Droping the bomb on Hiroshima - was it the right thing to do?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="UnamedThing"]

The estimated casualties for the American troops alone for an invansion of the mainland was around 1, 000, 000.

Wasdie

That was the militaries estimate after they studied the invasions of all of the surrounding pacific islands. It was a good estimate and was probably low. Many battles in the pacific saw America lose over 75% of the soliders they sent ot the islands while the Japanese forces were destroyed completely.

[QUOTE="DrSponge"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I have an announcement: fairies exist. It's true. I won't prove it to you, though. You need to get down to your local library and do some research on the subject. Until you've acquired the level of fairyology expertise that I have, don't bother posting. Honestly, the ignorance of fairies here is appalling.Funky_Llama

I lol'd :lol:

Trying to compare something which is very real, with the existance of fairies...

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="DrSponge"]

 

I lol'd :lol:

Trying to compare something which is very real, with the existance of fairies...

DrSponge

if you honestly think the hiroshima bomb was justifyable then all terrorist acts are justifiable... even 9/11.

and please take this into consideration soldiers know that they are taking death under there belts when they sign up to the army, civilians have no say in the matter. so civilian should never be the intended target no matter how many soldiers COULD have died.RiseAgainst12

You might want to read up on the Japanese ideology in WW2 since civilians were programmed to fight to the death. Both cities that were bombed were of military importance.

The point still stands... replace fairies with any feasible yet unproven claim if you want.Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]One of them. Not the. Whose estimate was that, by the way?Funky_Llama

That was the militaries estimate after they studied the invasions of all of the surrounding pacific islands. It was a good estimate and was probably low. Many battles in the pacific saw America lose over 75% of the soliders they sent ot the islands while the Japanese forces were destroyed completely.

Those are estimates for Honshu and Kyushu, how about we add in Hokkaido and Shikoku along with tallying the potential Japanese casualty numbers on top of American casualties.  Hell why not take a detailed look at what kind of fighting Operations Downfall, Olympic, and Coronet entailed.  

that video is very misleading, they make it out like they were all enjoying this happy wonderful life that morning.  

That damn bomb should not have been dropped. The Japanese did not have to suffer in the form of a bloody nuke being dropped on them.

The Americans should have stuck with their original plan.

That damn bomb should not have been dropped. The Japanese did not have to suffer in the form of a bloody nuke being dropped on them.

The Americans should have stuck with their original plan.

MOCHIRON_MAN

I couldn't really give a yes or no answer as im sure there is alot I don't know about why it all happend. But if I MUST give a yes or no answer i'll go with no, as far as im aware Japan were basically finished before the bombs were dropped. The lives of more soldiers might not have been saved if they didn't drop the bombs, but I don't think innocent civilians should have been the ones who had to suffer.

But yeah im ignorant on the whole subject.

[QUOTE="MOCHIRON_MAN"]

That damn bomb should not have been dropped. The Japanese did not have to suffer in the form of a bloody nuke being dropped on them.

The Americans should have stuck with their original plan.

Marksman2200

Yes, using something like 9 nukes in the initial attack as opposed to two on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was definitely the superior solution. :roll:

Killing thousands and thousands of civilians in order to intimidate Russia isnt right imo.

there was no context for them to do it for any other reason as they knew Japan was interested in surrender to the USA, and they would have done it far earlier had Stalin, FDR, and Chruchill not stated that they would only accept unconditional surrender at yalta

[QUOTE="Marksman2200"][QUOTE="MOCHIRON_MAN"]

That damn bomb should not have been dropped. The Japanese did not have to suffer in the form of a bloody nuke being dropped on them.

The Americans should have stuck with their original plan.

DucksBrains

Yes, using something like 9 nukes in the initial attack as opposed to two on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was definitely the superior solution. :roll:

No. That was not the actual original plan. The plan was to have 83 B17 Flying Fortresses fly high above Japan, and bomb them. Carpet bombs are very messy. They would kill more civilians then soldiers, but still.

This was a recent post. And this is my Opinion.

I think the nuclear bomb drop was a bad move. They should have just stuck with the original plan: About 83 B17 Flying fortresses and their carpet bombs. It's a messy attack, it kills more people if spread out and such, and people there today are still feeling the affects of the nuke in the form of radiation. If they attacked with the B17 bombers, it would have shown that in those times, the military actually had courage to walk up to the enemy and spit on him, but no. They used a freakin nuke. it showed that they were afraid to get their hands dirty in a fight to show whos more powerful. Using nuclear weapons on other people is a cowardly act. It shows that they have no back bone and they are a bunch of (I'm not going to say).

This is what I think, I do not mean this as offensive.

MOCHIRON_MAN

Why does Humanity always have to fight about the stupidest things?

Why can't we all get along as human beings, we are all the same after all. Sure some of us may have different customs, but still.

As horrible as the bombings were, I think it was necessary to end the war. For the people arguing that it wasn't right because it killed so many civilians, look at what happened, say, when Okinawa was overrun. Almost every last Japanese soldier either died fighting the US, or committed suicide, and a huge number of civilians committed suicide. A conventional invasion of Japan would have been horrific for civilians even more so than the bombings. Teachers were preparing schoolchildren to strap bombs to themselves and dive under American tanks. Every Japanese man, woman, and child, would have fought for the home island. You want to talk about civilian casualties...fidosim

Exactly. Do you people have any idea how many of civilians would have been killed by conventional bombing? This was 1945, there were no precision laser-guided bombs. Millions upon millions of Japanese civilians would have been killed. Do you have any idea how many civilians were killed by the Allies in WWII in Europe and North Africa? That's war. It's ugly, but it's a reality.

They obviously had a good reason to drop both bombs.

There really can't be any argument against the fact that more people would have died in an invasion than in the bombings.  The extent of the extra death can be disputed, but it's impossible to imagine that fewer casualties would be inflicted.  This however, is only IF the Japanese really did 'fight to the death.'  But that's the point of contention for me.  I think Japan was much closer to breaking than people believe.  We hear all this propaganda about fierce warriors, samurai culture, kamikaze runs, and so forth, and we are led to believe that every Japanese citizen was willing to go to such extremes to win the war.  But given their situation - food shortages, constant bombings, suffering and death... I think it's much more rational to assume that the majority of the Japanese population was, by that time, totally disillusioned with the war.  So I think that it is a mistaken assumption that the Japanese civilians would actually fight to the death, and as such, I find it difficult to accept casualty figures that are derived with that basic assumption in mind.

There is some evidence in the primary documents to back up this claim.  The Emperor had been warned by Prince Fumimaro Konoe as early as February 1945 that an internal revolution posed as much threat to the Imperial House as defeat by the Allies if the war continued.  And it's no small wonder that the fortifications that were supposed to be completed by June of that year were STILL not completed by the time the surrender was initiated by the Emperor, and that there were no new divisions manning those positions, frothing at the mouth to kill Americans.  The fact of the matter is that the Japanese civilians were humans with no control over what was happening to them.  They prepared for invasion because they were led to believe that they would be slaughtered ruthlessly if they did not - and in an invasion, it can not be doubted that they'd quickly realize this was not the case.  They had insufficient arms and food.  They had no morale.  Most of them weren't soldiers to begin with.  I simply can not believe that people in such circumstances would be capable of fighting to the death.  And if they were... atomic bombs would be small issue to the matter.  It's just more people dead who would have died some other way, after all.

We also know that Japan, for months, had been considering surrender.  The point of contention was the unconditional surrender demanded by the Allies.  I find this ironic, because for all the demands of unconditional surrender - and the dropping of the bombs to force it - the actual surrender was not unconditional.  And the chief point of contention that led to the dismissal of the Potsdam proposal was that the Emperor be allowed to retain his position, even if only as a figurehead.  That's why the continuation of the war seemed like such a waste to me.  It could have been over months before it was if the Allies had been willing to compromise just a bit... as they did in the end.  So if you're talking about saving lives, it was the blunt refusal to negotiate that was the really bad call.  The bombs, and everything that happened after the Japanese made their initial requests for a mediated peace, were the direct result of that call.

I still maintain that the bombs did not force the surrender.  They just brought a conclusion to a foregone conclusion.  But the situation was desperately hopeless for the Japanese long before that, and that's why I don't think the bombs should have been dropped, or that they were necessary to achieve surrender.  We're never going to know the answer to this, but I feel that in light of the growing discontent and disillusionment with the war even within parts of the Japanese government, that a surrender would have occurred before long before the end of 1945, with or without the bombs.  And it CERTAINLY would have occurred if the Allies had been willing to negotiate earlier that year.

Difficult to say. If it would have come to an invasion of Japan more people would probably have died in the end so the main question is whether or not Japan would have surrendered without them. A lot of the wartime intelligence suggested Japan would have capitulated within 1945 any way if the Soviet Union entered the war (which they did). I certainly think the way targets were chosen was immoral though as the first of the three criterias was that the target should be an urban center with a diameter exceeding three miles.

Then there's also the question of motive and effect beyond Japan's defeat. Whether or not Truman wanted to scare the soviets with the bombs Stalin himself certainly saw them as a clear provocation.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

People who critisize it don't understand that we would have had to completely wipe out most of Japan to actually win in a land invasion. The only reason they surrendered was because they couldn't die honorably by fighting back...

People who deny this need to read some history books.

Wasdie

Read any book on WWII and Japan. Better yet, take some classes in college like I have.

I am not going to proove anything to you if you are to damn ignorant to go research the stuff before you say it. Websites and consperiacy theories on the internet are not credible sources. Actually go to the library, check out a history book, sit down, and read it.

No, I think he's right to demand proof from you when it comes to a claim which is frankly difficult to believe.  The notion that Japan's entire population - or even most of it - was willing to fight to the death is speculation.  The notion that they surrendered only because they couldn't die honourably is in no way supported by the evidence we have.  Those who wanted to die honourably never agreed with the peace, and attempted to overthrow the Emperor.  It turns out that they were very much a minority.  The Emperor made reference in his admission of defeat that he could no longer stand to see his people SUFFER as they had been for months before the A-bomb attacks.  He made no mention of surrendering because his people "could no longer kill the enemy and die honourably." 

The 'fight to the death' theory was initially developed by people who lived through that time, and who were, as such, biased by the horror that their generation had lived through, and their hatred (and awe) of a culture that had inflicted such terrible losses on their own forces.  Humans have an enormous capacity for hyperbole and tall tales.  They have an almost miraculous ability to forget that 'the enemy' is human, too.  And so it's very easy to say and assume that Japan's entire population was willing to fight to the death, and that they all wanted to 'die honourably.'  In the military, that was probably true or many of them.  But we're not talking about the military.  We're talking about starving civilians with nothing but rocks to hurl at the enemy.

I would encourage you to remember that history books are not a holy grail of truth.  They are written by people who are very often biased by what THEY have read or personally experienced.  But the simple truth is this - propaganda spreads like wildfire in times of war, and sometimes, you really need to take a step back and ask yourself if the assumptions that historians make can really be supported with factors such as human psychology.  And you have to look at the clues that suggest that maybe the general consensus has always been mistaken - like the signs of disillusionment and discontent in Japanese society over the continuation of the war, or the initial Japanese peace overtures months before the atomic bombings.  It is members of the military leadership who wanted to fight to the bitter end to try to achieve a more favourable peace. 

But since when does the government of a country that is losing a war really speak for its people?

Then there's also the question of motive and effect beyond Japan's defeat. Whether or not Truman wanted to scare the soviets with the bombs Stalin himself certainly saw them as a clear provocation.

inoperativeRS

Only the naive would claim that Truman's motivations did not extend beyond ending WWII.  Lots of interesting papers have been written on the subject of his many non war-related political motivations for using the atomic bombs.

There really can't be any argument against the fact that more people would have died in an invasion than in the bombings.  The extent of the extra death can be disputed, but it's impossible to imagine that fewer casualties would be inflicted.  This however, is only IF the Japanese really did 'fight to the death.'  But that's the point of contention for me.  I think Japan was much closer to breaking than people believe.  We hear all this propaganda about fierce warriors, samurai culture, kamikaze runs, and so forth, and we are led to believe that every Japanese citizen was willing to go to such extremes to win the war.  But given their situation - food shortages, constant bombings, suffering and death... I think it's much more rational to assume that the majority of the Japanese population was, by that time, totally disillusioned with the war.  So I think that it is a mistaken assumption that the Japanese civilians would actually fight to the death, and as such, I find it difficult to accept casualty figures that are derived with that basic assumption in mind.

There is some evidence in the primary documents to back up this claim.  The Emperor had been warned by Prince Fumimaro Konoe as early as February 1945 that an internal revolution posed as much threat to the Imperial House as defeat by the Allies if the war continued.  And it's no small wonder that the fortifications that were supposed to be completed by June of that year were STILL not completed by the time the surrender was initiated by the Emperor, and that there were no new divisions manning those positions, frothing at the mouth to kill Americans.  The fact of the matter is that the Japanese civilians were humans with no control over what was happening to them.  They prepared for invasion because they were led to believe that they would be slaughtered ruthlessly if they did not - and in an invasion, it can not be doubted that they'd quickly realize this was not the case.  They had insufficient arms and food.  They had no morale.  Most of them weren't soldiers to begin with.  I simply can not believe that people in such circumstances would be capable of fighting to the death.  And if they were... atomic bombs would be small issue to the matter.  It's just more people dead who would have died some other way, after all.

We also know that Japan, for months, had been considering surrender.  The point of contention was the unconditional surrender demanded by the Allies.  I find this ironic, because for all the demands of unconditional surrender - and the dropping of the bombs to force it - the actual surrender was not unconditional.  And the chief point of contention that led to the dismissal of the Potsdam proposal was that the Emperor be allowed to retain his position, even if only as a figurehead.  That's why the continuation of the war seemed like such a waste to me.  It could have been over months before it was if the Allies had been willing to compromise just a bit... as they did in the end.  So if you're talking about saving lives, it was the blunt refusal to negotiate that was the really bad call.  The bombs, and everything that happened after the Japanese made their initial requests for a mediated peace, were the direct result of that call.

I still maintain that the bombs did not force the surrender.  They just brought a conclusion to a foregone conclusion.  But the situation was desperately hopeless for the Japanese long before that, and that's why I don't think the bombs should have been dropped, or that they were necessary to achieve surrender.  We're never going to know the answer to this, but I feel that in light of the growing discontent and disillusionment with the war even within parts of the Japanese government, that a surrender would have occurred before long before the end of 1945, with or without the bombs.  And it CERTAINLY would have occurred if the Allies had been willing to negotiate earlier that year.

pianist

As far as I'm concerned, the Americans were the third most atrocious army in the war right behind the Japanese and Nazis in terms of human rights violations, the atomic bombings killed 275,000 people not to mention it devestated Japan and remains the only nuclear attack in history. Also the fire bombing of Dresden killed many hundreds of thousands by burning and suffocation...


Toriko42

The fire bombing of tokyo had a higher death toll than both the atomic bombs put together

As horrible as the bombings were, I think it was necessary to end the war. For the people arguing that it wasn't right because it killed so many civilians, look at what happened, say, when Okinawa was overrun. Almost every last Japanese soldier either died fighting the US, or committed suicide, and a huge number of civilians committed suicide. A conventional invasion of Japan would have been horrific for civilians even more so than the bombings. Teachers were preparing schoolchildren to strap bombs to themselves and dive under American tanks. Every Japanese man, woman, and child, would have fought for the home island. You want to talk about civilian casualties...fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"]As horrible as the bombings were, I think it was necessary to end the war. For the people arguing that it wasn't right because it killed so many civilians, look at what happened, say, when Okinawa was overrun. Almost every last Japanese soldier either died fighting the US, or committed suicide, and a huge number of civilians committed suicide. A conventional invasion of Japan would have been horrific for civilians even more so than the bombings. Teachers were preparing schoolchildren to strap bombs to themselves and dive under American tanks. Every Japanese man, woman, and child, would have fought for the home island. You want to talk about civilian casualties...chester706

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

Think about this.

Why are we killing ourselves?

Not us Americans... Us as a human race.

Why is there so much hate and division in this world?

Why must we kill each-other?

Why war?

Why genocide?

Why killing at all?

Will we, the human race, ever get over this?

What is wrong with striving for world peace?

 

Funky_Llama

Yep. I'm sure there are other people that think this way, though.

[QUOTE="chester706"][QUOTE="fidosim"]As horrible as the bombings were, I think it was necessary to end the war. For the people arguing that it wasn't right because it killed so many civilians, look at what happened, say, when Okinawa was overrun. Almost every last Japanese soldier either died fighting the US, or committed suicide, and a huge number of civilians committed suicide. A conventional invasion of Japan would have been horrific for civilians even more so than the bombings. Teachers were preparing schoolchildren to strap bombs to themselves and dive under American tanks. Every Japanese man, woman, and child, would have fought for the home island. You want to talk about civilian casualties...Funky_Llama

Every Japanese man, woman, and child, would have fought for the home island. fidosim

Again, this is pure speculation, and flawed speculation as far as I'm concerned... unless the Japanese were robots.  It is FAR more likely that after a few initial, catastrophic defeats, that the civilian population would completely lose the will to fight.  And given the Emperor's position on the matter, peace would have likely been sought very soon after.

Here's the thing - Japan was in no position to oppose an invasion.  No matter how badly the military leadership wanted to inflict heavy casualties on the invading Americans, it just wasn't going to happen.  Japan had neither the equipment nor the morale to cause such casualties.  So I am forced to speculate that, aside from a few successful kamikaze runs against American shipping, the general resistance to the invasion would have crumbled very quickly under an OVERWHELMING force.

We've seen it happen time and time throughout history.  Military leaders of a vastly outmatched country proclaim that they will fight to the death, and then their military crumbles and falls apart, and all of a sudden, not very many people are willing to fight to the death anymore.  Why do people assume it would have been any different with Japan?  They're PEOPLE... not robots.

Suicide would have occurred.  I do believe many people who were exposed to the initial invasion would have killed themselves because of the propaganda they had been fed.  But since I also believe that the invasion would very quickly prompt surrender, I have no reason to believe that there would be more casualties caused by suicide than by the months of firebombing and the A-bombs that came after the inital Japanese peace overtures were made.  If people were going to kill themselves in the face of defeat, why did the entire Japanese population not commit suicide after they were forced to admit defeat?  Oh yeah... because humans don't tend to do that.

Whether they did nor not...it still would have cost more lives to fight instead of using the bombs. It ended with less deaths. It wasn't a decision made lightly. I find it strange that you argue against the amount of lives being saved until pianist states otherwise then you agree. Wow.:?LJS9502_basic

Well, bear in mind that I believe more lives would be saved only if the Japanese were willing to fight to the death.  He never thought they would nor do I.  What I stated was that it would CERTAINLY save more lives if the bombs prevented a fight against an enemy that was willing to fight to the death.  But when you question both of those points - that the bombs were necessary for surrender, or that the Japanese population was all willing to fight to the death - it's not possible to accept the figures people provide that are based on those assumptions.  And as such, one starts to wonder if the bombs really did save more lives or not.

We'll never know.  All we can do is speculate.

There really can't be any argument against the fact that more people would have died in an invasion than in the bombings.  The extent of the extra death can be disputed, but it's impossible to imagine that fewer casualties would be inflicted.  This however, is only IF the Japanese really did 'fight to the death.'  But that's the point of contention for me.  I think Japan was much closer to breaking than people believe.  We hear all this propaganda about fierce warriors, samurai culture, kamikaze runs, and so forth, and we are led to believe that every Japanese citizen was willing to go to such extremes to win the war.  But given their situation - food shortages, constant bombings, suffering and death... I think it's much more rational to assume that the majority of the Japanese population was, by that time, totally disillusioned with the war.  So I think that it is a mistaken assumption that the Japanese civilians would actually fight to the death, and as such, I find it difficult to accept casualty figures that are derived with that basic assumption in mind.

 

pianist

I'm sure most of the citizens would have commit mass suicide like they did at Saipan or forced suicide, which was seen at Okinawa.

This argument has to many "what ifs" for my liking. All I know is that it sucks the war had to end this way; I hope it never happens again.

Well, bear in mind that I believe more lives would be saved only if the Japanese were willing to fight to the death. He never thought they would nor do I. What I stated was that it would CERTAINLY save more lives if the bombs prevented a fight against an enemy that was willing to fight to the death. But when you question both of those points - that the bombs were necessary for surrender, or that the Japanese population was all willing to fight to the death - it's not possible to accept the figures people provide that are based on those assumptions. And as such, one starts to wonder if the bombs really did save more lives or not.

We'll never know. All we can do is speculate.

pianist

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="chester706"]QFT. This is what I believe. LJS9502_basic

I'm sure most of the citizens would have commit mass suicide like they did at Saipan or forced suicide, which was seen at Okinawa.

This argument has to many "what ifs" for my liking. All I know is that it sucks the war had to end this way; I hope it never happens again.

limpbizkit818

You've got to remember that the people who commited suicide were directly exposed to American troops and were in imminent danger of being captured.  So to assume this would happen in Japan, you'd have to make two bold assertions:

1)  That America could expose the entire Japanese population to imminent capture or death simulataneously

2)  That the Japanese government would not surrender until virtually every part of its islands were controlled by the Americans.

Pretty bold assertions... so bold they seem foolish to me.  Yeah, there would definitely be suicides occurring amongst those who were exposed to the initial invasion.  But I have no reason to believe that the suicide body count would outstrip the bomb body count.  People who commited suicide were stuck on tiny islands and had nowhere to run.  Japan is a much bigger place.

All that withstanding...studies tend to favor the saving lives theory.LJS9502_basic

Only because they assume that the Japanese were willing to fight to the death.  It's that assumption that I don't agree with, and that's why I can't accept the findings of such studies.  Also bear in mind that the study most often quoted is the one prepared by the US military when considering the invasion.  I think they made an incredibly flawed assumption that they would be fighting in Japan against a force which was comparable to the fierce military resistance they had encountered on their island-hopping campaign.  We know from hindsight that this is not true.  But they had no way of knowing that.  And yet people accept the findings of that study as fact.  It has always boggled my mind...

There really can't be any argument against the fact that more people would have died in an invasion than in the bombings.  The extent of the extra death can be disputed, but it's impossible to imagine that fewer casualties would be inflicted.  This however, is only IF the Japanese really did 'fight to the death.'  But that's the point of contention for me.  I think Japan was much closer to breaking than people believe.  We hear all this propaganda about fierce warriors, samurai culture, kamikaze runs, and so forth, and we are led to believe that every Japanese citizen was willing to go to such extremes to win the war.  But given their situation - food shortages, constant bombings, suffering and death... I think it's much more rational to assume that the majority of the Japanese population was, by that time, totally disillusioned with the war.  So I think that it is a mistaken assumption that the Japanese civilians would actually fight to the death, and as such, I find it difficult to accept casualty figures that are derived with that basic assumption in mind.

I have to disagree. While it's definitely possible that the Japanese people were willing to not fight, there's no indication either way than the sources you already mentioned and seem to discredit. It's foolish to assume anything when it comes to a situation of this magnitude.  

There is some evidence in the primary documents to back up this claim.  The Emperor had been warned by Prince Fumimaro Konoe as early as February 1945 that an internal revolution posed as much threat to the Imperial House as defeat by the Allies if the war continued.  And it's no small wonder that the fortifications that were supposed to be completed by June of that year were STILL not completed by the time the surrender was initiated by the Emperor, and that there were no new divisions manning those positions, frothing at the mouth to kill Americans.  The fact of the matter is that the Japanese civilians were humans with no control over what was happening to them.  They prepared for invasion because they were led to believe that they would be slaughtered ruthlessly if they did not - and in an invasion, it can not be doubted that they'd quickly realize this was not the case.  They had insufficient arms and food.  They had no morale.  Most of them weren't soldiers to begin with.  I simply can not believe that people in such circumstances would be capable of fighting to the death.  And if they were... atomic bombs would be small issue to the matter.  It's just more people dead who would have died some other way, after all.

While there were definitely conspiracies abrew to oust the emperor it wasn't because of his wanting to continue the war. If anything it was the contrary. It's the heads of the Japanese military, that really ran the country, who were suspicious of the emperor and the persuasion he had with the Japanese people. There were even attempts at coups the night of the surrender to stop the surrender.

We also know that Japan, for months, had been considering surrender.  The point of contention was the unconditional surrender demanded by the Allies.  I find this ironic, because for all the demands of unconditional surrender - and the dropping of the bombs to force it - the actual surrender was not unconditional.  And the chief point of contention that led to the dismissal of the Potsdam proposal was that the Emperor be allowed to retain his position, even if only as a figurehead.  That's why the continuation of the war seemed like such a waste to me.  It could have been over months before it was if the Allies had been willing to compromise just a bit... as they did in the end.  So if you're talking about saving lives, it was the blunt refusal to negotiate that was the really bad call.  The bombs, and everything that happened after the Japanese made their initial requests for a mediated peace, were the direct result of that call.

The Potsdam Declaration actually made no specific demands about the emperor. Rather it declared that all those who decieved and misled the Japanese people would be punished. It's the Japanese who misinterpreted (judging by the actual post-war settlement) that as the forced abdication of the emperor.

I still maintain that the bombs did not force the surrender.  They just brought a conclusion to a foregone conclusion.  But the situation was desperately hopeless for the Japanese long before that, and that's why I don't think the bombs should have been dropped, or that they were necessary to achieve surrender.  We're never going to know the answer to this, but I feel that in light of the growing discontent and disillusionment with the war even within parts of the Japanese government, that a surrender would have occurred before long before the end of 1945, with or without the bombs.  And it CERTAINLY would have occurred if the Allies had been willing to negotiate earlier that year.

To say that the Japanese were no longer willing to fight it to suggest a paramount shift in the Japanese zeitgeist. All throughout the war the Japanese were influenced by the military propaganda. And up until the very surrender young Japanese were eagerly going off to fight a losing war. In my opinion this more or less indicates that the Japanese were still willing to fight in the case of a land-invasion.

pianist

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

All that withstanding...studies tend to favor the saving lives theory.pianist

Only because they assume that the Japanese were willing to fight to the death. It's that assumption that I don't agree with, and that's why I can't accept the findings of such studies. Also bear in mind that the study most often quoted is the one prepared by the US military when considering the invasion. I think they made an incredibly flawed assumption that they would be fighting in Japan against a force which was comparable to the fierce military resistance they had encountered on their island-hopping campaign. We know from hindsight that this is not true. But they had no way of knowing that. And yet people accept the findings of that study as fact. It has always boggled my mind...

Oh..and I've seen studies that were not done by the US military.