with the US would be a strategic disaster unless they won quickly and decisively, which was unlikely. And he was right.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

The response to that is; we're too used to our modern age of communication. If an atomic weapon went off right now, we'd have the pictures on the news within a day, even if it wasn't safe to go in to the area.

 

Put yourself in 1945 Japan. A city has just been completely obliterated out of no where. The country has been at war for years, its supplies are strained, virtually every city except for a handful, including the capitol, have been fire-bombed to pieces. There's no electronic communication. There's no email. There's phone and telegraph service and radio, but the bomb took all of those out. If you want to get pictures of the devastation, you literally have to be in the area, take the film, have it not destroyed by radiation, not die yourself, process them, and then ship them across a bombed-out country. And at the same time, the Russians attacked in Manchuria and overwhelmed the Japanese army, so the army itself was incredibly distracted.

 

The 2nd bomb was being dropped before the Japanese had anything but the most basic of an understanding of what had happened in Hiroshima.

 

I understand that, but they did have means of quick communication. To me at least it seems that if something so major occurred, you;d have every Japanese official telling the government and emperor about it immediately. I understand there may have been doubts cast as to how dramatic it was, but when countless people (i'm assuming) all relay a similar story, I'd think it would be believed.

 

It is really hard for their culture to admit defeat. Even today their suicide rate is the highest in the world. But back then it was even greater. Remember, the whole samurai warrior and code of bushido ideology had been relinquished in the not too distant past.

Edited June 18, 2009 by ChiSox_Sonix

[BearSox]

The response to that is; we're too used to our modern age of communication. If an atomic weapon went off right now, we'd have the pictures on the news within a day, even if it wasn't safe to go in to the area.

 

Put yourself in 1945 Japan. A city has just been completely obliterated out of no where. The country has been at war for years, its supplies are strained, virtually every city except for a handful, including the capitol, have been fire-bombed to pieces. There's no electronic communication. There's no email. There's phone and telegraph service and radio, but the bomb took all of those out. If you want to get pictures of the devastation, you literally have to be in the area, take the film, have it not destroyed by radiation, not die yourself, process them, and then ship them across a bombed-out country. And at the same time, the Russians attacked in Manchuria and overwhelmed the Japanese army, so the army itself was incredibly distracted.

 

The 2nd bomb was being dropped before the Japanese had anything but the most basic of an understanding of what had happened in Hiroshima.

So what, don't you think the leadership in Japan was getting intel about how the whole city got obliterated? I'm sorry, but if they didn't know the power of the A-Bomb after Hiroshima, they're retards. You don't need film, internet, and e-mail to get reports of a huge bomb that destroyed a whole city.

 

It is idiotic to think Japan was going to surrender anytime soon. They have had soldiers who are still in jungles waiting to fight. It is Japanese code to never surrender. To think that they were on the verge of surrendering is lunacy. They didn't surrender until after Nagasaki, and I guarantee you they didn't want to but they had to.

 

Yeah, it sucks innocent people had to die, but there is no question it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, if not more.

[Jenksismyhero]

The 2nd bomb was being dropped before the Japanese had anything but the most basic of an understanding of what had happened in Hiroshima.

 

 

Civilians yes, but not the military leaders and political leaders. They knew.

 

Of course they also knew they had no chance of winning the war, but they kept going. The Emperor was the only one that saved Japan from total annihilation.

[Jenksismyhero]

So what, don't you think the leadership in Japan was getting intel about how the whole city got obliterated? I'm sorry, but if they didn't know the power of the A-Bomb after Hiroshima, they're retards. You don't need film, internet, and e-mail to get reports of a huge bomb that destroyed a whole city.

 

It is idiotic to think Japan was going to surrender anytime soon. They have had soldiers who are still in jungles waiting to fight. It is Japanese code to never surrender. To think that they were on the verge of surrendering is lunacy. They didn't surrender until after Nagasaki, and I guarantee you they didn't want to but they had to.

 

Yeah, it sucks innocent people had to die, but there is no question it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, if not more.

 

(1) I don't think it's idiotic to think Japan would have surrendered. By the time the bombs were dropped the only pro-war voice was the military, who actually tried to take over power but failed.

 

(2) No question lives were saved, but we'll never know if it was really worth the cost. That's where the real issue is. I don't think you can blame Truman either way on this. From what he knew before that decision, without the benefit of hindsight, I'm not going to judge what he decided to do.

[lostfan]

Yeah, except until they bombed pearl harbor... however, when you look back at it, Japan had a legit reason to consider us an enemy. It is no secret that FDR wanted to enter the war and he was providing a ton of help to Britian. Japan figured we'd join sooner or later, so they decided to strike first.

That was because they signed the pact with Italy and Germany, which I'm sure they looked at in hindsight and figured "that was a f***ing terrible idea." By that point we had chosen sides without choosing sides and knew war was coming, and once we cut off their oil supply, they were backed into a corner. By bombing Pearl Harbor they were trying to knock out what they could of our ability to counter their movements in the Pacific. Ironically it ended up not even mattering, and it just got us all pissed off.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, except until they bombed pearl harbor... however, when you look back at it, Japan had a legit reason to consider us an enemy. It is no secret that FDR wanted to enter the war and he was providing a ton of help to Britian. Japan figured we'd join sooner or later, so they decided to strike first.

 

Eh. I don't really think that's how it happened. FDR did everything he could to keep us out of the war. Yes we supplied the Allies with money, food, weapons and supplies, but I don't think he was itching for a fight. It did, however, seem inevitable that we'd be in the war at some point. Japan's tactic was to hit us hard while we were getting ready. They just got lucky that our entire Pacific fleet was unmanned and in one small location.

 

Edit: lol, oops, said Atlantic.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Jenksismybitch

[lostfan]

So what, don't you think the leadership in Japan was getting intel about how the whole city got obliterated? I'm sorry, but if they didn't know the power of the A-Bomb after Hiroshima, they're retards. You don't need film, internet, and e-mail to get reports of a huge bomb that destroyed a whole city.

 

It is idiotic to think Japan was going to surrender anytime soon. They have had soldiers who are still in jungles waiting to fight. It is Japanese code to never surrender. To think that they were on the verge of surrendering is lunacy. They didn't surrender until after Nagasaki, and I guarantee you they didn't want to but they had to.

 

Yeah, it sucks innocent people had to die, but there is no question it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, if not more.

On the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, there is no way of ever knowing. Some of their hardcore military leaders were still strongly pro-war when the writing was on the wall, but the civilian leadership was getting close to giving up. Without being able to talk to them directly we'll never really be able to tell how close. But they had nothing left to gain, and more to lose.

 

I still don't really think it's fair to criticize Truman too harshly for it. He had a really hard decision to make, and went with the best of a bunch of bad options.

Edited June 18, 2009 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

Eh. I don't really think that's how it happened. FDR did everything he could to keep us out of the war. Yes we supplied the Allies with money, food, weapons and supplies, but I don't think he was itching for a fight. It did, however, seem inevitable that we'd be in the war at some point. Japan's tactic was to hit us hard before while we were getting ready. They just got lucky that our entire Atlantic fleet was unmanned and in one small location.

1. Pacific Fleet, not Atlantic Fleet.

 

2. There was a couple reasons why the Fleet was there, and they fit in to the larger picture. It was moved to Pearl from San Diego in 1940 IIRC because of the threat of Japan. And it was all sitting in port, except for the Carriers, because the support craft (Destroyers, tankers) had all been shipped to the Atlantic to aid in the battle of the Atlantic against the U-Boats.

 

3. FDR had a very difficult balancing act. He knew Britain falling would be terrible for America and it's pretty obvious he understood that America was going to be sucked in eventually (See; the defense buildup rapidly starting in 1940) but at the same time he couldn't push the population as far as he wanted and he didn't have Congress's support for a lot of things, so he went around them. The Atlantic Charter, for example, should have been something considered a treaty, and thus something that should have gone to the Senate for approval, but FDR never treated it as such and never got pushed on it as hard as he legally should have been before the war actually began.