Che Guevara

[Mike.]

Sorry Mike, but thats fairy tail.

its not. cant be bothered with this. go and do the research, ridiculous. Clearly you dont actually know that much about ww2

 

[Vanjagl]

its not. cant be bothered with this. go and do the research, ridiculous. Clearly ou dont actually know that much about ww2

Your answer to everything. It's all past now, history is written by winners and I'm glad USA won that one. But I feel sorry for Japan, cuz I know whats it like to be poisoned with radioactive stuff.

 

[Mike.]

Your answer to everything. It's all past now, history is written by winners and I'm glad USA won that one. But I feel sorry for Japan, cuz I know whats it like to be poisoned with radioactive stuff.

well you dont, otherwise you would know that american bombed japan for a considerable while before the atom bombs, and you would know about Hirohito's words to his generals, or that they used the Soviets as an intermediaries between then and americans. history was also written by the japanese. instead of calling it a fairy tale, go out there and read the stuff and comeback with counter point, rather than just dismissing anything.

 

[Vanjagl]

I bet we don't know half of what really happened. Yes, they bombed Japan ( more than 50 cities) for some time. Ok, but second a-bomb was dropped 3 days after first one, and Japan surrender 6 days after second. I bet if USA gave them some time to think, they would surrender after first one. So, first one was war-winner, second was pay back.

 

[Mike.]

I bet we don't know half of what really happened. Yes, they bombed Japan ( more than 50 cities) for some time. Ok, but second a-bomb was dropped 3 days after first one, and Japan surrender 6 days after second. I bet if USA gave them some time to think, they would surrender after first one. So, first one was war-winner, second was pay back.

Except we do, as it was recorded in history by both sides. They didnt even want to surrender after the second one. Only the emperor did, and he was nearly overthrown. Your argument has no basis anywhere, on either side.

read:
Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi . Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
Feifer, George (2001). The Battle of Okinawa: The Blood and the Bomb.
Hoyt, Edwin P. (1986). Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict.

 

[Vanjagl]

Winners always write history. You don't have to be bright to notice that, just check it ( history). Wonder what history would be if Nazis won... Anyway, we are going into circles, I once said, I wont comment on threads like this, but im one stupid **** to argue with you, cuz you all know better then some guy whos country ruined by your mercenaries. Good night Mike.

 

[Mike.]

Winners always write history. You don't have to be bright to notice that, just check it ( history). Wonder what history would be if Nazis won... Anyway, we are going into circles, I once said, I wont comment on threads like this, but im one stupid **** to argue with you, cuz you all know better then some guy whos country ruined by your mercenaries. Good night Mike.

not my mercenaries, so thats totally bullshit and irrelevant. and that ridiculous post tells me all i need to know about why you stick to you baseless views. the first book is written by a japanese person. im not asking you to listen to me. im asking you to do some research

 

[Vanjagl]

For your consistency. Have a nice dreams bud.

 

[Mads2506]

Youu guys take such a calculated stance to all of this. We got 2500000 people in one hand and 1 million in the other. The quarter of a million are fewest, so lets kill them. The US had hundreds of thousands of soldiers ready to die to take Japan, but the government took the easy way out and murdered the defenseless. Why would you label me as the bad guy for what you would call killing 750000 more than is necessary when you seemingly have no problem with killing people who can't possibly defend themselves. You can call my views philosophical bogus, I call it sense.

I have 4 big guys in one room and 1 little girl in another room. I could choose to fight the 4 big guys with my 4 big guy friends, which would result in 4 of the 8 dying, most of them being the opposition. OR I could murder the little girl and that would be it. What would you do? It's as easy as 1v4 isn't it?

 

[Shay Given]

Oh for goodness sakes.

Do the research. In the Battle of Saipan 20,000 civilians voluntarily threw themselves off cliffs after Hirohito encouraged them to.

The Americans didn't kill them, they killed themselves. That way they would be accorded equal spiritual status in the afterlife to soldiers who died in combat. There is nothing to suggest that this wouldn't happen in Japan.

If the civilians did eventually kill themselves at least they would have been given the chance and choice to live and not had there lives taken away from by the Americans who felt it was alright just to kill the defenseless as long as it got things done faster.

I still think the possible death figures hat you and Mike have posted are very exaggerated.

I believe one the main reasons they used the A-bomb rather than launch a attack was to get it over with before Russia got involved and also to scare Russia.

“The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” Admiral Leahy

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war” Admiral. Nimitz

Both these men who high ranked officials in the Navy and they where under the impression that Japan was ready to surrender.

 

[Mike.]

Youu guys take such a calculated stance to all of this. We got 2500000 people in one hand and 1 million in the other. The quarter of a million are fewest, so lets kill them. The US had hundreds of thousands of soldiers ready to die to take Japan, but the government took the easy way out and murdered the defenseless. Why would you label me as the bad guy for what you would call killing 750000 more than is necessary when you seemingly have no problem with killing people who can't possibly defend themselves. You can call my views philosophical bogus, I call it sense.

I have 4 big guys in one room and 1 little girl in another room. I could choose to fight the 4 big guys with my 4 big guy friends, which would result in 4 of the 8 dying, most of them being the opposition. OR I could murder the little girl and that would be it. What would you do? It's as easy as 1v4 isn't it?

those 250k would have died anyway as they fought to the death against any invasion. that is the key point you miss, so your analogy with the little girl is flawed, and baseless when talking about what happened at the time.

 

[Mike.]

If the civilians did eventually kill themselves at least they would have been given the chance and choice to live and not had there lives taken away from by the Americans who felt it was alright just to kill the defenseless as long as it got things done faster.

I still think the possible death figures hat you and Mike have posted are very exaggerated.

I believe one the main reasons they used the A-bomb rather than launch a attack was to get it over with before Russia got involved and also to scare Russia.

“The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” Admiral Leahy

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war” Admiral. Nimitz

Both these men who high ranked officials in the Navy and they where under the impression that Japan was ready to surrender.

figures are not exaggerated, japanese historians actually beleive the figure would have been higher than american estimates. japanese were not ready to surrender. read Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, written from japanese perspective. they wanted surrender on their terms only, which aactually wasnt any surrender at all. It was a gambit based on scaring the Americans away from invading b y saying that they would inflict so many casualties it would not be worth it for the Americans

 

[Mike.]

You both keep putting forward arguments that have no connect with what was going on at the time. The Japanese people were willing to fight and die alongside the soldiers, it was that point that the Americans realised at the slaughter would be unimaginable for both sides. it was on this point as that casualty figures were revised:

Just dug something up: study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

In fact i strongly urge anyone here to read Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, by Richard Frank. Its probably the most balanced and well researched book on the Pacific War ive read. Utterly fascinating, becuase he doesnt examine it in hindsight as many people do, but based on the real time information that both sides had about each other in 1945

 

[GodCubed]

If the civilians did eventually kill themselves at least they would have been given the chance and choice to live and not had there lives taken away from by the Americans who felt it was alright just to kill the defenseless as long as it got things done faster.

There was no choice for them. Either they surrender or die, and if the commands of their emperor and their honour code dictated they die rather than surrender, they would. No exceptions.

I still think the possible death figures hat you and Mike have posted are very exaggerated.

Actually, they're from the low end of the scale. If it took over twice as many Americans as Japanese to clear the 45 miles of the island of Saipan with about 55,000 deaths in total (not including wounded), you can surely imagine how many it would take to clear Japan, which is over three thousand times as big. In fact, if you scaled up that casualty rate you get something like 165 million dead: unfeasible, obviously, but it shows just how low our estimates are by comparison.

I believe one the main reasons they used the A-bomb rather than launch a attack was to get it over with before Russia got involved and also to scare Russia.

An auxiliary reason, perhaps, but certainly not a main one.

“The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” Admiral Leahy

Leahy, whilst a fine naval officer, was a buffoon when it came to high strategy. If I remember correctly, he said the bomb would never go off in the first place.

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war” Admiral. Nimitz

Nimitz, again, was one of the best naval commanders of his era, but nothing more. I fail to see why their opinions on the bomb should be treated as gospel.

 

[Mike.]

There was no choice for them. Either they surrender or die, and if the commands of their emperor and their honour code dictated they die rather than surrender, they would. No exceptions.



Actually, they're from the low end of the scale. If it took over twice as many Americans as Japanese to clear the 45 miles of the island of Saipan with about 55,000 deaths in total (not including wounded), you can surely imagine how many it would take to clear Japan, which is over three thousand times as big. In fact, if you scaled up that casualty rate you get something like 165 million dead: unfeasible, obviously, but it shows just how low our estimates are by comparison.



An auxiliary reason, perhaps, but certainly not a main one.



Leahy, whilst a fine naval officer, was a buffoon when it came to high strategy. If I remember correctly, he said the bomb would never go off in the first place.



Nimitz, again, was one of the best naval commanders of his era, but nothing more. I fail to see why their opinions on the bomb should be treated as gospel.[/SIZE]

study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

 

[GodCubed]

Youu guys take such a calculated stance to all of this. We got 2500000 people in one hand and 1 million in the other. The quarter of a million are fewest, so lets kill them. The US had hundreds of thousands of soldiers ready to die to take Japan, but the government took the easy way out and murdered the defenseless. Why would you label me as the bad guy for what you would call killing 750000 more than is necessary when you seemingly have no problem with killing people who can't possibly defend themselves. You can call my views philosophical bogus, I call it sense.

I have 4 big guys in one room and 1 little girl in another room. I could choose to fight the 4 big guys with my 4 big guy friends, which would result in 4 of the 8 dying, most of them being the opposition. OR I could murder the little girl and that would be it. What would you do? It's as easy as 1v4 isn't it?

Except you you've totally ignored what we've been saying.

We could either kill the little girl, or we could get into a fight, have four of the eight die, and THEN have the little girl commit suicide.

---------- Post added at 09:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 AM ----------

study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

Exactly. If nothing else, the Japanese would've conscripted huge armies of civilians like the Nazis did towards the end of the battle for Berlin, throwing in children into battles. Huge, huge numbers of dead on both sides, and thousands upon thousands of civilians.

 

[Mike.]

Except you you've totally ignored what we've been saying.

We could either kill the little girl, or we could get into a fight, have four of the eight die, and THEN have the little girl commit suicide.

---------- Post added at 09:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 AM ----------



Exactly. If nothing else, the Japanese would've conscripted huge armies of civilians like the Nazis did towards the end of the battle for Berlin, throwing in children into battles. Huge, huge numbers of dead on both sides, and thousands upon thousands of civilians.

Read Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, by Richard Frank. Its probably the most balanced and well researched book on the Pacific War I've read, becuase he doesnt examine it in hindsight as many people do, but based on the real time information that both sides had about each other in 1945

 

[Joel`]

Youu guys take such a calculated stance to all of this. We got 2500000 people in one hand and 1 million in the other. The quarter of a million are fewest, so lets kill them. The US had hundreds of thousands of soldiers ready to die to take Japan, but the government took the easy way out and murdered the defenseless. Why would you label me as the bad guy for what you would call killing 750000 more than is necessary when you seemingly have no problem with killing people who can't possibly defend themselves. You can call my views philosophical bogus, I call it sense.

I have 4 big guys in one room and 1 little girl in another room. I could choose to fight the 4 big guys with my 4 big guy friends, which would result in 4 of the 8 dying, most of them being the opposition. OR I could murder the little girl and that would be it. What would you do? It's as easy as 1v4 isn't it?

The 1 girl dying is constant throughout either case, we're saying that 1/8 deaths is better than having (1+4)/8 deaths. By your logic, whenever we go to war we should aim for maximum casualties, our logic is that we aim for minimum. And yet you point it out like we're the bad guys in this argument.

 

[Mads2506]

The 1 girl dying is constant throughout either case, we're saying that 1/8 deaths is better than having (1+4)/8 deaths. By your logic, whenever we go to war we should aim for maximum casualties, our logic is that we aim for minimum. And yet you point it out like we're the bad guys in this argument.

How is that my logic at all?! Wow, just wow.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

Did any of you guys ever stop to consider that Japan might have not surrendered even after the atomic bombs? You say they would fight to the death of every last man (which they would), so couldn't you consider that the bombs might just have angered them, causing them to fight even harder? That way, the 250000 civillians and the many others with their lives affected by the bombs would still have been killed and affected, but the US would still be forced (forced according to you, anyway) to invade Japan.

Except you you've totally ignored what we've been saying.

We could either kill the little girl, or we could get into a fight, have four of the eight die, and THEN have the little girl commit suicide.

Right back at ya.

 

[Joel`]

How is that my logic at all?! Wow, just wow.

250,000/1,500,000 is the MINIMUM casualty in either case, and thus, given the choice, that is the option to go for. You're saying that we should ignore that and 1,500,000/1,500,000 should die, which is the MAXIMUM casualty possible.

GCSE Maths is hard.