did american make a mistake when bombing .japan?

No. Also it is kind of funny how America was pulled into both World Wars and kicked ass up and down the battlefield in both of them.

leegar88

No, it didn't. The US army got its ass handed to it in WW1. The few engagements between the Germans and Americans late war resulted in more 4 times more fatalities for the Americans than the Germans with few to no objectives accomplished what so ever. The war was lost due to the failure of the German Navy to control the North Sea and defeat the Royal Navy. Although America's logistical support was, as usual, extremely helpfull.

Something I find interesting to this day, Emperor Hirohito never took any responcibility for Japan's position in the war and its acts. Yet several million people died fighting in his name. As Saburo Sakai put it, "What kind of man does that?".

Something I find interesting to this day, Emperor Hirohito never took any responcibility for Japan's position in the war and its acts. Yet several million people died fighting in his name. As Saburo Sakai put it, "What kind of man does that?".

CaptHawkeye

Wasn't the Emperor just a figurehead? I thought Tojo held all the power.

Something I find interesting to this day, Emperor Hirohito never took any responcibility for Japan's position in the war and its acts. Yet several million people died fighting in his name. As Saburo Sakai put it, "What kind of man does that?".

CaptHawkeye

[QUOTE="leegar88"]

No. Also it is kind of funny how America was pulled into both World Wars and kicked ass up and down the battlefield in both of them.

CaptHawkeye

No, it didn't. The US army got its ass handed to it in WW1. The few engagements between the Germans and Americans late war resulted in more 4 times more fatalities for the Americans than the Germans with few to no objectives accomplished what so ever. The war was lost due to the failure of the German Navy to control the North Sea and defeat the Royal Navy. Although America's logistical support was, as usual, extremely helpfull.

As much as I hate to say the British pulled it off, I entirely agree with you on this one. ;)  The Royal Navy, while it's Battlecruisers got rocked at Jutland, and was inept at finding the Emden in the Indian Ocean, the blockade of German ports was amazingly effective.  The brits really knew how to pull off a blockade, the RN was very successful in strangling American Ports in the US Revolution, and they were successful enough that the Germans desperately attempted to produce cargo carrying submarines in WWI.  The german people were starving during the last half of WWI, in fact I wouldn't be surprised in POW's in British and French camps ate better than the average german citizen during the last half of the war.

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

Something I find interesting to this day, Emperor Hirohito never took any responcibility for Japan's position in the war and its acts. Yet several million people died fighting in his name. As Saburo Sakai put it, "What kind of man does that?".

The_Ish

Wasn't the Emperor just a figurehead? I thought Tojo held all the power.

Secretly he was. The Military government tried to keep him quiet, but they were claiming they were following the will of the Emperor. Thing is, the Japanese people were subserviant to the Emperor before the government. And Hirohito made no attempts what so ever during the war to stop the Government during its invasions and attacks on other powers. He literally let them get away with murder. At any time Hirohito could have spoken out, he spoke out after the first bomb was dropped. So why did he not speak out against the military government when it attacked Manchuria or Pearl Harbor? He was either a coward or supportive of their agenda. In either case, Sakai's criticism stands. He was irresponcible.

He could have stopped the war and didn't. Millions of people died fighting in his name and he never took any responcibility for their deaths. Alas, such is the case with many politicians.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

Something I find interesting to this day, Emperor Hirohito never took any responcibility for Japan's position in the war and its acts. Yet several million people died fighting in his name. As Saburo Sakai put it, "What kind of man does that?".

CaptHawkeye

Wasn't the Emperor just a figurehead? I thought Tojo held all the power.

Secretly he was. The Military government tried to keep him quiet, but they were claiming they were following the will of the Emperor. Thing is, the Japanese people were subserviant to the Emperor before the government. And Hirohito made no attempts what so ever during the war to stop the Government during its invasions and attacks on other powers. He literally let them get away with murder. At any time Hirohito could have spoken out, he spoke out after the first bomb was dropped. So why did he not speak out against the military government when it attacked Manchuria or Pearl Harbor? He was either a coward or supportive of their agenda. In either case, Sakai's criticism stands. He was irresponcible.

He could have stopped the war and didn't. Millions of people died fighting in his name and he never took any responcibility for their deaths. Alas, such is the case with many politicians.

Ah, I see, that clears it up.

Yeah, now I agree with this Sakai guy, even though I do not know who he is.

No, absolutely not. They refused to surrender, and we knew that if something wasn't done we would have to assault their mainland directly. Considering the Japanese sense of honor before one's own welfare, this would have likely produced much more causalties than both the bombs combined. The Japanese were teaching their children to strap bombs to themselves and thrown themselves under tanks.

If we had attacked their mainland, millions of our soldiers would have been killed, along with millions more of the Japanese Army, and probably several hundred thousand Japanese civilians. Fighting on islands like Tarawa and Iwo Jima was bad enough; imagine the colossal size of Japan compared to those little islands, and you can certainly imagine the number of deaths such an invasion would produce.

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="leegar88"]

No. Also it is kind of funny how America was pulled into both World Wars and kicked ass up and down the battlefield in both of them.

bobwill1

No, it didn't. The US army got its ass handed to it in WW1. The few engagements between the Germans and Americans late war resulted in more 4 times more fatalities for the Americans than the Germans with few to no objectives accomplished what so ever. The war was lost due to the failure of the German Navy to control the North Sea and defeat the Royal Navy. Although America's logistical support was, as usual, extremely helpfull.

As much as I hate to say the British pulled it off, I entirely agree with you on this one. ;)  The Royal Navy, while it's Battlecruisers got rocked at Jutland, and was inept at finding the Emden in the Indian Ocean, the blockade of German ports was amazingly effective.  The brits really knew how to pull off a blockade, the RN was very successful in strangling American Ports in the US Revolution, and they were successful enough that the Germans desperately attempted to produce cargo carrying submarines in WWI.  The german people were starving during the last half of WWI, in fact I wouldn't be surprised in POW's in British and French camps ate better than the average german citizen during the last half of the war.

Germany really kind of ensured their own defeat because of their technological agenda. German command insisted on wasting time building incredibly wanked out submarine fleets which had little actual effect on shipping short of morale damage. Instead of building more Battleships and Cruisers they decided to go for inefficient and unproven technology which couldn't even be used in a straight battle! It's like building a medieval era army with nothing but Archers. In the end, you need SOME kind of mainline combat unit who's sole purpose is to slug it out with the enemy on even ground. (See: Infantry)

I just don't think hundreds of thousands of people are worth the 'unconditional' in 'unconditional surrender'. End the death. That's the point of a peace treaty.quiglythegreat

Weren't the japanese conditions prior to the bombs things like:

No Occupying Forces will land on Japanese soil

No claim of responsibility

No war crimes trials

No inspectors in witness the demobilization of the japanese military 

  It was intentional and they new exactly what they were doing so it wasn't a mistake. There's a reaction for every action, it's known as cause and effect. Was it a mistake? an accident? Maybe, but I don't see how, as it WASN'T a unforeseen event. It's more like Japan made the mistake when they decided to **** with the United States of America.:D

  Playing the blame game with events from long ago won't fix anything. Every action triggers a reaction. You threaten me I will pacify you before you get the opportunity to attack me. We should all do are best to get along, but our own come first. So if you do something stupid and get your comrades killed that is your fault because you provoked it. Whomever is injured in the retaliation is your responsibility.

    Like an innocent person that gets gunned down in a crossfire. The person that threatens another first is responsible for the outcome. Gunfire is contagious. For example, if you pulled a gun on me and I started shooting at you then your wife or child were hit by one of my bullets during the exchange, that would be your fault. This scenario would of never happen if you hadn't  evoked a retaliation.

  So the bombing was a response Japan evoked. Was the aftermath worth it? It was Japan's mistake.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]I just don't think hundreds of thousands of people are worth the 'unconditional' in 'unconditional surrender'. End the death. That's the point of a peace treaty.bobwill1

Weren't the japanese conditions prior to the bombs things like:

No Occupying Forces will land on Japanese soil

No claim of responsibility

No war crimes trials

No inspectors in witness the demobilization of the japanese military

Saburo Sakai was a famous Ace and the only Japanese to Ace to survive the war. His kill record was an amazing 60+ enemy aircraft shot down. He was eventually given training duty near the end of the war because of injuries sustained in battle.

[QUOTE="bobwill1"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]I just don't think hundreds of thousands of people are worth the 'unconditional' in 'unconditional surrender'. End the death. That's the point of a peace treaty.quiglythegreat

Weren't the japanese conditions prior to the bombs things like:

No Occupying Forces will land on Japanese soil

No claim of responsibility

No war crimes trials

No inspectors in witness the demobilization of the japanese military

 :roll: Yes, because Japan's ****ing unrivaled defense of Okinawa and Iwo Jima didn't make that clear enough.

during world war ii, the US bombed the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki. the japenese refused to surrender to the war and they were warned about the bombs well before the attack. the bombs were the first [maybe only?] atomic bombs to be dropped not as a test. was this a mistake? peypan

[QUOTE="peypan"]during world war ii, the US bombed the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki. the japenese refused to surrender to the war and they were warned about the bombs well before the attack. the bombs were the first [maybe only?] atomic bombs to be dropped not as a test. was this a mistake? Proobie44

:roll: Yes, because Japan's ****ing unrivaled defense of Okinawa and Iwo Jima didn't make that clear enough.

CaptHawkeye

[QUOTE="Proobie44"]

[QUOTE="peypan"]during world war ii, the US bombed the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki. the japenese refused to surrender to the war and they were warned about the bombs well before the attack. the bombs were the first [maybe only?] atomic bombs to be dropped not as a test. was this a mistake? peypan

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

:roll: Yes, because Japan's ****ing unrivaled defense of Okinawa and Iwo Jima didn't make that clear enough.

quiglythegreat

If the Japanese had not been willing to surrender before the bombs, this would be a legitimate argument.

Oh i'm sorry. You must have completely missed the kamikaze campaign and military conscription campaign on Japan during 1945. Sorry, but the USN was taking casualties just by hovering a few hundred miles away from the Japanese coast. Yeah, that's "willing to surrender" allright.

They were looking for it well before the first bomb, just not quite willing to completely submit, because why would they want to be that humiliated?

And? That didn't stop them from maintaining a staunch defense of Manila and their remaining possesions in China. Even though they didn't rightfully own any of it.

 Plus, this is the classic American concept of a slam dunk (you know...how we like to win...BY A LOT) and a way that Truman and the White House could avoid impeachment (illegal spending of $2 billion).

So investment in war ending weapons and logistical powers is illegal spending of war funds? News to me.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

:roll: Yes, because Japan's ****ing unrivaled defense of Okinawa and Iwo Jima didn't make that clear enough.

CaptHawkeye

If the Japanese had not been willing to surrender before the bombs, this would be a legitimate argument.

Oh i'm sorry. You must have completely missed the kamikaze campaign and military conscription campaign on Japan during 1945. Sorry, but the USN was taking casualties just by hovering a few hundred miles away from the Japanese coast. Yeah, that's "willing to surrender" allright.

They were looking for it well before the first bomb, just not quite willing to completely submit, because why would they want to be that humiliated?

And? That didn't stop them from maintaining a staunch defense of Manila and their remaining possesions in China. Even though they didn't rightfully own any of it.

Plus, this is the classic American concept of a slam dunk (you know...how we like to win...BY A LOT) and a way that Truman and the White House could avoid impeachment (illegal spending of $2 billion).

So investment in war ending weapons and logistical powers is illegal spending of war funds? News to me.

The atomic bombs were used to force people into surrendering without losing more American troops. This was well thought out before hand. The American command wasn't going to drop bombs on Yokohama, Kyoto, Nara or Tokyo or other cultural and historical centers for instance. Those two cities that were bombed were industrial centers if I remember properly. Additionally, with Japan being the ally of Germany, it was also a sign to tell them "stop or you got some of this too".

So, no it wasn't a mistake, Japan sneak attacked the United States in Pearl Harbor and indeed woke a sleeping giant.

SemiMaster

Japan, prior to World War II, had violated the naval treaties made between WWI and the outbreak of WWII. The Yamato and Musashi were each 2x the size of what was allowable under the treaties at the time they were started. The Japanese built gigantic enclosed facilities to make taking pictures of the two ships under construction impossible.

They started wars with China, Korea, the US and Great Britain, in each case the japanese launched the first strike. They sought to become the sole great power in the Pacific. The attacks on the US and Great Britain could be considered sneak attacks.

The japanese propganda machine had the japanese public, and even military, convinced that most of the US navy had been destroyed prior to Leyte Gulf. 

Looking at all of this, would you have trusted Japan to disarm themselves without any supervision. I sorry, but at the time this would seem like taking a serial killer at his word that he won't kill anyone and let him go his merry way without a prison sentance. It isn't about owning the serial killer. Or in this case owning japan, it's about making sure that they really do what they said they'd do. How could anyone be sure that the japanese would have really disarmed. They had been stockpiling weapons for years to fight off the invasion. What would have happened if the japanese had not actually disarmed even though they said they did. Everyone else did, so who would stop them if they did rebuild their forces after everyone started trading with them and pretended WWII never happened?

Oh yeah, big edit! Let's not forget that they violated international law in the use of chemical and biological weapons on civilians, going as far as attempting to spread Bubonic Plague in China, and trying to bomb the US with Seran gas.  Their treatment of prisoners (both Prisoners of War and civilians) violated international treaties.  Again, why would you trust them to abide by a piece of paper that they signed with no ability to verify that they are actually following it?

Japan couldn't win the war. They were the only axis country left, so there was no way they could win against all the allies. Had the US not dropped the bombs, it's likely that more people would have died.

But still, i don't think the US handled it properly. Rather than just dropping 2 bombs on them, they should have given a demonstration. If Japan still didn't surrender, then it would have been reasonable to drop the bombs. But Japan might have surrendered after just 1 was dropped on their country.

[QUOTE="peypan"][QUOTE="Proobie44"]

[QUOTE="peypan"]during world war ii, the US bombed the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki. the japenese refused to surrender to the war and they were warned about the bombs well before the attack. the bombs were the first [maybe only?] atomic bombs to be dropped not as a test. was this a mistake? Proobie44

this was completely irrelevant to my history **** and my homework. you need to stop assuming. itll usually turn out bad in life.. i can post these too :roll: :roll: :roll: 

Uh, the Japanese were looking to get a peace treaty two months before the bomb, America just wouldn't hear it.

More like "The Japanese populace and military government wouldn't listen." 

And yeah, the Manhattan Project was illegal as hell.

 So was the war, oh wait...

Irrelevant. Besides, the Bomb's initial goals had been to combat the possibility of Germany building their own bomb. Would you send a letter to Hitler complaining about the bomb if you could?

The president does not have the power to spend money independenlty of Congress's consul. Congress did not approve the Manhattan Project and thus it was illegal.

Not relevant. The procreation of the resources needed for the bomb are a seperate subject, it's use is what we are talking about here. Stay on topic Red 5.

Uh, the Japanese were looking to get a peace treaty two months before the bomb, America just wouldn't hear it.CaptHawkeye

More like "The Japanese populace and military government wouldn't listen."

And yeah, the Manhattan Project was illegal as hell.

So was about 9/10s of the things Roosevelt did during the pre war and war years. Their is a reason the United States was able to activly combat enemy forces within a year of Pearl Harbor you know.

The president does not have the power to spend money independenlty of Congress's consul. Congress did not approve the Manhattan Project and thus it was illegal.

Not relevant. The procreation of the resources needed for the bomb are a seperate subject, it's use is what we are talking about here. Stay on topic Red 5.

 

The only mistake we made was not taking over the country and making it ours..AngelB1ack

Japan couldn't win the war. They were the only axis country left, so there was no way they could win against all the allies. Had the US not dropped the bombs, it's likely that more people would have died.

But still, i don't think the US handled it properly. Rather than just dropping 2 bombs on them, they should have given a demonstration. If Japan still didn't surrender, then it would have been reasonable to drop the bombs. But Japan might have surrendered after just 1 was dropped on their country.

BuryMe

Yeah, the first was dropped on August 6th, the second was dropped on August 9th, and the Japanese surrendered on August 15th.  I think those are all the right dates; but they are off the top of my head, feel free to check them.bobwill1

But Japan might have surrendered after just 1 was dropped on their country.

BuryMe

apparently they needed more convincing... 

[QUOTE="bobwill1"]Yeah, the first was dropped on August 6th, the second was dropped on August 9th, and the Japanese surrendered on August 15th. I think those are all the right dates; but they are off the top of my head, feel free to check them.format_kid

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

But Japan might have surrendered after just 1 was dropped on their country.

Def_Jef88

apparently they needed more convincing...

during world war ii, the US bombed the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki. the japenese refused to surrender to the war and they were warned about the bombs well before the attack. the bombs were the first [maybe only?] atomic bombs to be dropped not as a test. was this a mistake? peypan

during world war ii, the US bombed the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki.  the japenese refused to surrender to the war and they were warned about the bombs well before the attack.  the bombs were the first [maybe only?] atomic bombs to be dropped not as a test.  was this a mistake? peypan

 We didn't warn them.  Truman was given five choices, 1) Continue fire bombing, 2) Invasion (scheduled November 4th), 3) Drop with warning, 4) Drop with Demonstration, 5) Drop without warning.  We went with option five to minimize American casualties.

Nice try, but the bomb was dropped mainly because of the Reds and to save Truman's ass, so that is relevent.

You seem to completely misunderstand the fact that the burden of proof is on you.

Either produce some trustworthy, peer reviewed evidence to say Truman was covering his ass or was motivated by rascist desires or shut the hell up.

Nice try, but the bomb was dropped mainly because of the Reds and to save Truman's ass, so that is relevent.

CaptHawkeye

You seem to completely misunderstand the fact that the burden of proof is on you.

Either produce some trustworthy, peer reviewed evidence to say Truman was covering his ass or was motivated by rascist desires or shut the hell up.

Knock, kncok

whos there?

...

..

BUUUUUURRRRN!!!!! 

It should have never been invented.X360PS3AMD05

what other tactic do you suggest to win the war while keeping the casualties equal to the bombs dropped

Here's the Potsdam Declaration from July of 1945:

(1) We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agreed that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.

(2) The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the West, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to exist.

(3) The result of the futile and senseless resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges upon Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the

Page 109

whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.

(4) The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisors whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.

(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and mislead the people of Japan into embarking on a world conquest. We insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

(8) The terms of the Cairo declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion and of thought as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind. but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

Page 110

(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as those objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

(13) We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450726a.html

The 13th part, to the best of my knowledge is the closest we came to a warning of the atom bomb. 

[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]It should have never been invented.gun65

what other tactic do you suggest to win the war while keeping the casualties equal to the bombs dropped