Why not "besiege" Japan?

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by Hanny » 15 Feb 2019 14:08

OpanaPointer wrote:
15 Feb 2019 13:21
I'm still chuckling over his suggestion that I get an education. I didn't know we were allowed after he used all the education up.
You claim to have started reading in the 1960s, now look back through this thread, and see if i suggested you get an education in any post. You wont find it, because it does not exist. So by all means continue to chuckle over things you think have read that dont exist. Its after all why you got called sonny, you know a child who has yet to learn how to read/comprehend properly. thats the 5 example in this thread alone wherein you demonstrate that to be the case.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by South » 15 Feb 2019 15:08

Good morning Opana Pointer,

Mac did have a national political following.

Yes, indeed, a HUGE ego !

......

Glad to see you're well into recovery re the mentioned ailments.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by South » 15 Feb 2019 15:27

Good morning Hanny,

Sidebar:
Funny: "The consensus among scholars..."

If everything is historically accurate......; You're using Aristotelian logic, the deductive reasoning. In politics and especially international relations such as warfare, inductive reasoning is needed.

When poll tallies add up to 77%.......it's something of a substantial number. Admittedly, to save some typing I omitted the "Did Not Reply" and the "Do Not Have An Opinion".

How material is taught and more information declassified........Please add this to my above SIDEBAR. (I'm omitting quotes to protect the author.)

Besides my studies over the years-of whatever value-I remember some of the actual views presented by family members and neighbors. The consensus among scholars just might have been different than national opinion. - unless using deductive reasoning. After all, the "consensus among scholars..."


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4003
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by OpanaPointer » 15 Feb 2019 17:10

South wrote:
15 Feb 2019 15:08
Good morning Opana Pointer,

Mac did have a national political following.

Yes, indeed, a HUGE ego !

......

Glad to see you're well into recovery re the mentioned ailments.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
I tried to walk across the room today. Tried.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by Hanny » 15 Feb 2019 17:26

South wrote:
15 Feb 2019 15:27
Good morning Hanny,

Sidebar:
Funny: "The consensus among scholars..."
Bob

Not at all.

Thats from Samuel Walker a chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission he wrote Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan, its survey of all major historians works, (Alperovitz, Bernstein,Sherwin historians, social scientists, Richard B. Frank, Herbert Bix, Sadao Asada, Kai Bird, Robert James Maddox, Robert P. Newman, Robert S. Norris, Tsuyoshi Hagesawa) and on what they agree and dont agree on.
South wrote:
15 Feb 2019 15:27
If everything is historically accurate......; You're using Aristotelian logic, the deductive reasoning. In politics and especially international relations such as warfare, inductive reasoning is needed.
Its getting the facts right, from the right facts deductive reasoning produces outcomes that are valid.
Samuel Walker "The Japanese agreed to surrender on the sole condition that the emperor be retained. The terminology did not say constitutional monarch, but there was nothing in there about him retaining the prerogatives of his office as there was before. On that basis the war ended."

"The invasion was not going to begin until on or around November 1, and a lot of could’ve happened between August and November of 1945. Also the view that if an invasion had been necessary, it would’ve cost hundreds of thousands of lives: there’s simply no contemporaneous evidence that supports that argument. It was made after the war as a means to justify the use of the bomb against a really small number of critics, who in the late ‘40s, early ‘50s, were saying that perhaps the bomb wasn’t necessary. It’s also beyond question that the invasion was not inevitable. I mean, the idea that Truman had to use the bomb because if he didn’t the only other option was an invasion is simply wrong. So, the traditional view in its pure form, that Truman used the bomb to avoid an invasion, simply doesn’t hold up."



"No one in a position of authority or knowledge, and certainly not his chief and military advisors, told him in the summer of 1945 that if you don’t use the bomb, an invasion is inevitable and it’s going to cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Estimates for lives lost that were projected by military experts in the summer of 1945 were far less than that, and the numbers are far from hard evidence. But there’s no evidence whatsoever that he was ever told that hundreds of thousands of lives would be the cost of an invasion of Japan. That was something that came about later."

Walker uses the same documents i have posted from and comes to the same conclusion as i have posted.

When you dont have the same facts, lack of access to them and inductive logic is substituted ( as in second example) you arrive at a different conclusions, Walker does not have that problem, he reviewed all the facts that are available and used in the authors works. which is why his work is required reading at universities.http://lib5.leeds.ac.uk/rlists/broker/? ... _1900823_1
South wrote:
15 Feb 2019 15:27
When poll tallies add up to 77%.......it's something of a substantial number. Admittedly, to save some typing I omitted the "Did Not Reply" and the "Do Not Have An Opinion".
Thats not how the polls work, ( you would deduct not add the number) each question asked gives a response to that question and that question only. The USA deployed all the nuclear devices it had to deploy, next one ready for use was ready on the 17th so the second question assumes something that does not exist. 53.5% thought 2 was enough, 22.7% thought more than 2 was ok. example if 100 people were polled, 54 said 2 is ok, 23 said 3 + is ok, it does not mean you add them to compare to the first poll, with its 85% its ok. It means of the 54 who thought it ok, 23 also though more than 2 was ok.

The polls of 85% dropped to either 53.5% or 22.7%, depending on what the other poll asked. it asked "Looking back, would you say you approve or disapprove of using the atomic bomb on Japanese cities in 1945?" 85% approved.

In 2015 Fourtune conducted the same Poll with the same questions.

53.5% dropped to 28.5%
22.7% dropped to 2.9%

Table 1. 2015 Replication of the Roper/Fortune 1945 Poll
Polling in the United States on the use of Atomic Bombs on Japan

Polling Question: “Which of these comes closest to describing how you feel about our use of the atomic bomb? 1945 2015

“We should not have used atomic bombs at all.” 4.5% 14.4%

“We should have dropped one first on some unpopulated
region, to demonstrate its power to the Japanese, and 13.8% 31.6%
dropped the second one on a city only if they did not
surrender.”

“We should have used 2 bombs on cities just as we did.” 53.5% 28.5%

“We should have quickly used many more of them
before Japan had a chance to surrender.” 22.7% 2.9%

“Don’t know.” 5.5% 22.7%
Last edited by Hanny on 15 Feb 2019 17:45, edited 1 time in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4003
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by OpanaPointer » 15 Feb 2019 17:52

You're, not "your". Educated people know how to use those words.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23261
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by David Thompson » 15 Feb 2019 18:28

Personal insult posts from OpanaPointer and Hanny were removed pursuant to the forum rules:
2. Civility

The first rule of the forum is: "No insults are tolerated (that includes serious national and religious insults)." Personal remarks in posts are strongly discouraged, and personal insults are forbidden here.

There has been a lot of stimulating information exchanged on this forum, and some excellent discussions of controversial points. With few exceptions, the participants are thoughtful, serious people. If you find an argument is flawed, point out the flaws and the evidence to the contrary, and leave it at that. There is no need to resort to insults which do not prove your point. If you disagree with a contributor, please use your energy to show why his argument is mistaken. This will improve both the tone and quality of our discussions.

National and religious insults are forbidden by this first rule of the forum, and the third rule of the forum prohibits racist remarks and slang expressions for ethnic, national, religious or racial groups. Posts containing insulting generalizations about nationalities, ethnic groups, societies or religious groups and practices are not permitted here. This includes remarks about collective responsibility.

Nonconforming posts are subject to deletion without warning. Serious breaches of these rules are punishable by banning the poster.
app.php/rules

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by South » 15 Feb 2019 19:13

Good afternoon Hanny,

"Nothing vast enters the human mind without a curse." Socrates

Without know much more of your social studies background it's difficult for me to discuss how political establishments work.

Less important than a historian from the NRC ...... Do you really think a chief historian at NRC could write non-approved material ?! Look up the name - William Colby -.

"There are truths which are not for all men nor for all times." Voltaire [secrets of state]

Tell readers of the views of, for example:
American Bankers' Association
American Petroleum Association
prominent and powerful blocs in the US Senate
the views of Moscow
the views of Chang Kai Chek
the views of Mao

Add to the list I started:

"on the sole condition"
"contemporaneous evidence"
"required reading at universities"

...

Won't discuss the Mueller poll entry. That was my mistake and fault for posting it. The reader gets to make the inferences and now can see I don't believe it was appropriate to augment my point.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

rcocean
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by rcocean » 15 Feb 2019 21:51

I thought this was supposed to be a forum based on factual history and not a bunch of political bS and skittles and beer "what if" discussions. I can't imagine anyone reading this thread and getting a better understanding of why we didn't besiege Japan in 1945 instead of planning for the invasion.

My suggestion for any 3rd party would be to use the search function - I'm sure you'll find more factual and better discussions made earlier in this forum.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 538
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 17:21
Location: United States

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by EKB » 16 Feb 2019 05:19

Hanny wrote:
15 Feb 2019 08:55

Samuel Walker
“The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time.”

That was in 1990. Now let's fast forward to 2016, with a somewhat different take by J. Samuel Walker:


About the necessity for using the bomb:

" One argument has been made by the scholar Richard Frank, and I find it wonderfully convincing. Richard makes the argument – going back to the atomic bomb versus the Soviet invasion – he says that the bomb was essential to convince Hirohito to surrender. But that it was the Soviet invasion that convinced the generals of all those armies in China and other parts of East Asia to surrender. "


About revisionist views:

" They believe the bomb was not necessary to end the war—that it was totally unnecessary—and that it was used for some other reason. The reason that is cited most often is to intimidate the Soviets. This is where they bring in Byrnes as playing a major role in the use of the bomb as a diplomatic weapon against the Soviet Union. Those are the positions. And as I, and a lot of others, argue – I’m certainly not alone – they’re both seriously flawed."

" The two major mainstays of the revisionists’ argument simply don’t hold any water based on recent, fairly recent, documents which have become available and some outstanding scholarship."



Truman's reasoning for using the bomb:

" The traditional view in its pure form, that Truman used the bomb to avoid an invasion, simply doesn’t hold up ... What I argue is that Truman used the bomb for the reasons he said he did, to end the war as quickly as possible ... But there’s no evidence whatsoever that he was ever told that hundreds of thousands of lives would be the cost of an invasion of Japan."


About the aftermath of his 1990 article:

" Oftentimes scholars on the left side of the spectrum in the atomic bomb controversy quoted me out of context and said, “Look, you know, even the conservative official historian of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission agrees with me.” That really annoyed me, really, really annoyed me, because I thought it was unprofessional. I still think it’s unprofessional. And so at that point in 1995, I thought, “Well, maybe I’ll write a book,” because I thought there was a need for a short book on the decision to use the bomb that would appeal to students and the general public. My objective was to outline my own views of why Truman used the bomb, which I hadn’t reached any conclusions about yet."


Full interview is here:

https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/ ... -interview

Hanny wrote:
15 Feb 2019 08:55
But just for you and other simplistic minded people.

Mr. Hanny, if you kept up on current affairs maybe you wouldn't waste time trying to lead people down a garden path.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4003
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by OpanaPointer » 16 Feb 2019 11:15

Truman and the Hiroshima Cult is an interesting read.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by Hanny » 16 Feb 2019 12:07

OpanaPointer wrote:
16 Feb 2019 11:15
When MacArthur heard that the President was shocked at the numbers Mac had supplied to Marshall he quickly revised them downward.
How can POTUS be shocked by numbers he has yet to see?. The word expressed was perturbed, not shocked when he did see them. Example of revising historical text to suit your own agenda. Mac did not revise them downward either.example 2 of you revising historical text to suit your agenda.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... html#rtoc5
OpanaPointer wrote:
16 Feb 2019 11:15
I'm still chuckling over his suggestion that I get an education.
Except i made no such suggestion. Example of your reading what is not there and accepting your own delusion as fact.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9799
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by ljadw » 16 Feb 2019 12:34

Hanny wrote:
16 Feb 2019 11:47
“The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.”

EKB wrote:
16 Feb 2019 05:19
That was in 1990. Now let's fast forward to 2016, with a somewhat different take by J. Samuel Walker:
He holds the same position in 2016 in the latest edition. So he has not changed his opinion since 1990 on those aspects.


His position in 1996

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few yea rs has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan.... The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.... The hoary claim that the bomb prevented 500,000 American combat deaths is unsupportable."

2016 3rd edition.
"One point of agreement was that truman and his advisers were well aware of alternatives to the bomb that seemed likely but not certain, to end the war withing a relatively short space of time. Another was that an invasion of japan would probably not been necessary to achieve victory.A third point of general agreement in the scholarly literature on the decision to use thy bomb was that the post war claims of 00s of 000s of American combat deaths could not be sustained with the available evidence.


Instead of getting to the point quickly, your lengthy replies are filled with irrelevant statements that won't prove anything. Making your posts longer, just post the two editions dealing with the same thing. Or you could just note my post contain the same content in this thread.
EKB wrote:
16 Feb 2019 05:19
Mr. Hanny, if you kept up on current affairs maybe you wouldn't waste time trying to lead people down a garden path.
And if had read or had access to any editions of Walkers books you would end up looking like you do. Incompetent.
The opinion of scholars who were not involved in the decision is irrelevant and wrong : H + N saved American lives;that's all we need to know;even if they saved only ONE American live,the decision is legitimate,as for the US commander in chief,the live of ONE US soldier is more important than the lives of thousands of enemies, military or civilians .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6676
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 16 Feb 2019 12:45

Hi Hanny,

I ask again:

Had Japan agreed to unconditional surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped?

Had it even officially sued for peace?

If not, the use of the atom bombs remained a justifiable option, and one that certainly saved Allied and Japanese lives in considerable numbers compared with a conventional invasion.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by Hanny » 16 Feb 2019 12:49

ljadw wrote:
16 Feb 2019 12:34

The opinion of scholars who were not involved in the decision is irrelevant and wrong : H + N saved American lives;that's all we need to know;even if they saved only ONE American live,the decision is legitimate,as for the US commander in chief,the live of ONE US soldier is more important than the lives of thousands of enemies, military or civilians .
Thank you OBL, for explaining why the attack on Twin Towers was just peachy.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”