The problem with the January 20th terms of surrender was that they maintained the power of the Emperor and didn't allow the US to reform the Japanese government.
Japan has a long and historic history. The US recognized that. So they refused to hit Tokyo, Nara, Kyoto, or Osaka, cities of significant historical value to the world. Instead they hit cities, that while were still important, would not be a huge loss to the world community. While the loss of any human life is a tragedy, the bombs accomplished what they were meant to, the end of the war.
just picking out something from the pearl habor movie, know it isnt fact but still, the commander was asked what he would do if he ran out of fuel, he said he would basically kamikaze the nearest military structure... You dont see the similarity?
Kyoto was actually an option early on but one of the people selecting targets had honeymooned there and loved the city too much.Japan has a long and historic history. The US recognized that. So they refused to hit Tokyo, Nara, Kyoto, or Osaka, cities of significant historical value to the world. Instead they hit cities, that while were still important, would not be a huge loss to the world community. While the loss of any human life is a tragedy, the bombs accomplished what they were meant to, the end of the war.
With what? By this point the Japanese air force was in shambles and their runways were common targets. A blockade would not have been that hard to maintain given how beaten their forces were at the time, and would likely have lasted two or three months max. And as I said, the US could have always allowed Japan that one condition for surrender which would have basically guaranteed the government said yes- immunity for the Emperor.Not to mention the whole time you're being harassed by the Japanese as well as having to do continuous conventional and firebombing strikes(much much more deadly then the nukes but people just sensationalize the bang of the nukes as opposed to real tragedy because it's easy) to maintain this blockade.
I am more than aware of the atrocities everyone committed in WWII, including Japan. It's not exactly hidden information.All countries in the war attacked civilian populations and the means of production, that doesn't excuse this but if you want a little lesson in war atrocities ask China what it thinks about Japan.
Just because war is inherently immoral doesn't mean we have to embrace that, or give ourselves a blank check to act however we like in that war. Fair and just wars are more than simple ideas; they largely form the basis of US military conduct today. And as such, we ought to be able to look into the past and recognize (and acknowledge) where we erred.War sucks and is inherently immoral. We just like to fool ourselves into thinking we're waging a "Fair" or "just" war as "humanely"(lol) possible.
You know on another subject to add to this thread on world war 2 you guys do realize the civilians that died in hiroshima and nagasaki didnt intimidate japan into surrender it was the fear factor and poor intelligence of a bomb on tokyo which would of been more devastating. Also the Americans even if they blockaded japan we would have seen more ships sunk by kamikaze fighters. They had more then enough fighters and people willing to die for the country. As others mentioned it was also to show off look this is what we have to the soviet union. which was in the process oif building a bomb all these factors played a role into the bombings
Japan did just fine, so I wouldn't worry too much about how we didn't reform them enough. They are a staunch ally, the Emperor is nothing more than a figurehead, and they have the second largest GDP in the world. All thanks to our involvement after WW2. While they will never thank us for the bombs, in my onion they ended up better for it. They were thrust into the position of a world economic leader in only a few decades. Amazing.
27 January 1941, Dr. Ricardo Shreiber, the Peruvian envoy in Tokyo told Max Bishop, third secretary of the US embassy that he had just learned from his intelligence sources that there was a war plan involving a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. This information was sent to the State Department and Naval Intelligence and to Admiral Kimmel at Hawaii.
10 August 1941, the top British agent, code named "Tricycle", Dusko Popov, told the FBI of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor and that it would be soon. The FBI told him that his information was "too precise, too complete to be believed. The questionnaire plus the other information you brought spell out in detail exactly where, when, how, and by whom we are to be attacked. If anything, it sounds like a trap." He also reported that a senior Japanese naval person had gone to Taranto to collect all secret data on the attack there and that it was of utmost importance to them. The info was given to Naval IQ.
BTw Dusko Popov was an inspiration for James Bond...
24 September 1941, the " bomb plot" message in J-19 code from Japan Naval Intelligence to Japan' s consul general in Honolulu requesting grid of exact locations of ships pinpointed for the benefit of bombardiers and torpedo pilots was deciphered. There was no reason to know the EXACT location of ships in harbor, unless to attack them - it was a dead giveaway. Chief of War Plans Turner and Chief of Naval Operations Stark repeatedly kept it and warnings based on it prepared by Safford and others from being passed to Hawaii. The chief of Naval Intelligence Captain Kirk was replaced because he insisted on warning HI. It was lack of information like this that lead to the exoneration of the Hawaii commanders and the blaming of Washington for unpreparedness for the attack by the Army Board and Navy Court. At no time did the Japanese ever ask for a similar bomb plot for any other American military installation. Why the Roosevelt administration allowed flagrant Japanese spying on PH has never been explained, but they blocked 2 Congressional investigations in the fall of 1941 to allow it to continue. The bomb plots were addressed to "Chief of 3rd Bureau, Naval General Staff", marked Secret Intelligence message, and given special serial numbers, so their significance couldn't be missed. There were about 95 ships in port. The text was:
So what now? Read some books don't trust everything you read in a school book edited by the politicians.
Besides, Japan was prepared to fight down to the last man, woman, and child. It's probable that more Japanese civilians would have died if we had *not* bombed them, to say nothing of the many millions of soldiers who would have died.
Keep in mind that conservative estimates of a traditional invasion of Japan put the casualty rate of American soldiers between 1.7 and 4 million, with 400,000-800,000 fatalities. Conservatively, there would have been 5-10 million Japanese fatalities. That says nothing of the fact that the traditional invasion of Japan would have involved destroying far more cities than we destroyed with the two bombs we dropped.
The reason those two cities in particular were chosen have already been explained; suffice to say, they were not strictly civilian targets. Yes, we hoped to force Japan to surrender; doing so saved literally millions of lives. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel bad about that decision. It sucks for the people that were there, but it is an unfortunate reality that was made necessary by the situation.
Last edited by Surfd; 2011-11-28 at 12:53 AM.
You have proven nothing other than the fact that US officials were wrong in scoffing at these reports. But then again, hindsight is 20/20 isn't it?
It has nothing to do with what country I am in as compared to what I know if I care to look. Thinking it does only proves your bias.