ChippyLowe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 449
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
18
Che Guevara
- Thread starter Shay Given
- Start date
- Replies 159
- Views 8K
18
you miss the point, they could have but the casualties would have been enourmous
1m+ casualties or 250,000 casualties.
I dont think you understand the nature of the Japanese during the war. do some research on it, people freely say they would not have surrendered to american forces landing on Japanese soil, they would have "blocked them with thir bodies and drowned them in their blood" look at iwo jima and saipan. Now imagine that right across Japan. Some Japanese officials believe that they could have inflicted such casualites that Americans would have agreed to negotiations had it not been for the bombs
No, you see, it doesn't work like that. It didn't work on Saipan or any of the island hopping campaigns. The only reason ANY Japanese were caught alive on Saipan was because they were just about to attempt seppuku when the Americans caught them. All the rest either died facing the enemy or through seppuku.
I use 'stupidity' loosely, since it's a pretty stupid way to die in itself. The crux of the matter is that the only honourable death in this situation - and the Japanese prized honour above all else - is to either die fighting the enemy or to commit seppuku. No ifs, no buts. You cannot fight an atomic bomb, thus there was no (or nowhere near as much) shame in surrendering: common sense overruled even the staunchest of Japanese. If the Americans had landed they'd have fought them for every square inch of ground, and every Japanese soldier fought under the mantra that 'if you take one with you, you've done your duty'. Assuming the Japanese mobilised at least one million conscripts (a low, low estimate) and every other one managed to take an American with him (again, pretty low considering the Japanese huge home advantage) that's 1.5 million dead in soldiers alone. I cannot stress how small a percentage of the overall casualties that would be.
Almost every historian, Japanese and American, accepts that the atomic bombs were the lesser of two evils.
Last edited:
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Saying something and doing it are completely different things. Im sure they would have said that they would not surrender to the US under any circumstances, but they did.
You need to understand. The Japanese were thinking conventional warfare - ****, their officers carried katanas - and nothing, but nothing, can prepare you for an atomic bomb. With the advent of those weapons, war changed forever, and the goalposts regarding when it was acceptable to surrender changed completely.
You're just ignoring the point completely then. Even after the second Bomb generals didnt want to surrender, it was Hirohito who overruled them, because they captured a b-29 pilot who told them they had 100 more nukes
ChippyLowe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 449
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
You're younger than I am but you really should be more aware of this
I'm aware of stuff as A Level History told me I should be
I'm not that interested in Che since I'm not communist or Cuban.
I prefer Russia. Give me Lenin any day
I'm aware of stuff as A Level History told me I should be
I'm not that interested in Che since I'm not communist or Cuban.
I prefer Russia. Give me Lenin any day
do you have sky? channels 520-531 are your friends
ChippyLowe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 449
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
I have Virgin, they're probs the same channels just spread over channels 200-300
Sorry to bust in like this, but what do historians know about ethics and morality?
Actually it was something more selfish than that - the Americans agreed to keep the imperial institution alive in case of surrender. Otherwise the war may have continued.
My main objection the A-Bombs being dropped (Aside from the fact it killed thousands of people) is the fact that they targeted civilians, and even if civilian casualties were unavoidable, the fact that they targeted highly populated areas is unforgivable. Bombing of Japanese civilians had happened before Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well - and I'm not talking about strategic bombing of factories and the like - but the unprecedented destruction brought upon hundreds of thousands of civilians by the nuclear attack is disgusting.
//Edit - Anyone with some spare time should take a look at 'Grave of the Fireflies' - really touching.
I'm aware of stuff as A Level History told me I should be
I'm not that interested in Che since I'm not communist or Cuban.
I prefer Russia. Give me Lenin any day
Write a short, 50 word description of the NEP and I may believe you!
They're still human, you know. It's pretty obvious that in terms of pure death rate, quarter of a million > one million plus, anyway. The Allies were trying to minimise casualties for both sides. The historians think that the bombs saved many more lives than an invasion. Thus, they accept them as the lesser of two evils.
I don't agree with putting numbers on morality, but I feel it's one of those discussions that leads nowhere so I'll leave it at that.
Actually it was something more selfish than that - the Americans agreed to keep the imperial institution alive in case of surrender. Otherwise the war may have continued.
My main objection the A-Bombs being dropped (Aside from the fact it killed thousands of people) is the fact that they targeted civilians, and even if civilian casualties were unavoidable, the fact that they targeted highly populated areas is unforgivable. Bombing of Japanese civilians had happened before Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well - and I'm not talking about strategic bombing of factories and the like - but the unprecedented destruction brought upon hundreds of thousands of civilians by the nuclear attack is disgusting.
//Edit - Anyone with some spare time should take a look at 'Grave of the Fireflies' - really touching.
Write a short, 50 word description of the NEP and I may believe you!
the deal had nothing to do with the surrender. they had not spoken to the americans at that point.
So bombing 250k civilians is worse than sending the troops in and watching 1.5 million soldiers and civilans die (the majority of causalties being civilans)
Yes.
Fixed to middle estimates.
ok just so we are clear that you are happy with the entire country being destroyed and even more civilians dying than under the bombs
Staggering. even amidst WW2 its still a staggering figure