`
One of the only men ever to wield the Sword of Damocles has passed into the netherworld...

General Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, dies at 92 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/01/america/01obit.php)

"It would have been morally wrong if we'd have had that weapon and not used it and let a million more people die."

Amen, brother.

`
One of the only men ever to wield the Sword of Damocles has passed into the netherworld...

General Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, dies at 92 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/01/america/01obit.php)

"It would have been morally wrong if we'd have had that weapon and not used it and let a million more people die."

Amen, brother.

Over one million Japanese were burned to death with the firebombing of

Tokyo before the atomic bombs were deployed. Japan was already talking

with Truman for a surrender when they dropped the atomic bombs on Japan.

I really think that wasn't a necessary thing to do seeing that the Emperor

was already in negotiations for surrender do you?

`
So long as the terms required by the Allies were not accepted by the Japanese, the war was on. Whatever it took to convince them that it was futile to go on fighting was in effect "fair game".

`
So long as the terms required by the Allies were not accepted by the Japanese, the war was on. Whatever it took to convince them that it was futile to go on fighting was in effect "fair game".

I agree however if negotiations were already happening with the surrender

then why drop the atomic weapons? If you know that your enemy is praying

for surrender do you keep on trying to destroy him? It makes no sense other

that they wanted to test the atomic weapon on civilians to see what would

happen. Sick, sick, sick in my world.

So long as the terms required by the Allies were not accepted by the Japanese, the war was on. Whatever it took to convince them that it was futile to go on fighting was in effect "fair game".
Yes - in a chess game, maybe.

[Note: war isn't a 'chess game', except in the most grotesque of metaphors.]

I agree however if negotiations were already happening with the surrender

then why drop the atomic weapons? If you know that your enemy is praying

for surrender do you keep on trying to destroy him? It makes no sense other

that they wanted to test the atomic weapon on civilians to see what would

happen. Sick, sick, sick in my world.
If they were "praying for surrender", then why didn't they until after the 2 atomic attacks, plus the resumption of "conventional" air raids?
A faction of fanatical Japanese officers even attempted a coup intended to prevent the Emperor from announcing the actual surrender.

The "sick" part was that they thought they could sucker punch a Juggernaut and get away with it.
(Well - that and the way we were trying to impress the Russians with the damned bombs... but they had to be kept out of it, so...)

Yes - in a chess game, maybe

[Note: war isn't a 'chess game', except in the most grotesque of metaphors.]
No - in a war.
The Japanese gambit at that point was that we wouldn't go on if they could make it too horrific - inflict so many losses that we would pull up short and let them get away with keeping what they still held.

What was required was convincing them that this would not be tolerated.
The instrument chosen did the job.

I wouldn't argue with that. I'm undecided as regards the morality of the various options.

It's just use of phrases like 'fair game' that I object to. Somewhere in the region of 100,000 people died as a direct result of those bombs. [Note to everyone: not remotely interested in what kind of figures you want to pull out your arse in defence of the counter-historical scenarios. ;)]

Disgusting that he lived so long.

Sword of Damocles eh? Way to glorify dropping a bomb safely above a civilian population of a defeated country after all other targets had been exhausted.

I wouldn't argue with that. I'm undecided as regards the morality of the various options.

It's just use of phrases like 'fair game' that I object to. Somewhere in the region of 100,000 people died as a direct result of those bombs. [Note to everyone: not remotely interested in what kind of figures you want to pull out your arse in defence of the counter-historical scenarios. ;)]
A poor turn of a phrase on my part, perhaps. Still, as they say - All's fair in love and war. Japan's method of putting this into practice was to try giving the US a "short sharp shock", believing we were incapable of recovering.
Our method was Hammer Time

Disgusting that he lived so long.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...
You'd have loved it if Uncle Io had gotten his meat-hooks into the Home Islands, of course...
:rolleyes:

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...
You'd have loved it if Uncle Io had gotten his meat-hooks into the Home Islands, of course...
:rolleyes:

I would have loved it if Uncle Io had striken his sword of Domocles into the destination island of a project code name.

All's fair in love and war
Hammer Time
:cool:

I would have loved it if Uncle Io had striken his sword of Domocles into the destination island of a project code name
Me, too - oddly enough.
I hate friggin' New Jack City.

Plus - given the time frame this would have had to occur in - it would mean the 'end of the world' happened before I'd so much as been conceived...

Bonus !!!
:xctd:

Disgusting that he lived so long.
Your disgust means nothing in the real world.

Originally Posted by Arnie
All's fair in love and war
Originally Posted by Sly
Hammer Time
:cool:
Yeah... those were the good ol' days...

Now it's all Hang on, I gotta check with the lawyers to make sure we can open fire without violating anybody's rights under the Bozotsky Conventions...
:rolleyes:

Your disgust means nothing in the real world.

so is your comment. We are all dust below Gods feet that dare not dirty their feet with us, the dirt.

Sword of Damocles eh? Way to glorify dropping a bomb safely above a civilian population of a defeated country after all other targets had been exhausted.
Way to publicly glorify ignorance.

so is your comment. We are all dust below Gods feet that dare not dirty their feet with us, the dirt.
You knowing your station in the real world saves my soles the effort.

Way to publicly glorify ignorance.

I actually in no way glorify your ignorance and nor does anyone else.

I actually in no way glorify your ignorance and nor does anyone else.
I give you credit for not glorifying the non-existent.

Oh, good. So what do you think of Admiral Leahy's assessment on the subject? Or Churchill's?

Oh, good. So what do you think of Admiral Leahy's assessment on the subject? Or Churchill's?
Much ado about nothing.

Things worked out just fine.

Their wadded panties were not predictive.

How can you say both Leahy and Churchill had "wadded panties" when one thought it was unnecessary and one approved of it?

If they were "praying for surrender", then why didn't they until after the 2 atomic attacks,


Because the general public was never told about the surrender negotiations

that were going on before the atomic bomb was dropped. The public only

became aware only years after the war had stopped. If the public knew that

talks had already started then do you think they would have thought that

dropping that device was a good idea....I'd think NOT!

Interesting. People are always lamenting the use of "The Bomb" over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet in reality, the allies caused more deaths and more destruction with the fire bombing and the regular bombing than both "The Bomb"s did combined.

"The Bomb" was just the icing on the cake, that's all. And whether y'all want to admit it or not, it ended the war. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lived because of it.

Baron Max

Let's get back to worrying and stop loving the bomb, shall we?

Let's get back to worrying and stop loving the bomb, shall we?
Let's just let you worry about us loving the bomb. Shall we?

Over one million Japanese were burned to death with the firebombing of

Tokyo before the atomic bombs were deployed. Japan was already talking

with Truman for a surrender when they dropped the atomic bombs on Japan.

I really think that wasn't a necessary thing to do seeing that the Emperor

was already in negotiations for surrender do you?

There was a minor translation error in the media's coverage of the emperor's consideration of the surrender. He used a verb, apparently, which meant "to consider carefully", but the press gallery interpreted it as a homophone meaning "to smother with contemptuous consideration". (I wonder if the militarists had their fingers in that? Maybe not.) The Americans thought that the emperor wasn't really considering the surrender, and...

...and the military knew they did not need to drop either bomb. This is probably news to Mr. G, but Japan is an island and was under a naval blockade, had no military capability to resist. Along with a bunch of other similarly minor details. :rollseyes:

"Here then was a speedy end to the Second World War," Churchill said, "and perhaps to much else besides. ... We now had something in our hands which would redress the balance with the Russians."

Because the general public was never told about the surrender negotiations

that were going on before the atomic bomb was dropped. The public only

became aware only years after the war had stopped. If the public knew that

talks had already started then do you think they would have thought that

dropping that device was a good idea....I'd think NOT!
So long as Japan had not actually surrendered, I'd wager the American public would have supported incinerating every single solitary square inch of the Islands' surface area. Japanese military units were still fighting, after all. Americans were still dying.

I mean - which alternative sounds more appealing:
Drop a number of bombs, at minimal risk to the flight crews undertaking the sorties, or wade ashore en masse, and get slaughtered in similar numbers ?


Let's get back to worrying and stop loving the bomb, shall we?
I love it too much to start worrying about it now !
:cool:

mmmm... gimmee some fallout, baby...
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1357/leemerlinmissatomicbombia6.jpg

...and the military knew they did not need to drop either bomb. This is probably news to Mr. G, but Japan is an island and was under a naval blockade, had no military capability to resist. Along with a bunch of other similarly minor details. :rollseyes:

Well, would the blockade have made Japan surrender? We shouldn't forget the corruption of the bushido code that their society was living under. The lives of the peasants were incidental to the military council.

Yes. It is easy to imagine why under such conditions.

This is also the opinion of the Fleet Admiral and Chief of Staff at the time.

"It is my opinion that 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." (William D. Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441).

...and the military knew they did not need to drop either bomb. This is probably news to Mr. G, but Japan is an island and was under a naval blockade, had no military capability to resist. Along with a bunch of other similarly minor details. :rollseyes:

They had the will and they were planning to implement Ketsugo, they were preparing to go down in flame, commit national suicide, for the Honor of the Emperor, and Japan, and take as much of the rest of the world with them as possible.

Hell on the night before the Emperor was going to announce the surrender there were still people who were ready to kidnap the Emperor, take him hostage and continue the war, Bushido ruled the Samurai Class, and Bushido was the law of Japan, they would have died by the millions at the word of the Emperor, or what they though the word was, and the Military was ready to speak for the Emperor, and commit national suicide, there was no consensus in Japans Government to surrender until after the Bombs were dropped, and then the reason they decided to surrender was because there was no glorious dead awaiting them in defense of the Emperor, just ashes from the bombs, gone in a flash, no chance for the glorious death in battle dieing for the Emperor.

A Bright Flash and Ashes, no Haiku, no Honorable Seppuku, just burnt to a cinder, or dieing puking your guts out.


Conventional Bombing of Japan fails to persuade Japan to surrender

To undermine Japan's capacity to continue the war, it was necessary for America to strike at Japan's industrial base. In doing so, the Americans faced a problem. Unlike the situation in many Western countries, most of Japan's major cities did not have clearly defined industrial districts in 1945. Instead, Japanese industrial facilities were mostly dispersed in residential areas. As precision bombing did not exist in 1945, it was impossible for high altitude American B-29s to destroy factories that serviced Japan's war machine without also hitting residential neighbourhoods that adjoined these factories.

As the cost in American lives soared, and Japan showed no inclination to surrender, the Americans finally decided in early 1945 to strike at Japan's war industries even if it inevitably cost civilian lives. For ten days in March 1945, huge formations of B-29 bombers carried out saturation raids on five of Japan's largest industrial cities, including Tokyo. The raids were then suspended. Instead of inclining Japan to surrender, the Japanese government was able to use the air raids to whip up hatred of Americans and stiffen the will of the Japanese people to fight to the death as a nation. This was not as difficult in Japan as it would have been in Western countries. It has to be remembered that the Japanese people were products of a militaristic culture dating back hundreds of years. They felt intense pride in the power of their military, and Japan's military conquests in Asia and the Pacific. Japanese culture permitted Admiral Yamamoto to be viewed as a national hero after he engineered the treacherous sneak attack on the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese government plans a fanatical defence of Japan's home islands to the last man, woman and child

In April 1945, the Japanese Suzuki government had prepared a war policy called Ketsugo which was a refinement of the Shosango victory plan for the defence of the home islands to the last man. These plans would prepare the Japanese people psychologically to die as a nation in defence of their homeland. Even children, including girls, would be trained to use makeshift lethal weapons, and exhorted to sacrifice themselves by killing an American invader. To implement this policy of training children to kill, soldiers attended Japanese schools and trained even small children in the use of weapons such as bamboo spears.

The American government was aware from intelligence intercepts of the chilling implications of these Japanese defensive plans. Intelligence reports indicated that the Japanese would probably be able to muster two million troops and eight thousand aircraft for the defence of the four home islands against a traditional amphibious invasion. The dispersal of these military resources across Japan, and their careful concealment, would provide the Americans with no opportunity to destroy them from the air. The Ketsugo policy placed heavy reliance on suicide attacks on the American troops and their covering warships. For this purpose, several thousand aircraft would be adapted for suicide attacks. Other methods of suicide attack being developed included dynamite-filled "crash boats", guided human torpedoes, guided human rocket bombs (similar to the "Baka" rocket plane used against American ships at Okinawa), and specially trained ground suicide units carrying explosives. In addition, the invading Americans would have to face a civilian population drilled in guerilla tactics.

The Americans had every reason to be deeply disturbed when they learned about Japanese plans to defend the home islands by massive suicide attacks on American amphibious forces. The Kamikaze suicide attacks on Allied ships at Okinawa had alone produced a horrifying toll:

34 Allied warships sunk ;

368 Allied ships damaged (some fit only for scrap);

4,900 Allied sailors killed; and

4,874 Allied sailors wounded.

They had the will and they were planning to implement Ketsugo, they were preparing to go down in flame, commit national suicide, for the Honor of the Emperor, and Japan, and take as much of the rest of the world with them as possible.

That sounds like it would make a good comic book.

That sounds like it would make a good comic book.

All it needs is some nice, sleazy cover art... :D
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1746/increasedjoyrecovernl4.jpg

Yes. It is easy to imagine why under such conditions.

This is also the opinion of the Fleet Admiral and Chief of Staff at the time.


William D. Leahy, and he wasn't going to wade ashore with the Marines, now was he, and can he prove positively that the Japanese were going to surrender with out a invasion, They could have surrendered at any time after the Invasion of Okinawa, but did they? they knew that the only acceptable course from the Allies was Un-Conditional surrender, but did they? they saw the fire bombing raids that killed hundreds of thousands of their people in one night, and they still didn't surrender, the Military Leadership, and the Government, knew what they had to do to end the war, but instead they let a million of their people die after June 21, 1945, even though they knew the war was lost.

Even on Okinawa after the island fell on about June 21, 1945, some Japanese continued fighting, including the future governor of Okinawa prefecture, Masahide Ota.

That sounds like it would make a good comic book.

Have you even looked up operation Ketsugo, there is plenty of information on it avalably on the web.

Think about what you said, The Japanese government plans a fanatical defence of Japan's home islands to the last man, woman and child

I don't dispute that a plan existed (though I do not agree with the quantity of aircraft you described, but I will check that later if need be). It is one thing to have a plan, another to carry it out.

I know of the culture of Japan at that time, but they were still real people. I don't see real people doing what you described. And that is without the assessment of the aforementioned fleet admiral which agreed, or the fact that Japan was actually indeed making diplomatic efforts (which were inconspicuous by design as the Japanese wanted to do it in a manner that left as much pride intact as possible).

Yes. It is easy to imagine why under such conditions.

This is also the opinion of the Fleet Admiral and Chief of Staff at the time.

Were they? I had thought the military clique was going to fight it out.

ahmm can i put the flowers down now

they prple and yellow
i dont know this fellow but any death is sad
so rest in peace matey

This brave soldier has died and he's barely mentioned in the thread about him. How many of the original crew are left? What about Bock's Car's crew?

Yes. It is easy to imagine why under such conditions.

I don't see real people doing what you described.

I think you're making a rather large assumption about the military clique in Japan and the organization of Japanese society. Not all societies have the same social view as yours. I recommend reading some of the history of the period, both for the nature of the 'warrior attitude' in the military of Japan, and for the specific attitudes of the military council governing Japan. I don't think you've completely followed the situation.

Apparently Leahy did not either?

Disgusting that he lived so long.
Congratulations, you just shot the messenger.

Congratulations, you just shot the messenger.

Anytime with an ICBM. :cool: Russian ICBM.

Think about what you said,

I don't dispute that a plan existed (though I do not agree with the quantity of aircraft you described, but I will check that later if need be). It is one thing to have a plan, another to carry it out.

I know of the culture of Japan at that time, but they were still real people. I don't see real people doing what you described. And that is without the assessment of the aforementioned fleet admiral which agreed, or the fact that Japan was actually indeed making diplomatic efforts (which were inconspicuous by design as the Japanese wanted to do it in a manner that left as much pride intact as possible).


You know nothing of the Japanese culture of the time, you weren't there, all you have now is the politically correct version that you were taught in school, and the Japanese Denial of the Genocide and atrocities in China, the Philippines, Indo China, and the rest of the Asian Pacific.

I grew up and went to school before it became politically correct to hate America and teach that everything done by American is or was racist, the biggest racist in the world were the Japanese, read about their culture, and how they treated all the rest of the peoples that came under their dominance, start with the Comfort Girls, the fact that a Japanese Soldier could go into any home in Korea, China, Indo China, any where in the conquest zone and demand sex from the women their and if the husband objected he ended up dead, now how is that for raciest? read about how the Japanese treated the Koreans, the Chinese, if you want racist the Japanese of the first half of the twentieth century made the KKK look like boy scouts.

They had the will and they created the means to fight to the last child, it is all wrapped up in the Bushido, service to the Emperor, the greatest thing that a Japanese could hope to do until 1945 was die for the Emperor, it was what they were taught from the time that they could speak, duty to the Emperor, the Country, the Family, to obey with out question, to kill themselves at the order of their Samurai masters, with out hesitation or not kill themselves, it is screaming out in this example at the end of the Battle of Okinawa;

Ushijima and Cho committed suicide by seppuku in their command headquarters on Hill 89 in the closing hours of the battle. Major Yahara had asked Ushijima for permission to commit suicide, but the general refused his request, saying, "If you die there will be no one left who knows the truth about the battle of Okinawa. Bear the temporary shame but endure it. This is an order from your army Commander."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Japan to fail the Emperor was the greatest disgrace in life, the Commander's, Ushijima and Cho committed suicide by seppuku because they failed the Emperor, and they ordered Major Yahara not to, and he wanted to, because as was stated he was disgraced by being on the losing end of the battle, but he was ordered to stay alive and accept the shame to spread their version of the truth about the Battle of Okinawa, and this isn't the only example.

Army Minister Anami Korechika committed seppuku, leaving a message that he “humbly [apologized] to the Emperor for [his] great crime.” Anami had always been a fierce opponent of surrender, and it is unclear if his “great crime” was losing the war or his part in the Army's attempted coup. The coup broke down in the night, and the group of Army officers were unsuccessful.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other fact is that the Japanese already knew from the Russians that the only terms that were acceptable to the Allies were;

“unconditional surrender or terms closely equivalent thereto”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov gave that message to Ambassidor
Togo, and that message was fowarded to Tokeyo, so they knew that there was only two options, surrender of get hit with something massive, we had already warner them, and the People but Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro, dismissed it a snothing mor ethan a rehash of the Ciaro Decleration, plus the fact that they didn't believe that we had devloped the Atomic Bomb.

The Emperor's inner circle was divided on how to respond to this, with some advocating outright rejection and others wanting to measure the reaction of the Soviets. Although the Japanese people were alerted to the situation by the leaflets the Allies dropped over Japan, the Japanese papers downplayed the Declaration. Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro supplemented this media campaign by stating that it was a “rehash of the Cairo Declaration” and that the government found no value in it.



Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori spoke with Sato Naotake, Japan's ambassador in Moscow, on the subject of establishing “firm and lasting relations of friendship” with the Soviet Union, focusing on the status of Japan-controlled Manchuria and “any matter the Russians would like to bring up.” After Sato met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov on July 11, he told Togo that “unconditional surrender or terms closely equivalent thereto” was all that Japan could expect to receive.

http://www.animeigo.com/OtherLiner/JLDLINER.t

This brave soldier has died and he's barely mentioned in the thread about him. How many of the original crew are left? What about Bock's Car's crew?
Bock's Car's pilot/commander, Charles Sweeney, died in 2004.
I've not seen info on the crews of either Enola Gay or Bock's Car.



Anytime with an ICBM. :cool: Russian ICBM.
Rotsa Ruck getting that obsolete junk off the launch pad...
:rolleyes:

The Enola Gay is at one of the Smithsonian museums right?? Where is Bock's Car?

The Enola Gay is at one of the Smithsonian museums right?? Where is Bock's Car?

Bock's Caris on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Ohio.

Enola Gay is now at the National Air and Space Museum in Washingto, DC.

You know nothing of the Japanese culture of the time, you weren't there, all you have now is the politically correct version that you were taught in school, and the Japanese Denial of the Genocide and atrocities in China, the Philippines, Indo China, and the rest of the Asian Pacific.

No, I'm not Japanese, I grew up in the US and Singapore, both of which had a negative view of the Japanese. And it has never been popular enough to be considered politically correct. And I am not denying Japanese war crimes... I'm not sure how you arrived at that unless you think that their crimes made it OK to exterminate so many of their civilians.

I think you will find most students in the US schools being taught a pro-bombing POV, with all the information told the American public to justify the bombing being reproduced intact.


They had the will and they created the means to fight to the last child, it is all wrapped up in the Bushido, service to the Emperor, the greatest thing that a Japanese could hope to do until 1945 was die for the Emperor, it was what they were taught from the time that they could speak, duty to the Emperor, the Country, the Family, to obey with out question, to kill themselves at the order of their Samurai masters, with out hesitation or not kill themselves, it is screaming out in this example at the end of the Battle of Okinawa;

Why would the US even be putting themselves in the position for a ground battle to begin with? Nothing would be gained by a ground invasion of the mainland.


In Japan to fail the Emperor was the greatest disgrace in life, the Commander's, Ushijima and Cho committed suicide by seppuku because they failed the Emperor, and they ordered Major Yahara not to, and he wanted to, because as was stated he was disgraced by being on the losing end of the battle, but he was ordered to stay alive and accept the shame to spread their version of the truth about the Battle of Okinawa, and this isn't the only example.

This is very far from proving that every last man, woman, and child was going to fight to the death, and that their leaders would not surrender. I'm not saying it is irrelevant, either.


Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori spoke with Sato Naotake, Japan's ambassador in Moscow, on the subject of establishing “firm and lasting relations of friendship” with the Soviet Union, focusing on the status of Japan-controlled Manchuria and “any matter the Russians would like to bring up.” After Sato met with Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov on July 11, he told Togo that “unconditional surrender or terms closely equivalent thereto” was all that Japan could expect to receive.


Yes? Nothing new to me--this is not where we differ.

Isn't the idea that Japan would never surrender somewhat negated by the fact that they DID surrender? Why would this be a unique scenario to the dropping of atomic bombs? Japan was completely powerless, and the conclusion of the war was inescapable. Blockaded, desperate for food, Russians on the way, unable to make any form of progress in any direction without surrendering, etc.

Why would the US even be putting themselves in the position for a ground battle to begin with? Nothing would be gained by a ground invasion of the mainland.

It would be gained that Japan "understood" as a society their defeat. It would be material, and not an enduring, unanswered shame.

This is very far from proving that every last man, woman, and child was going to fight to the death, and that their leaders would not surrender. I'm not saying it is irrelevant, either.

You forget: Imperial Japan was exactly that - a regimented Imperial society, where social inferiors obeyed the orders of their betters. I think you fail to understand the distinction between their society and a more open one such as American society.

Isn't the idea that Japan would never surrender somewhat negated by the fact that they DID surrender? Why would this be a unique scenario to the dropping of atomic bombs? Japan was completely powerless, and the conclusion of the war was inescapable. Blockaded, desperate for food, Russians on the way, unable to make any form of progress in any direction without surrendering, etc.

How many hundreds of thousands of people would be required to starve before the military clique capitulated? It would be a very, very safe bet that it would need suffering on a scale almost unprecedented to force their surrender through blockade (don't forget that Japan was under a blockade for some time in the 30's and 40's...their response to this was Pearl Harbour). How much money would it have required to blockade them? How many millions of soldiers would need to be on hand, waiting for the "just in case" call? How long would the Russians wait before preparing their navy and launching a massive attack on Japan, throwing it for an indeterminate era of time into the Soviet sphere? How much more economic burden would the people of the US be required to bear until Japan surrendered, five or ten years from 1945? Would an economic blockade of Japan extinguish the bushido philosophy there, or would it the embers continue to seethe beneath the surface, waiting for the right fan to flame into life again? In the meantime, what other conflicts (most likely with the Soviets) would spring up to drain American resolve to force the purportedly humanitarian to the war? How many ships and men would those conflicts require?

You forget: Imperial Japan was exactly that - a regimented Imperial society, where social inferiors obeyed the orders of their betters. I think you fail to understand the distinction between their society and a more open one such as American society.

I don't fail to understand the concept.

How many hundreds of thousands of people would be required to starve before the military clique capitulated? It would be a very, very safe bet that it would need suffering on a scale almost unprecedented to force their surrender through blockade (don't forget that Japan was under a blockade for some time in the 30's and 40's...their response to this was Pearl Harbour). How much money would it have required to blockade them? How many millions of soldiers would need to be on hand, waiting for the "just in case" call? How long would the Russians wait before preparing their navy and launching a massive attack on Japan, throwing it for an indeterminate era of time into the Soviet sphere? How much more economic burden would the people of the US be required to bear until Japan surrendered, five or ten years from 1945? Would an economic blockade of Japan extinguish the bushido philosophy there, or would it the embers continue to seethe beneath the surface, waiting for the right fan to flame into life again? In the meantime, what other conflicts (most likely with the Soviets) would spring up to drain American resolve to force the purportedly humanitarian to the war? How many ships and men would those conflicts require?

This was a different blockade than before. There were so many different factors. If the prior blockade led to pearl harbor it's obviously a failed analogy because prior to the dropping of the bombs the US could completely hinder any rebuilding of their air power. They could hit anything from the air that they pleased at the time. Including things like farms for the already starving country. You say the atomic bombs work because of their "unprecedented force". I don't doubt that is persuasive, but so was the current situation. I don't see any strong evidence that says that the bombs were the only thing that would get them to change their code.

I don't think I need to go on. As I said, the conclusion of the war was inescapable. The bombs merely accelerated it. It would not otherwise have been 5-10 years as you have suggested. Japan was close to surrendering as it was.

Fallen empires don't bounce back. Once colonies are lost, their spell is broken. Imperial Japan was finished after Leyte Gulf in October 1944. The rest was bloody revenge and weapons testing/exhibition.

GeoffP: "Would an economic blockade of Japan extinguish the bushido philosophy there, or would it the embers continue to seethe beneath the surface, waiting for the right fan to flame into life again?"

That's just the embers of racism seething beneath the surface. Americans, or any society is capable of working up their own versions of warrior-worship and warrior-vanity. Japanese are no more inherently warlike than Americans.

Provided the victors avoided an oppressive truce (such as Germany suffered after WWI) Imperial Japan was defeated, definitively over, and there was no justification for spitefully and callously frying up Japanese civilians in metropolitan-size batches. The apocalypse visited on Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was nothing more sublime than any other great war crimes. Dressing these horrific scenes up as necessary to Japanese learning, and necessary to preserve American life is just American Bushido talking.

The Rape of Nanking makes me not give a damn about dropping the bombs.

With such a memorable title as that, Nanking justified an even more horrific human sacrifice. -not.

You'll have to forgive her the jokey title. She's a smart lady who seems to have somehow overlooked the fact that the Nanking massacre wasn't carried out by the targeted Japanese civilian populations. Maybe she'd like to have a go at justifying the comparison.

This was a different blockade than before. There were so many different factors. If the prior blockade led to pearl harbor it's obviously a failed analogy because prior to the dropping of the bombs the US could completely hinder any rebuilding of their air power.

Partially. But they'd probably be able to ensure a certain output of military supplies in order to continue resistance.

They could hit anything from the air that they pleased at the time. Including things like farms for the already starving country. You say the atomic bombs work because of their "unprecedented force". I don't doubt that is persuasive, but so was the current situation. I don't see any strong evidence that says that the bombs were the only thing that would get them to change their code.

It illustrated the not merely conventional, but overwhelming, almost metaphysical power of the US. The ongoing recognition of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and the relegation of the survivors to an entirely new social class - the hibakusha - illustrates the spiritual shock of the weapon. But you misunderstand. The bombs were not about changing the code of Japan, but about forcing their surrender. Their surrender not on their own terms was the actual blow. That was what was needed. A land invasion would have done the same, but at much higher cost in civilian and military lives.

I don't think I need to go on. As I said, the conclusion of the war was inescapable. The bombs merely accelerated it. It would not otherwise have been 5-10 years as you have suggested. Japan was close to surrendering as it was.

Only in the emperor's consideration, and not in that of the military council. They were quite prepared to stay the course and keep fighting as long as necessary.

A word: Okinawa. Two more words: Home Islands. I think this alone illustrates my point.

GeoffP: "Their surrender not on their own terms was the actual blow. That was what was needed... A word: Okinawa. Two more words: Home Islands. I think this alone illustrates my point."

Your point is that Japan required mass-murder of civilians to break the empire and make atonement. It's a bloodthirsty lie. Once the Empire was severed from Japan, there was no good reason to confront Japanese fanatics, or burn cities. It was over.

Fallen empires don't bounce back. Once colonies are lost, their spell is broken. Imperial Japan was finished after Leyte Gulf in October 1944. The rest was bloody revenge and weapons testing/exhibition.

The rest was conquest, as was done to Italy and Germany, since you forget. A convenient memory is a helpful thing, perhaps.

GeoffP: "Would an economic blockade of Japan extinguish the bushido philosophy there, or would it the embers continue to seethe beneath the surface, waiting for the right fan to flame into life again?"

That's just the embers of racism seething beneath the surface.

I beg your pardon? You will apologize, and immediately. I am not attributing such a warrior culture - on the decline since the banning of the samurai period in any event, until the developments of the early 20th century - to all Japanese. I attribute it to the military caste, and to my readings of Japanese culture in that period. It is a shame when reasonable commentary is misconstrued by those with a zeal for ignorance.

Americans, or any society is capable of working up their own versions of warrior-worship and warrior-vanity. Japanese are no more inherently warlike than Americans.

The gleanings of wisdom. Yes, they are.

[edit: apologies. This was to say "Yes, they are NOT." Apologies, again. I'm certain this will come up in hype's next point.]

The quite warped version of the bushido code that guided Imperial Japan in the 30s and 40s is thereby - as you point out, and for which I thank you - a national character, rather than a racial one. You are perhaps also familiar with the national character of Nazi Germany, or of Fascist Italy, in that period? Or of the fears of a refounding of Nazi philosophy in Germany (including the much-vaunted but little-felt Werwolf doctrine)? But yes, you have found truth in your slander at last: Japanese are no more inherently warlike than Americans. But their military 'caste' was indeed possessed of the modified bushido philosophy during that period. You perhaps see now?

Provided the victors avoided an oppressive truce (such as Germany suffered after WWI) Imperial Japan was defeated, definitively over, and there was no justification for spitefully and callously frying up Japanese civilians in metropolitan-size batches.

Imperial Japan had not surrendered, formally or informally. Do you recall this point? The global military doctrine of the period was conquest in the enemy's homeland. This was considered the end-point of conflict. Why should VJ Day be different from VE Day? So as to save your sensitive sanctimony?

The apocalypse visited on Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was nothing more sublime than any other great war crimes. Dressing these horrific scenes up as necessary to Japanese learning, and necessary to preserve American life is just American Bushido talking.

The firebombing of Tokyo was an event different in scope from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, I am not American.

Now: your phrase "necessary to Japanese learning" is, of course, hyperbole. This was not my point. Firstly, an invasion of the Islands would have cost many, many hundreds of thousands of lives more than the two bombs. The alternative would be starvation, which no one of any sense has any doubt would be happily accepted by the military council at the benefit of preserving Japan's honour. There is little doubt a few hundred thousand starved civilians would have been a small price for men of such power and misguided conviction to pay. A breaking of their spirit by the use of two such impossibly powerful weapons was also a better choice than repeated firebombings of other cities, which would have totalled well into the hundreds of thousands before surrender was achieved.

GeoffP: "Their surrender not on their own terms was the actual blow. That was what was needed... A word: Okinawa. Two more words: Home Islands. I think this alone illustrates my point."

Your point is that Japan required mass-murder of civilians to break the empire and make atonement. It's a bloodthirsty lie. Once the Empire was severed from Japan, there was no good reason to confront Japanese fanatics, or burn cities. It was over.

It's difficult for me to address your point in a civilized manner, so great is it deviant from reality. The Home Islands were the heart of the Empire. Should the Americans have simply regressed them to Japan and then left off, so that militant nationalism could be rekindled? Perhaps the Germans only needed to be pursued so far as the Rhine, then. Or maybe just a show of force on the beaches of Sicily or Normandy? "You know, we could have invaded the heck out of you, but we didn't. See?" And, after all, you know as well as I that Nazi Germany was finished at the first step of a Yankee boot at Gold Beach, no? That Ardennes counteroffensive was, in reality, just overexaggeration.

However, I must point out that your phrase "Japanese fanatics" is a shocking example of racism. Please refrain from redneck rambling on the boards. Thankyou.

GeoffP: "The Home Islands were the heart of the Empire."

The heart of a collapsed empire does not an empire make. London didn't have to be incinerated to end the British Empire.

"should the Americans have simply regressed them to Japan and then left off, so that militant nationalism could be rekindled?"

Yes. Japanese militant nationalism would not have survived the defeat and collapse of the Empire, and any Japanese Imperial resurgence would have enjoyed no traction in Asia evermore.

"Perhaps the Germans only needed to be pursued so far as the Rhine, then."

That's right. By that point, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were broken, and all that followed was revenge and the Cold War carve-up.

"Or maybe just a show of force on the beaches of Sicily or Normandy?"

That's ridiculous, and you know that passivity is not what I have been offering as an alternative to civilian holocausts as punishment for imperialism.

""You know, we could have invaded the heck out of you, but we didn't. See?"

There is a power in that statement.

"Nazi Germany was finished at the first step of a Yankee boot at Gold Beach, no?"

No, Nazi Germany was finished when their foreign invasions were thrown off. Hitler's regime could not have politically survived defeat in their aggressions, any more than that of Imperial Japan.

"That Ardennes counteroffensive was, in reality, just overexaggeration."

You're being evasively facetious.

"I must point out that your phrase "Japanese fanatics" is a shocking example of racism."

I'm ready to discuss this topic seriously with you, whenever you gather your wits.

No, Nazi Germany was finished when their foreign invasions were thrown off. Hitler's regime could not have politically survived defeat in their aggressions, any more than that of Imperial Japan.
Could you provide some historical examples of all out war followed by not "finishing off" the enemy and show how it had a good outcome? The only example I can think of is the first Gulf War. The outcome was good in that we weren't mired down as we are now, but it certainly didn't cause Hussain to lose his grip on power.

Would it have been acceptable to "win" WW2 but leave Hitler in power? Or to leave the old government system in Japan? I'd say the ultimate outcome of WW2 regarding Japan and Germany was damned near perfect. Japan, the country we nuked, is among our strongest allies to this day. Do you really think the outcome would have been better had we just stopped fighting?

"Could you provide some historical examples of all out war followed by not "finishing off" the enemy and show how it had a good outcome?"

The American Revolutionary War for starters. Do you really want a long list?

"Would it have been acceptable to "win" WW2 but leave Hitler in power?"

Not with the Holocaust in progress. A defeated Hitler was not going to stay in power long. I believe there was a moral imperative to halt and prosecute war crimes, but not to firebomb cities in Japan or Germany.

"Or to leave the old government system in Japan?"

If we had agreed sooner to allow the Emporer to remain, the Japanese surrender would have come before the nuclear strikes.

"the ultimate outcome of WW2 regarding Japan and Germany was damned near perfect."

Perfect carnage.

"Japan, the country we nuked, is among our strongest allies to this day."

Not because we nuked them.

"Do you really think the outcome would have been better had we just stopped fighting?"

Yes. We would have had an even stronger and more positive influence in the postwar world without incinerating cities. It just wasn't strategically necessary, or morally defensible, to burn civilian population centers during the closing months of a world war that had already played out.

Partially. But they'd probably be able to ensure a certain output of military supplies in order to continue resistance.

Not even close.

Another thing that crossed my mind: when you guys say that because of their culture the Japanese were going to fight to the last man/woman/child it follows that the innocent men/women/children civilians were fair targets.

Be careful about generalizations about entire countries you make that justify extermination of civilians.

And I still do not buy your opinion that only nukes alone or ground invasion would have brought about surrender. If they truly were as you say then they would of let themselves die from the nukes. As I said, these options were merely slightly accelerated ends to something that was inevitable.

The American Revolutionary War for starters. Do you really want a long list?No, but I'd like a better example than that. Invading England was never an option. It was far beyond the power of the American army at the time.
Not with the Holocaust in progress. A defeated Hitler was not going to stay in power long. I believe there was a moral imperative to halt and prosecute war crimes, but not to firebomb cities in Japan or Germany.As I said, a defeated Hussain managed to hold onto power just fine.
If we had agreed sooner to allow the Emporer to remain, the Japanese surrender would have come before the nuclear strikes.
I confess I'm no expert in the area of WW2 era Japan, but I've read that their honor code (Bushido) would have never let them surrender unless it was obvious that failure to surrender would result in their utter annihilation.

Not to mention that even after the two atomic bombs had been dropped, the military in Japan attempted to stage a coup to prevent surrender that was only stopped by a blackout due to US bombing.

Not even close.

Actually, I recall something about even poles being stocked up for use as spears in the event of invasion; wishful thinking, maybe, but it illustrates teh lengths to which the military clique was willing to go. I'll check up on that one.

Another thing that crossed my mind: when you guys say that because of their culture the Japanese were going to fight to the last man/woman/child it follows that the innocent men/women/children civilians were fair targets.

Be careful about generalizations about entire countries you make that justify extermination of civilians.

Be careful about trying to demonize your debate opponents, rather. Only the basest and most ignorant imbecile would assume, in some perverse way, that I was making the case for their extermination.

Shake head firmly and repeat, Exhumed. Shake and repeat.

And I still do not buy your opinion that only nukes alone or ground invasion would have brought about surrender. If they truly were as you say then they would of let themselves die from the nukes.

Again; no. The Japanese military clique, so far as I recall, had far-flung notions of spiritual zeal winning a contest of conventional forces on the Home Islands. The nukes were something no rifle or machine gun could combat; no air cover could insulate against; no anti-aircraft gun remotely shield them from. For the concept of the clique's bushido to be satisfied, they would have to have had a reasonable chance at harming their opponents. Such is my comprehension of the philosophical mindset. I remind you again that we are discussing a virulently nationalistic philosophy bordering on Nazism.

I'm just going to insulate myself against the inevitable accusations of "hopeful genocide" and racism that you and hypewaders like to make by saying that the military conception of such zeal is broadly comparable to the French concept of elan which existed in WWI, or (as I recall) the general perception of Triumph of the Will. There! Europeans do it too! Now you can refrain from your base and idiotic accusations against me.

As I said, these options were merely slightly accelerated ends to something that was inevitable.

And how many hundred thousand civilian deaths would it have taken to achieve this inevitable end-state? Are you much concerned with them?

GeoffP: "The Home Islands were the heart of the Empire."

The heart of a collapsed empire does not an empire make. London didn't have to be incinerated to end the British Empire.

No; but Britain has to be conquered, you see.

"should the Americans have simply regressed them to Japan and then left off, so that militant nationalism could be rekindled?"

Yes. Japanese militant nationalism would not have survived the defeat and collapse of the Empire, and any Japanese Imperial resurgence would have enjoyed no traction in Asia evermore.

What a fascinating supposition, hype. I'm sure you can support it somehow. I look forward to seeing you do so; after all, Japanese militant nationalism survived every defeat right up to the shores of the Home Islands quite well, so I'm certain you have some exceptional insight waiting in reserve that indicates how a sudden, revolutionary zeal for humanitarian pluralism - slumbering like the pheonix - would have awoken in the rigid class system of social Japan and thrown the military clique down into the ashes. Please do post your synopsis; I can hardly wait.

"Perhaps the Germans only needed to be pursued so far as the Rhine, then."

That's right. By that point, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were broken, and all that followed was revenge and the Cold War carve-up.

:confused:

Really??? How fascinating. And the survival of Hitler, the fanaticism of so many of the echelon of his followers, the fulfillment of their repeated claims that the Allies would not dare set one foot in Germany; these would not seem like the vindication of the Nazi political geist regarding the defense of home German territory? What was the term for that...almost got it...oh, yes: the Vaterland. I'm sure the psychological connection of Nazi German society to that word was meaningless, at least in your lexicon.

"Or maybe just a show of force on the beaches of Sicily or Normandy?"

That's ridiculous, and you know that passivity is not what I have been offering as an alternative to civilian holocausts as punishment for imperialism.

Well, it's also ridiculous to pretend that pushing the Axis Powers back to their own doorstep but no further would have castrated their national will to extremism; I hoped to shock you out of this infantile view with a little reductio, but no such luck.

""You know, we could have invaded the heck out of you, but we didn't. See?"

There is a power in that statement.

And it worked so well in Desert Storm I.

"Nazi Germany was finished at the first step of a Yankee boot at Gold Beach, no?"

No, Nazi Germany was finished when their foreign invasions were thrown off. Hitler's regime could not have politically survived defeat in their aggressions, any more than that of Imperial Japan.

And you know this becauuuse...?

"That Ardennes counteroffensive was, in reality, just overexaggeration."

You're being evasively facetious.

No, instructively facetious. There's an elusive difference.

"I must point out that your phrase "Japanese fanatics" is a shocking example of racism."

I'm ready to discuss this topic seriously with you, whenever you gather your wits.

I await your apology for implying that my position consisted of racism. Until then, I shall continue shredding you delightedly with every weapon at my disposal.

[Psst: it's how those guys in WWII won, you know. ;) Don't spread it around.]

Be careful about trying to demonize your debate opponents, rather. Only the basest and most ignorant imbecile would assume, in some perverse way, that I was making the case for their extermination.

They being the people that died in the atomic bombs? Have I been confusing you for another GeoffP which said it was necessary because of their culture? Or was exterminate a bad word? Should we say collateral damage?

And demonize debate opponents? How could that be possible when debating GeoffP?


Again; no. The Japanese military clique, so far as I recall, had far-flung notions of spiritual zeal winning a contest of conventional forces on the Home Islands. The nukes were something no rifle or machine gun could combat; no air cover could insulate against; no anti-aircraft gun remotely shield them from. For the concept of the clique's bushido to be satisfied, they would have to have had a reasonable chance at harming their opponents. Such is my comprehension of the philosophical mindset. I remind you again that we are discussing a virulently nationalistic philosophy bordering on Nazism.


They would have a chance of harm if one accepts the false choice that the only alternative was a land invasion. Is that what you would do with a blockade of a defeated country and complete air superiority? (Assuming no bombs). Think of all the other options.

They being the people that died in the atomic bombs? Have I been confusing you for another GeoffP which said it was necessary because of their culture? Or was exterminate a bad word? Should we say collateral damage?

I said it was preferable. And yes; I comprise one of that demonic assemblage that supports the use of the atomic bomb at that point. :eek: Even after being struck once, I note there was still no surrender three days later, and none two more days after Nagasaki. I wonder how long slow starvation might have taken, or how many hundreds of thousands might have died before the military clique capitulated? Again, you do not mention those.

And demonize debate opponents? How could that be possible when debating GeoffP?

:) Ah! I am a demon! If it makes you feel better. Yet you accused me of wanting to exterminate all Japanese people (which would come as quite a surprise to some of my acquaintances, I am sure).

They would have a chance of harm if one accepts the false choice that the only alternative was a land invasion.

Of course, I have not taken this sole alternative. I have also explored blockade, precisely as you suggest. I have wondered aloud several times at the weight of civilian suffering necessary to force Japan to surrender; you have avoided the issue completely, preferring, perhaps, to remain closeted in your fanciful notion of the military government of Japan coming suddenly to its senses directly in the face of banzai and their perversion of bushido. I wonder: how well did the blockade of Iraq work out for the half million citizens that starved to death whilst Saddam sat, unmoved? And Japan even without any underlying sectarian strife to fragment the architecture of social order!

My, my. I shudder to think at the hundred thousand scarecrows lined up in the districts of Eto, gnarled hands extended for a mouthful of rice to take back to their skeletal children for your plan to succeed. Is suffering good for the soul?

Is that what you would do with a blockade of a defeated country and complete air superiority? (Assuming no bombs). Think of all the other options.

List some more, and I shall examine them from my fiery seating place, demon that I am. Forget, if you must, the multiple commitments in place on the power you conveniently expect to enforce your little blockades and whatnot, and the drawn daggers prodding at the flanks of what would become the social democracies of today. I, of course, will not.

GeoffP: "The Home Islands were the heart of the Empire."

The heart of a collapsed empire does not an empire make. London didn't have to be incinerated to end the British Empire.

"No; but Britain has to be conquered, you see."

Nonsense.

"should the Americans have simply regressed them to Japan and then left off, so that militant nationalism could be rekindled?"

Yes. Japanese militant nationalism would not have survived the defeat and collapse of the Empire, and any Japanese Imperial resurgence would have enjoyed no traction in Asia evermore.

What a fascinating supposition, hype. I'm sure you can support it somehow.

Defeat was not compatible with perpetuating the imperial myth. With the colonies gone, all the pomp of Imperial Japan became hollow. In the former colonies, there would be, and will be no tolerance for future Japanese colonialism. It's worked that way for every fallen empire. Do I really need to review elementary world history with you to show this?

"Japanese militant nationalism survived every defeat right up to the shores of the Home Islands quite well"

No, captured and defeated Japanese soldiers were no less defeated than other nationalities in that or any war. There was an outpouring of emotion when the Emporer threw in the towel, but all of Japan knew the war was lost before then. Their mythical hopes were cold comfort, but understood as unreal when it came down to it. But you're apparently still mythstified yourself.

"I'm certain you have some exceptional insight waiting in reserve that indicates how a sudden, revolutionary zeal for humanitarian pluralism - slumbering like the pheonix - would have awoken in the rigid class system of social Japan and thrown the military clique down into the ashes."

I suppose you think that Japan's conversion to a peacetime economic powerhouse purely came from contact with Americans?

"Perhaps the Germans only needed to be pursued so far as the Rhine, then."

That's right. By that point, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were broken, and all that followed was revenge and the Cold War carve-up.

Really??? How fascinating. And the survival of Hitler, the fanaticism of so many of the echelon of his followers, the fulfillment of their repeated claims that the Allies would not dare set one foot in Germany"

Hitler's propaganda couldn't possibly sell to Germans after his military defeat. They were promised the world.

"these would not seem like the vindication of the Nazi political geist regarding the defense of home German territory? What was the term for that...almost got it...oh, yes: the Vaterland."

In the USA we call it the Homeland. Same nationalist schtick, different country.

"I'm sure the psychological connection of Nazi German society to that word was meaningless, at least in your lexicon."

No, I think I have shown you more accurate context above. Americans carry similar sentiments for the Homeland.

"Or maybe just a show of force on the beaches of Sicily or Normandy?"

That's ridiculous, and you know that passivity is not what I have been offering as an alternative to civilian holocausts as punishment for imperialism.

"Well, it's also ridiculous to pretend that pushing the Axis Powers back to their own doorstep but no further would have castrated their national will to extremism"

German extremism was born of foreign oppression in the wake of WWI. They went insane in a fit of pride. There's nothing to gain in pushing those buttons.

"You know, we could have invaded the heck out of you, but we didn't. See?"

There is tremendous power in that statement.

"And it worked so well in Desert Storm I."

Yes it did. We defeated Saddam and avoided the quagmire of later indiscretion.

"Nazi Germany was finished at the first step of a Yankee boot at Gold Beach, no?"

No, Nazi Germany was finished when their foreign invasions were thrown off. Hitler's regime could not have politically survived defeat in their aggressions, any more than that of Imperial Japan.

"And you know this becauuuse...?"

Germany's war machine was broken, and Germany's neighbors were no longer vulnerable.

"That Ardennes counteroffensive was, in reality, just overexaggeration."

You're being evasively facetious.

"No, instructively facetious. There's an elusive difference."

Your instruction is that wars of aggression require that agressor-nations be entirely humbled, to the point of foreign occupation. I have shown how this is not a given.

"I must point out that your phrase "Japanese fanatics" is a shocking example of racism."

I'm ready to discuss this topic seriously with you, whenever you gather your wits.

I await your apology for implying that my position consisted of racism."

I didn't imply that.

"Until then, I shall continue shredding you delightedly with every weapon at my disposal."

Bring 'em on.

Firstly: please don't mindlessly repeat what has already been dealt with. We are discussing an extremist nationalistic philosophy, not the specifics of empire-building or dismantling.

"No; but Britain has to be conquered, you see."

Nonsense.

To the ignorant, I suppose it does seem like nonsense.

What a fascinating supposition, hype. I'm sure you can support it somehow.

Defeat was not compatible with perpetuating the imperial myth. With the colonies gone, all the pomp of Imperial Japan became hollow.

Oh, really? Because they seemed quite convinced of otherwise, right up until the end. They simply evaded responsibility for defeat to those responsible. There was no popular revolution coming, hype - although I am happy to review your evidence for any. Do you have any yet?

"Japanese militant nationalism survived every defeat right up to the shores of the Home Islands quite well"

No, captured and defeated Japanese soldiers were no less defeated than other nationalities in that or any war.

Ugh. Sadness. We're not talking about captured Japanese soldiers here. We're talking about the military Imperial clique running Japan. Do you understand now? The best the opposition managed was a little running gunfight or something. Petty.

There was an outpouring of emotion when the Emporer threw in the towel, but all of Japan knew the war was lost before then. Their mythical hopes were cold comfort, but understood as unreal when it came down to it.

Really? Do tell. What precisely were they doing about it? Hmm? The military council seems fairly committed to fighting it out. They waited three days after Hiroshima and two after Nagasaki.

"I'm certain you have some exceptional insight waiting in reserve that indicates how a sudden, revolutionary zeal for humanitarian pluralism - slumbering like the pheonix - would have awoken in the rigid class system of social Japan and thrown the military clique down into the ashes."

I suppose you think that Japan's conversion to a peacetime economic powerhouse purely came from contact with Americans?

You're deliberately oversimplifying, of course. From contact with the Americans, from realizing their defeat. I read accounts of Japanese horror at American soldiers in Japan at the end of the war. The point was driven home, not merely to the populace (who were not socially equipped to fight the military council in any event) but also to the upper class of the bourgeoisie, where the reactionary elements were formed. But if you have some other factor in mind, please feel free to indicate it.

Really??? How fascinating. And the survival of Hitler, the fanaticism of so many of the echelon of his followers, the fulfillment of their repeated claims that the Allies would not dare set one foot in Germany"

Hitler's propaganda couldn't possibly sell to Germans after his military defeat. They were promised the world.

German will to fight was compromised only at the very end of the conflict. I had relatives there; they know.

"Or maybe just a show of force on the beaches of Sicily or Normandy?"

That's ridiculous, and you know that passivity is not what I have been offering as an alternative to civilian holocausts as punishment for imperialism.

You offer reprieve. I am sure that Nazi Germany and Japan would have found those useful in their way. With what force would President-Elect Hypey have compelled the dismantling of the Nazi regime, or the Japanese one, were they merely to be chased back to their own territory?

"Well, it's also ridiculous to pretend that pushing the Axis Powers back to their own doorstep but no further would have castrated their national will to extremism"

German extremism was born of foreign oppression in the wake of WWI. They went insane in a fit of pride. There's nothing to gain in pushing those buttons.

Germany, Japan and Italy are all modern social democracies today. The facts beg to differ with your interpretation, Hypey.

"And it worked so well in Desert Storm I."

Yes it did. We defeated Saddam and avoided the quagmire of later indiscretion.

LMAO - he ignored the UN and the US, you fool. If the Bush admin really felt his crimes were so foul as to warrant removal, very well. But don't pretend he was suddenly docile and objective! Half a million starved Iraqis from Clinton's perception of non-compliance and you think Hussein was on-side. :rolleyes:

Germany's war machine was broken, and Germany's neighbors were no longer vulnerable.

And so the hostile nation should just have been left integral on their borders? Are you mad? Also, I'm fairly certain that Germany's output of military goods, while fractional to their high in 1944, was still quite high in 1945.

Your instruction is that wars of aggression require that agressor-nations be entirely humbled, to the point of foreign occupation. I have shown how this is not a given.

Minus the examples of reality, yes.

I await your apology for implying that my position consisted of racism."

I didn't imply that.

You did. You should apologize, else my angry ego rise up and demand Lebenstraum, hypey.

"Until then, I shall continue shredding you delightedly with every weapon at my disposal."

Bring 'em on.

Just did. Want me to stop yet? :)

Nope. I've given examples of the obvious result where defeated empires always and invariably collapse without access to their colonies. I've demolished your argument that frying civilians by the hundreds of thousands in the homeland is necessary in definitively bringing down rogue empires. You're just obstructing and diverting any way you can to avoid the obvious: By cutting off Japan and Germany within their legitimate borders, both imperial governments were finished. With that accomplished, there was no strategic or moral imperative to burn their cities, or commence occupations.

You have given no such examples. You have, as usual, demolished nothing. Illustrate how both the Japanese, German and Italian governments were somehow destined to fall after being forced to within their respective borders. (I note that the Italian fascist model didn't fall until the Allies had taken most of Italy.) And yet you accuse me of diverting, somehow.

For shame.

Anytime with an ICBM. :cool: Russian ICBM.
Sorry but there are few things more indicative of mental retardation than blaming a soldier for carrying out an order that doesn't satisfy your own little personal set of values.

I long for the day when in alternate Japaniverse a bunch of college age Nipponese kids are asking the question "Was Pearl Harbor justified?" with their hindsight glasses on.

Revisionist history is cute.

You dare compare Pearl Harbor military targets with civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You dare compare Pearl Harbor military targets with civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
No. Thank you for asking!

GeoffP:"You have given no such examples. You have, as usual, demolished nothing. Illustrate how both the Japanese, German and Italian governments were somehow destined to fall after being forced to within their respective borders.

An empire without control of foreign soil is finished. The pre-war Japanese, German, and Italian governments could not persist after their crimes and failures, whatever the outside world had to say about them. I began with the repudiation of the British in the American colonies, and the demise of the British Empire without the destruction or occupation of England. There have been many other examples throughout history. There are many other empires that were defeated without being chased home to be harried there. A defeated imperialist army ceases to be a threat abroad, and ceases to be a glory at home. Torching cities in the endgame is only about revenge and exploitation.

The pre-war Japanese, German, and Italian governments could not persist after their crimes and failures, whatever the outside world had to say about them. I began with the repudiation of the British in the American colonies, and the demise of the British Empire without the destruction or occupation of England. There have been many other examples throughout history. There are many other empires that were defeated without being chased home to be harried there.
You have given no pertinent examples. The fall of the British Empire was due to each colony freeing itself from the colonial yoke. None of the colonies had any interest in or ability to attack England at home.

GeoffP:"You have given no such examples. You have, as usual, demolished nothing. Illustrate how both the Japanese, German and Italian governments were somehow destined to fall after being forced to within their respective borders.

An empire without control of foreign soil is finished. The pre-war Japanese, German, and Italian governments could not persist after their crimes and failures, whatever the outside world had to say about them.

But the fascist reactionaries within them were not finished, unless you can point to some incipient reaction within still-Imperial Japan on the Home Islands that was poised for the social, humanitarian and egalitarian overthrow of the military clique. That I would give you; but you will not find it. The Germans tried a few times to kill Hitler: but the General Staff, who knew the war was finished, not the populace. And they were unsuccessful. For every disloyal German of that era, there were a hundred loyal sons and daughters of the Vaterland. Their "empires", even contained within their own borders, would not have fallen anytime soon: and how long was the decadent West likely to wait? How long could the populations of the US and it's allies have maintained the watch on the little "Mordors" at such expense of their money and materiel? America and the rest had already been rendered into horrifying debt - where they remain today. How much longer until their decadent national will broke that of the fascistic, reactionary cores of Germany and Japan? I have a guess as to who would have broken first, seeing the US of the just-past era and its more dubious alliances for the sake of expediency. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, indeed.

I began with the repudiation of the British in the American colonies, and the demise of the British Empire without the destruction or occupation of England.

England gave up their colonies because of their increasing expense and the relegation of local government to their own social support. Ask the Newfoundlanders about their experiences with the British Foreign Office riiight about 1949. (Also look up the phrase "sold down the river". ;) )

There have been many other examples throughout history. There are many other empires that were defeated without being chased home to be harried there. A defeated imperialist army ceases to be a threat abroad, and ceases to be a glory at home. Torching cities in the endgame is only about revenge and exploitation.

Which other empires? Did they have state-controlled mass-media - radio, newspapers? Secret police? If it were merely revenge to post soldiers there afterwards, do you think West Germany, Japan and Italy could have achieved their current level of economic vitality if left alone to wither? Would it not have underscored a new, revitalised desire for revenge in the latter? If the occupation of these nations was, again, for the purposes of revenge, to what end were the billions poured into them by the Americans for their economic and social recovery?

I think your position requires re-examination. But shucks: what would an evil racist redneck like me really know about it anyway? Eh, hypey?

:shrug:

Is someone here actually pushing the opinion that you defeat the armed forces in your territory, but don't capitalise on these victories to finish your opponent off? You just leave your enemy alone, so that he can produce more guns and soldiers? That's the must absurd thing I've ever heard.

There are many other empires that were defeated without being chased home to be harried there. A defeated imperialist army ceases to be a threat abroad, and ceases to be a glory at home. Torching cities in the endgame is only about revenge and exploitation.

GeoffP: "Which other empires?"

Ottoman, Swedish, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, British, and Soviet come to mind. I'm sure there have been many others that collapsed without hellfire and foreign occupation of the homeland.

"Did they have state-controlled mass-media - radio, newspapers? Secret police?"

Sure, in their contemporary ways, all empires have had.

"If it were merely revenge to post soldiers there afterwards..."

I said revenge and exploitation.

... do you think West Germany, Japan and Italy could have achieved their current level of economic vitality if left alone to wither?"

Yes. I don't believe that they would have withered. It isn't necessary to occupy a country in order to participate in its renaissance.

"Would it not have underscored a new, revitalised desire for revenge in [Italy]?"

It would not have.

"If the occupation of these nations was, again, for the purposes of revenge, to what end were the billions poured into them by the Americans for their economic and social recovery?"

To secure the US Dollar as world standard, and promote US hegemony in the post-war environment.

"I think your position requires re-examination."

Thank you.

"what would an evil racist redneck like me really know about it anyway? Eh, hypey?"

While I think that racism and ignorance muddle up the view of history, I haven't been so harsh as that in describing you. However, you do often repeat easily-debunked myths about "purity of arms" when it comes to the military excesses of the US and Israel in world history.

Is someone here actually pushing the opinion that you defeat the armed forces in your territory, but don't capitalise on these victories to finish your opponent off? You just leave your enemy alone, so that he can produce more guns and soldiers? That's the must absurd thing I've ever heard.
Agreed.

Mountainhare: "You just leave your enemy alone, so that he can produce more guns and soldiers? That's the must absurd thing I've ever heard."

We're speaking of defeated empires. Failure of empire has a tendency to remove the aura of glory from guns and soldiers. Loss of empire puts a wet blanket on fevered nationalism. It's like what Marley said about "The Harder they Come".

We're speaking of defeated empires. Failure of empire has a tendency to remove the aura of glory from guns and soldiers. Loss of empire puts a wet blanket on fevered nationalism. It's like what Marley said about "The Harder they Come".
Isn't it the bigger they come?

Anyway, I understand what you're saying. But I don't agree. Furthermore, I really don't think your idea was an option. We were in a frenzy. We would accept nothing but unconditional surrender. It was widely said at the time that the only place Japanese would be spoken after the war was in hell.

GeoffP: "Which other empires?"

Ottoman, Swedish, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, British, and Soviet come to mind. I'm sure there have been many others that collapsed without hellfire and foreign occupation of the homeland.

None of these save the Soviet had any mass-media control. The British gave up their colonies not because of a revolution in the US, but because of the increasing cost of maintaining them. Again: see the case of Newfoundland in 1949. None of these was fighting an aggressive world war based on a fascist philosophy. I hope you have heard of the term "Lebenstraum".

"Did they have state-controlled mass-media - radio, newspapers? Secret police?"

Sure, in their contemporary ways, all empires have had.

No. Only the Soviets did so, of the examples you have given; you might make an argument for Turkey. The Soviet collapse, in case you're not aware, was the result of fifty years of economic war; it is very dubious to imagine that the US could have continued a similar, protracted economic campaign against Japan or Germany, since the geopolitical landscape was being eclipsed by another power...the Soviets.

... do you think West Germany, Japan and Italy could have achieved their current level of economic vitality if left alone to wither?"

Yes. I don't believe that they would have withered. It isn't necessary to occupy a country in order to participate in its renaissance.

Well, then you are most probably wrong. Without Hitler or Hirohito being toppled in those cases, there would almost certainly not have been such a resurgence. Hitler's claims about the inability of the Allies to set one foot on the Fatherland would have been vindicated as the Allies armies ground to a halt at the borders.

"Would it not have underscored a new, revitalised desire for revenge in [Italy]?"

It would not have.

Your silly linguistic advantage-taking on my incomplete edit amounts to avoidance. Are you trying to avoid lying about economic isolation causing a new desire for revenge in Germany and Japan, since the examples clearly illustrate a precedent?

"If the occupation of these nations was, again, for the purposes of revenge, to what end were the billions poured into them by the Americans for their economic and social recovery?"

To secure the US Dollar as world standard, and promote US hegemony in the post-war environment.

"I think your position requires re-examination."

Thank you.

No: it requires re-examination as in: it is hopelessly flawed.

"what would an evil racist redneck like me really know about it anyway? Eh, hypey?"

While I think that racism and ignorance muddle up the view of history, I haven't been so harsh as that in describing you. However, you do often repeat easily-debunked myths about "purity of arms" when it comes to the military excesses of the US and Israel in world history.

No, no: you attributed my position to racism. Are you now retracting your insinuation?

Hypey, if my position were so easily debunked, I imagine you would have done so by this point. I see no reason to continue with you, as you appear to be lost in a history of your own invention.

I can't help myself: as a final goad to hyperwader's intellect, I recommend he and all readers consult the wiki entry on "Operation Downfall", the planned invasion of Japan, and note that the Soviets were planning to come in the back door around the end of August. (Strangely, this may be another external factor in the decision to continue into Germany also. :shrug:) Hype's synthesis assumes unlimited time, which did not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki

note that the Soviets were planning to come in the back door around the end of August.
Seriously, a Japan subjected to the profoundly godawful conditions of a postwar Soviet satellite state would have been much worse off than pretty much anything. Why this isn't mentioned more often in these discussions is beyond me.

Because the Domino Theory fell down, because Japan was Far Out, and because American grabs gave Soviet ones the illusion of legitimacy.

Actually, the Domino Theory was really a premise that was right on the money. Soviet Communism was on the export, sad to say. There's no question they would have preferred other countries to go communist in the way they envisioned it. Anyway, I noticed you dodged the discussion again. Way to not go.

GeoffP: "Anyway, I noticed you dodged the discussion again."

Interjecting the Domino Theory is anachronistic since that threat hadn't been coined or promoted yet at the time. I'm not much interested in projecting it back in time and speculating. This conversation hinged on the assumed necessity of nuking Japanese cities, and I've adequately expressed my opinion, without dodging, that the empire was already finished before our WMDs were experimented with upon civilian population centers. Our haste to unleash these weapons will long come back to haunt us.

Our haste to unleash these weapons will long come back to haunt us.
How long do we wait for the other shoe to drop? It seems to have worked out rather well for everyone thus far.

Also, Godzilla.

GeoffP: "Anyway, I noticed you dodged the discussion again."

Interjecting the Domino Theory is anachronistic since that threat hadn't been coined or promoted yet at the time. I'm not much interested in projecting it back in time and speculating. This conversation hinged on the assumed necessity of nuking Japanese cities, and I've adequately expressed my opinion, without dodging, that the empire was already finished before our WMDs were experimented with upon civilian population centers. Our haste to unleash these weapons will long come back to haunt us.

While you have avoided discussion of the Soviet pressure for a rapid resolution of the war, or the economic vindication of occupation for (West) Germany and Japan. You have also avoided the defensive fanaticism inherent at the last resort to the social system of Japan, and all its economic classes. Your post "Because the Domino theory fell down..." was a herring that ran wrong.

In short, your opinion is incorrect.

I've avoided nothing in observing and reflecting on your speculating. But there's no correct / incorrect in speculation; that's like crying in baseball.

In baseball, when someone tosses the ball to them, do they run away clapping their hands over their ears and yelling "Lalalalalala! I can't hear you!" ?

But anyway, opinions can be wrong. I could opine that dinosaurs were coexistent with humans, which would be wrong.