Hiroshima justified? (Invasion should have been attempted at the very least if not carried thru)

"Linda Terrell" wrote in message ...

what's wrong with ending a war as quickly as possible
and avoiding a costly invasion?

We had a weapon that could end that war in a matter of weeks or
days. So let's invade and drag it out for weeks and months so
we can "justify" ending it with a super weapon?

I lived with lots of Japanese folks and studied the language
with native speakers and they all agree that had Japan had such
a weapon, they would have used it. It seems that most of the
hand-wringing over the use of the bomb seems to come from
Americans.

Interestingly, the ignorance of Japanese atrocities is (from
my admittedly limited survey) nearly 100%. People in Taiwan
know all about the Rape of Nanking, but people in Japan don't
seem to know that it even happened.

Has anyone seen/heard any thing different? Just curious.

Also, does anyone know how this thread has managed to multiply
itself to a half dozen? Posts seem to have replicated into
duplicate threads. I post one time and see it four times.

In article ,
(cave fish) wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"cave fish" wrote in message
om...

Also, to say Japanese would have died to the last man in the case of
US invasion based on the evidence of the fanatical fighting spirit
among Japanese soldiers on islands such as Iwo Jima is also
misleading. How do we know civilians would have resisted as doggedly
as the soldiers on those islands?

Because the Japanese civilians on Tinian , Saipan and Okinawa
did so preferring death to surrender. Then we testimony from
the Japanese post war that tells us that they were training
women and children to use bamboo pikes to attack Americans

Dropping nukes against people with bamboo pikes sounds rather absurd.

Good, since they were not the target.

So we are to believe Japan was so run down and desperate that it's
idea of national defense was women and children with bamboo spears?

No, they were in *addition* to everything else that the Japanese Empire
could muster in the area.

Interestingly, the ignorance of Japanese atrocities is (from
my admittedly limited survey) nearly 100%. People in Taiwan
know all about the Rape of Nanking, but people in Japan don't
seem to know that it even happened.

Or worse, they deny it. Even reputable historians like Ikuhiko Hata
have lent themselves to this bit of revisionism.

www.warbirdforum.com/deny.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Linda Terrell" wrote:

Also, to say Japanese would have died to the
last man in the case of
US invasion based on the evidence of the fanatical
fighting spirit
among Japanese soldiers on islands such as
Iwo Jima is also
misleading. How do we know civilians would
have resisted as doggedly
as the soldiers on those islands?

We didn't, so we didn't take any chances.


The atomic bombs would have been more justified
if US had at least
attempted to invade Japan. If US had tried
that for a month and failed
miserably, perhaps the use of atomic bombs
would have been more
justified, based on more reliable estimates
based on real experience.
But, US didn't even try to invade Japan. It
just wanted to end the war
as quickly as possible and took the most draconian
measures.

what's wrong with ending a war as quickly as
possible
and avoiding a costly invasion?

We had a weapon that could end that war in a
matter of weeks or
days. So let's invade and drag it out for weeks
and months so
we can "justify" ending it with a super weapon?

Waste soldiers' lives so we wouldn't harm "innocent"
civilians of
an enemy country?

Where did youstudy war?

Not ten Japanese civilians were worth one American
soldier.

We ended it.

LT
Good post, Linda. I concur completely. Japan started the war at Pearl Harbor.
It was ended for all intents and purposes on 6 and 9 August 45 with 15 Kt
on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki. The bombs were far preferable to invasion.


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

(Greg Moritz) wrote:
"Linda Terrell" wrote
in message ...

what's wrong with ending a war as quickly
as possible
and avoiding a costly invasion?

We had a weapon that could end that war in
a matter of weeks or
days. So let's invade and drag it out for
weeks and months so
we can "justify" ending it with a super weapon?

I lived with lots of Japanese folks and studied
the language
with native speakers and they all agree that
had Japan had such
a weapon, they would have used it. It seems
that most of the
hand-wringing over the use of the bomb seems
to come from
Americans.

Interestingly, the ignorance of Japanese atrocities
is (from
my admittedly limited survey) nearly 100%.
People in Taiwan
know all about the Rape of Nanking, but people
in Japan don't
seem to know that it even happened.

Has anyone seen/heard any thing different?
Just curious.

Also, does anyone know how this thread has managed
to multiply
itself to a half dozen? Posts seem to have
replicated into
duplicate threads. I post one time and see
it four times.
Regarding Japanese attitude on Nanking: A senior Japanese politician called
the Nanking atrocities a hoax by the PRC. The resulting outcry from both
the PRC and Taiwan as well as other SE Asian nations resulted in his apology
and resignation. This was 3-4 years back IIRC. As for Pearl Harbor, a number
of former pilots in Kido Butai have gone back and been welcomed at the Arizona
Memorial by the USN and the Park Service, as well as a number of PH survivors.
The survivors' attitude seems to be "they were doing their job, just as we
were." The survivors attitude towards the Japanese Government is quite different,
however.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

Dropping nukes against people with bamboo pikes sounds rather absurd.

Not if it's your tender belly about to be pierced by a bamboo pike.

Ummm...the nuke would not exactly be helping you much at that point...

:}

Dropping nukes against people with bamboo pikes sounds rather absurd.

Not if it's your tender belly about to be pierced by a bamboo pike.

Ummm...the nuke would not exactly be helping you much at that point...

It helped me a great deal, since it made the invasion unnecessary.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Pan Ohco wrote:
~Michael

Yes. Against the prospect of instantly annihilating
entire populations
indiscrimately, I would risk more American
soldiers' lives. And,
unless the invasion was attempted we wouldn't
know whether it was a
good or bad idea.
The idea of nuking cities and casually wiping
out 100,000s in an
instant just to save American lives isn't any
kind of morality.

So the killing of say a 100,000 Americans just
to see if an invasion
was a bad idea,is o.k.?

And you would be the first of the landing craft?


Pan Ohco
I would hope that he would be in the first amtrac at Ariake Bay (the most
heavily defended) in Kyushu.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

In 1941 when the Japs attacked the US, we were far from being the most
powerful nation in the world!

This is a key point. Our army was not even second-rate--more like
tenth rate.

We ranked 16th, just after Poland, at the start of WW2.

In no way were we in shape to prosecute a war.

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

Dropping nukes against people with bamboo pikes sounds rather absurd.

Not if it's your tender belly about to be pierced by a bamboo pike.

Ummm...the nuke would not exactly be helping you much at that point...

It helped me a great deal, since it made the invasion unnecessary.

Sigh. (I know what you meant; my father was on an LST outbound from
Guam to Okinawa when the war ended.)

Someone about to be skewered on a bamboo pike wouldn't benefit much
at that moment from a nuke. It's either too late, or it's too late for
him.