Why not "besiege" Japan?

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
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 13:22

Somebody let me know when/if this thread gets serious, please.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9798
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by ljadw » 16 Feb 2019 16:07

Hanny wrote:
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.
The Twin Towers were civilian targets,attacked by terrorists . H and N were military targets, as were Berlin, Dresden, Coventry, Paris, Belfast, Antwerp, Mortsel, Ypres (where on May 24 1940 200 people died by German air attacks ) , Tokyo,etc,etc.
Responsible for the victims of H and N were the Japanese,
because they refused to surrender
because they mixed military with civilians : there were 40000 military in Hiroshima who otherwise would have killed US soldiers .If Japan was using its civilians as a human shield to protect its military, it had only itself to blame .
There was no law forbidding to attack H and N . Thus,the attacks were legitimate following the laws of 1945 . What the present generation is saying is totally irrelevant .

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 16:11

The government had moved war production to private homes wherever possible, so suburban housing was a military target. AND the War Minister had declared that adult males and females were now part of the military, making them legit targets as well.

BTW, the special torpedoes used in the raid on Pearl Harbor were made at Kawatana Naval Arsenal, a branch of Sasebo Naval Arsenal, in Nagasaki Prefecture.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2542
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by Boby » 16 Feb 2019 16:52

There was no such scenario: bombs or invasion.

Japan was defeated, the only question was: how much time they needed?

Without nukes, the only rational scenario is to continue the blockade until total military and economic collapse. There was no need for an invasion, it would be a criminal waste.

But, I agree with the view that A-Bombs + Soviet DOW quickly ended the war.

Of course the "millions US lives saved" is total nonsens.

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 17:08

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.”

He holds the same position in 2016 in the latest edition. So he has not changed his opinion since 1990 on those aspects.
Wrong.

Your own source, J. Samuel Walker, believes that it was necessary to use the atomic bomb against Japan. Walker also said that he was not sure about Truman's motives back in 1990 which means that his position has changed, by his own admission.

You ignore that in his 2016 interview, Walker DID NOT say that a "consensus" still exists among scholars that the atomic bomb was not needed. Read the transcript and get your facts straight.

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

Hanny wrote:
16 Feb 2019 11:47
And if had read or had access to any editions of Walkers books you would end up looking like you do. Incompetent.

Some people change their minds. Your argument lives in the past.

Walker no longer claims there is general agreement among scholars about need for the atomic bomb, as of 2016. You tried to use Walker to prove otherwise.
You might find other forums more receptive to juvenile pranks, but this one isn't.

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

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by Hanny » 16 Feb 2019 17:15

ljadw wrote:
16 Feb 2019 16:07
Hanny wrote:
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.
The Twin Towers were civilian targets,attacked by terrorists . H and N were military targets, as were Berlin, Dresden, Coventry, Paris, Belfast, Antwerp, Mortsel, Ypres (where on May 24 1940 200 people died by German air attacks ) , Tokyo,etc,etc.
Responsible for the victims of H and N were the Japanese,
because they refused to surrender
because they mixed military with civilians : there were 40000 military in Hiroshima who otherwise would have killed US soldiers .If Japan was using its civilians as a human shield to protect its military, it had only itself to blame .
There was no law forbidding to attack H and N . Thus,the attacks were legitimate following the laws of 1945 . What the present generation is saying is totally irrelevant .
You started with its ok in military conflicts to kill anyone if it saves the life of one of your personnel. Since that is your position then any action that kills lives to save lives is peachy.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

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

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by David Thompson » 16 Feb 2019 17:43

Another post from Hanny, containing gratuitous personal comments about another member, was removed.

Everybody -- Please stay on topic and avoid insulting personal side comments when posting.

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 17:48

Boby wrote:
16 Feb 2019 16:52
There was no such scenario: bombs or invasion.

Japan was defeated, the only question was: how much time they needed?

Without nukes, the only rational scenario is to continue the blockade until total military and economic collapse. There was no need for an invasion, it would be a criminal waste.

But, I agree with the view that A-Bombs + Soviet DOW quickly ended the war.

Of course the "millions US lives saved" is total nonsens.
Letting children starve is a crime IMNSHO.
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 17:58

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.”
He holds the same position in 2016 in the latest edition. So he has not changed his opinion since 1990 on those aspects.
EKB wrote:
16 Feb 2019 17:08
Wrong.
Correct. I posted his written position.
EKB wrote:
16 Feb 2019 17:08
Your own source, J. Samuel Walker, believes that it was necessary to use the atomic bomb against Japan. Walker also said that he was not sure about Truman's motives back in 1990 which means that his position has changed, by his own admission.

You ignore that in his 2016 interview, Walker DID NOT say that a "consensus" still exists among scholars that the atomic bomb was not needed. Read the transcript and get your facts straight.

https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/ ... -interview
Because thats an interview, not his book there is a vast amount in the book not in the interview.

"The fundamental question is, Was the bomb necessary? In view of the evidence now available, the answer is yes and no. Yes, the bomb was necessary to end the war at the earliest possible moment. And yes, the bomb was necessary to save the lives of American troops, perhaps numbering in the several thousands. But no, the bomb was probably not necessary to end the war within a fairly short time without an invasion of Japan. And no, the bomb was not necessary to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops"Samuel Walker is in the book, but not in the interview.

Hanny wrote:
16 Feb 2019 11:47
And if had read or had access to any editions of Walkers books you would end up looking like you do. Incompetent.
EKB wrote:
16 Feb 2019 17:08
Some people change their minds. Your argument lives in the past.

Walker no longer claims there is general agreement among scholars about need for the atomic bomb, as of 2016. You tried to use Walker to prove otherwise.
Some people have the books and can show what they contain, and others cant.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

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

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by rcocean » 21 Feb 2019 00:27

But no, the bomb was probably not necessary to end the war within a fairly short time without an invasion of Japan. And no, the bomb was not necessary to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops"Samuel Walker is in the book, but not in the interview.
Except that completely ignores the hundreds of thousands of other Allied nationalities** who would've died if the war hat dragged on till November 1945. It ignores that Stalin was planning to invade Japan in September 1945. It ignores the British were planning to invade Malaysia in Sept 1945. It ignores that in the six weeks from July 1 - August 15, the USA was averaging about 500 deaths a week, due to a combination of sub attack/Kamikaze/Aerial Combat/POW deaths. It ignores the hundreds of thousands of JAPANESE who would've died from malnutrition due to the blockade and conventional B-29 air strikes. (Note: Why would the Japanese have surrendered due to a blockade, unless was killing large numbers of Japanese?)

Read Frank's Book "Downfall". The A-Bomb saved lives - and not just Americans.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of these constant POLITICAL discussions over a matter of military history. If you want to go talk politics - join the Bernie Sanders Campaign. He just announced.


** = Chinese, Indochinese, Buremese, Russians, Indonesians

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

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by OpanaPointer » 21 Feb 2019 00:50

A siege is slow murder. Why that would be the go-to for anybody in that situation is beyond me.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
mikegriffith1
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Feb 2019 21:59
Location: Virginia

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by mikegriffith1 » 21 Feb 2019 02:31

rcocean wrote:
21 Feb 2019 00:27
But no, the bomb was probably not necessary to end the war within a fairly short time without an invasion of Japan. And no, the bomb was not necessary to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops"Samuel Walker is in the book, but not in the interview.
Except that completely ignores the hundreds of thousands of other Allied nationalities** who would've died if the war hat dragged on till November 1945. It ignores that Stalin was planning to invade Japan in September 1945. It ignores the British were planning to invade Malaysia in Sept 1945. It ignores that in the six weeks from July 1 - August 15, the USA was averaging about 500 deaths a week, due to a combination of sub attack/Kamikaze/Aerial Combat/POW deaths.
Can you provide some sources for your last statement? And, do your sources specify how many of those 500 per week were due to sub attacks, kamikazes, and aerial combat?

According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, by November 1944, we were losing only 3.6% of our planes in bombing raids (p. 26). By June 1945, according to historian Paul Ham, we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers were being shot down by mid-1945 (Paul Ham, Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, p. 176).
It ignores the hundreds of thousands of JAPANESE who would've died from malnutrition due to the blockade and conventional B-29 air strikes. (Note: Why would the Japanese have surrendered due to a blockade, unless was killing large numbers of Japanese?)
But what if Eisenhower, Leahy, Grew, and others were correct when they advised Truman and/or Stimson weeks before Hiroshima that if we would specify that unconditional surrender would not include deposing the emperor, the Japanese would surrender in very short order? MacArthur shared this view.
Read Frank's Book "Downfall". The A-Bomb saved lives - and not just Americans.
I don't think Frank succeeds in explaining the evidence from primary Japanese sources that the atomic bombings were not the reason for Japan's decision to surrender and that the Soviet invasion was the crucial event that enabled the moderates to overcome the hardliners and to bring about a surrender.

Prime Minister Suzuki could not even get the Supreme War Council to meet in response to the nuking of Hiroshima, but the council quickly agreed to meet when they heard about the Soviet invasion. What's more, when the council was meeting on August 9 and a messenger arrived with the news about the nuking of Nagasaki, the news was viewed as unimportant because it included a report that the damage to the city was minimal--this claim was based on a report from a Nagasaki city official who had only seen a small part of the damage.

I think the use of the atomic bomb gave the emperor an additional reason/excuse for wanting to end the war, but he had already been anxious to end the war for weeks before then. In fact, in her book Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, Dr. Noriko Kawamura, a historian at Washington State University, documents that the emperor decided that Japan needed to sue for peace after Saipan fell, and that his desire to end the war became even stronger after the fall of Okinawa.
Last edited by mikegriffith1 on 21 Feb 2019 10:57, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 21 Feb 2019 09:44

Hi #164,

Then perhaps the Emperor should have followed his inclinations and formally sued for peace. This would not only have headed off the losses of his own people to the A-bombs, about which he did not know, but those even higher losses that might well have followed either invasion or blockade, about which he must have been well aware

We can't reasonably blame the Allies for Japanese losses resulting from intransigence, inertia or indecisiveness in the Japanese leadetship.

Cheers,

Sid
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 21 Feb 2019 09:56, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by Hanny » 21 Feb 2019 09:47

rcocean wrote:
21 Feb 2019 00:27


Except that completely ignores the hundreds of thousands of other Allied nationalities** who would've died if the war hat dragged on till November 1945. It ignores that Stalin was planning to invade Japan in September 1945. It ignores the British were planning to invade Malaysia in Sept 1945. It ignores that in the six weeks from July 1 - August 15, the USA was averaging about 500 deaths a week, due to a combination of sub attack/Kamikaze/Aerial Combat/POW deaths. It ignores the hundreds of thousands of JAPANESE who would've died from malnutrition due to the blockade and conventional B-29 air strikes. (Note: Why would the Japanese have surrendered due to a blockade, unless was killing large numbers of Japanese?)

Read Frank's Book "Downfall". The A-Bomb saved lives - and not just Americans.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of these constant POLITICAL discussions over a matter of military history. If you want to go talk politics - join the Bernie Sanders Campaign. He just announced.


** = Chinese, Indochinese, Buremese, Russians, Indonesians
And yet is what the man wrote, and is used to teach from. USAF was losing more men in auto accidents than to action over Japan, but more important nothing you wrote was relevant to the decision to employ them at the time, the decision had already been taken before then. Downfal,l was published before Hirohito archives became available and is an incorrect assessment from the Japanese perspective, reading it will give an incomplete picture. You know like not knowing 22,000 koreans died in the nuclear attacks.

Frankly my dear, i dont give a damn what your tired off, seeing as you clutter threads with what ifs, as the use was justified by military necessit. No one forces you to read or post in threads you dont like.

https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlest ... ssonID=475

Harry S. Truman Library & Museum teaching class.

It is, and has been taught that way from walker first to third editions, for decades in many US States. Sadly you would fail these classes.

In view of the evidence now available, the answer is yes and no. Yes, the bomb was necessary to end the war at the earliest possible moment. And yes, the bomb was necessary to save the lives of American troops, perhaps numbering in the several thousands. But no, the bomb was probably not necessary to end the war within a fairly short time without an invasion of Japan. And no, the bomb was not necessary to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops.

-Dr. J. Samuel Walker, 1997


Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan see pages 39 onwards for blockade and who was for it, how long and even if necessary.
Last edited by Hanny on 21 Feb 2019 14:54, edited 1 time in total.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

User avatar
mikegriffith1
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Feb 2019 21:59
Location: Virginia

Re: Why not "besiege" Japan?

Post by mikegriffith1 » 21 Feb 2019 12:00

Sid Guttridge wrote:
21 Feb 2019 09:44
Hi #164.
Then perhaps the Emperor should have followed his inclinations and formally sued for peace.
He was trying to do just that, but he could not do it on his own, and Truman hamstrung him and other moderates by refusing to clarify the emperor's status in an unconditional surrender in the Potsdam Declaration and during the weeks leading up to Hiroshima. Truman and other high officials knew from Japanese intercepts that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender and that the only sticking point was the emperor's status in unconditional surrender.

When we read the primary sources, we learn that when the cabinet or the Supreme War Council debated surrender, the hardliners' two main arguments were (1) that the emperor would be deposed and prosecuted as a war criminal if Japan surrendered, and (2) that there was still a chance that the Soviets would remain neutral and would agree to broker a peace deal. Truman could have deprived the hardliners of both of those arguments if he had just specified that the emperor would not be harmed, and if he had not--at practically the last minute--excluded the Soviets from signing the Potsdam Declaration. When the Soviets were not included in the Potsdam Declaration, the hardliners pounced on this as proof that the Soviets might remain neutral and might help broker a better deal.
This would not only have headed off the losses of his own people to the A-bombs, about which he did not know, but those even higher losses that might well have followed either invasion or blockade, about which he must have been well aware.
And the emperor did not know about the atomic bomb because we gave him no warning about it. We could and should have at least tried the approach of advising the Japanese of the existence of the atomic bomb and specifying that the emperor would not be harmed in an unconditional surrender. Just clarifying the emperor's status would have most likely led to a speedy surrender, based on what we know from primary Japanese sources about the debates over surrender.

Yes, the emperor and other moderates were well aware of the effects of the blockade, and that was one of the main reasons they wanted to surrender, but instead of helping their efforts to bring about a surrender by allaying the one fear that we knew the hardliners were using with great effect, i.e., the emperor's status, we hamstrung them by refusing to provide clarity on that issue.
We can't reasonably blame the Allies for Japanese losses resulting from intransigence, inertia or indecisiveness in the Japanese leadership.
Even though we knew from intercepts that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender and that the only real problem was their concern about the emperor's status? Even though we had experts, such as Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew, who were explaining how the Japanese government worked and the long-standing tensions between the moderates and the military hardliners?

The fact of the matter is that we did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war without an invasion. We know from Japanese sources that when the Soviets entered the war, even the hardliners on the Supreme War Council agreed that Japan had to surrender, and that it was the powerful fear of Soviet occupation and subjugation that enabled the emperor to finally get the military to drop their three surrender conditions and to accept the Potsdam Declaration with just the one condition regarding the emperor's status. This is a matter of record that has been documented in great detail by numerous scholars. I would recommend Dr. Kawamura's 2015 book Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, which includes information from previously unavailable primary Japanese sources.

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”