Poll: You are President Harry S. Truman, do you drop the atomic bombs on Japan?

I'm sorry, but are you really saying that you would approve of limiting the entire Japanese population to a mere 500 calories a day? HoolaHoopMan

Not de jure, just de facto. Squashing all of their imports and scuttling their fishing fleet would accomplish something like that without having to place any limits.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

I'm sorry, but are you really saying that you would approve of limiting the entire Japanese population to a mere 500 calories a day? dkrustyklown

Not de jure, just de facto. Squashing all of their imports and scuttling their fishing fleet would accomplish something like that without having to place any limits.

Ya i would, how are those areas now after 50 or so years..Are there trees growing now an what not..Not sure how many years before you can drink the water can pass after a bomb hits that size..

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

What you propose would have condemed the nation to economic backwardness and it could never have recovered from the war to become one of the worlds strongest economies.

dkrustyklown

Which would have been an appropriate punishment for the cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor.

Why don't you learn history before you judge it.

And what good would crippling their entire country do? It's just revenge for the sake of revenge. If we instituted any of your completely insane and barbaric ideas Japan wouldn't be anything like the economic powerhouse it is today. What good did that do for Europe after crippling Germany with WW1 reparations? I don't know what else to say except that I find your ideas on exerting revenge on the Japanese people to be morally reprehensible. We've seen how it works, and it ends with terrible results. HoolaHoopMan

I seem to recall that Carthage stopped being a problem for Rome after the Romans pretty much devasted their country beyond repair. You act as if bringing a country down to the point of absolute ruin can't win a war against said country. There are countless examples in history of countries ruined beyond repair no longer posing a threat to their neighbors.

As an example, I point to the Spanish Reconquista, with a particular emphasis on the conquest of the Duero and Ebro valleys, which were vitally important to the Moorish kingdoms of Al Andalus. It wasn't the territorial loss of those valleys that did them in, because of the fact that the Christians lacked the population with which to actually colonize and maintain control of the valleys for a very long time. What did the Moors in was the Christian-Spanish penchant for stripping entire provinces of all of their agricultural infrastructure and causing famine in the cities that depended on it.

Bringing a country to absolute ruin can, in fact, defeat said country on a very long-term basis.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

The whole situation is summarized by the following phrase:

You **** with the bull; you get the horns.

sleepingzzz

Your trying too hard to troll.

Thank you. At least we agree on this. Distracting from reasoned discussion...

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] And what good would crippling their entire country do? It's just revenge for the sake of revenge. If we instituted any of your completely insane and barbaric ideas Japan wouldn't be anything like the economic powerhouse it is today. What good did that do for Europe after crippling Germany with WW1 reparations? I don't know what else to say except that I find your ideas on exerting revenge on the Japanese people to be morally reprehensible. We've seen how it works, and it ends with terrible results. dkrustyklown

I seem to recall that Carthage stopped being a problem for Rome after the Romans pretty much devasted their country beyond repair. You act as if bringing a country down to the point of absolute ruin can't win a war against said country. There are countless examples in history of countries ruined beyond repair no longer posing a threat to their neighbors.

As an example, I point to the Spanish Reconquista, with a particular emphasis on the conquest of the Duero and Ebro valleys, which were vitally important to the Moorish kingdoms of Al Andalus. It wasn't the territorial loss of those valleys that did them in, because of the fact that the Christians lacked the population with which to actually colonize and maintain control of the valleys for a very long time. What did the Moors in was the Christian-Spanish penchant for stripping entire provinces of all of their agricultural infrastructure and causing famine in the cities that depended on it.

Bringing a country to absolute ruin can, in fact, defeat said country on a very long-term basis.

Which of course justifies it :roll:

Why don't you learn history before you judge it.

Tokugawa77

Are you claiming that the unprovoked and cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor was justified by some nebulous tortured logic?

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Why don't you learn history before you judge it.

dkrustyklown

Are you claiming that the unprovoked and cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor was justified by some nebulous tortured logic?

Umm yes. But by correct logic. The US only wanted to protect its own colonial empire.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] And what good would crippling their entire country do? It's just revenge for the sake of revenge. If we instituted any of your completely insane and barbaric ideas Japan wouldn't be anything like the economic powerhouse it is today. What good did that do for Europe after crippling Germany with WW1 reparations? I don't know what else to say except that I find your ideas on exerting revenge on the Japanese people to be morally reprehensible. We've seen how it works, and it ends with terrible results. dkrustyklown

I seem to recall that Carthage stopped being a problem for Rome after the Romans pretty much devasted their country beyond repair. You act as if bringing a country down to the point of absolute ruin can't win a war against said country. There are countless examples in history of countries ruined beyond repair no longer posing a threat to their neighbors.

As an example, I point to the Spanish Reconquista, with a particular emphasis on the conquest of the Duero and Ebro valleys, which were vitally important to the Moorish kingdoms of Al Andalus. It wasn't the territorial loss of those valleys that did them in, because of the fact that the Christians lacked the population with which to actually colonize and maintain control of the valleys for a very long time. What did the Moors in was the Christian-Spanish penchant for stripping entire provinces of all of their agricultural infrastructure and causing famine in the cities that depended on it.

Bringing a country to absolute ruin can, in fact, defeat said country on a very long-term basis.

You seem to think that "ruining" the country is the desired result. I think that mentality if where we differ as I find it disgusting. The point of ending the war wasn't to "ruin" Japan in the long run. The point was to reform the country, and it looks like it has had great results. The proof is in the pudding.

Why in God's name would we want to look to the Romans and the Reconquista as examples? This is the 21st century, I'd like to think that we might be able to move on and stop being so damn vindictive and barbaric to one another.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] And what good would crippling their entire country do? It's just revenge for the sake of revenge. If we instituted any of your completely insane and barbaric ideas Japan wouldn't be anything like the economic powerhouse it is today. What good did that do for Europe after crippling Germany with WW1 reparations? I don't know what else to say except that I find your ideas on exerting revenge on the Japanese people to be morally reprehensible. We've seen how it works, and it ends with terrible results. HoolaHoopMan

I seem to recall that Carthage stopped being a problem for Rome after the Romans pretty much devasted their country beyond repair. You act as if bringing a country down to the point of absolute ruin can't win a war against said country. There are countless examples in history of countries ruined beyond repair no longer posing a threat to their neighbors.

As an example, I point to the Spanish Reconquista, with a particular emphasis on the conquest of the Duero and Ebro valleys, which were vitally important to the Moorish kingdoms of Al Andalus. It wasn't the territorial loss of those valleys that did them in, because of the fact that the Christians lacked the population with which to actually colonize and maintain control of the valleys for a very long time. What did the Moors in was the Christian-Spanish penchant for stripping entire provinces of all of their agricultural infrastructure and causing famine in the cities that depended on it.

Bringing a country to absolute ruin can, in fact, defeat said country on a very long-term basis.

You seem to think that "ruining" the country is the desired result. I think that mentality if where we differ as I find it disgusting. The point of ending the war wasn't to "ruin" Japan in the long run. The point was to reform the country, and it looks like it has had great results. The proof is in the pudding.

Why in God's name would we want to look to the Romans and the Reconquista as examples? This is the 21st century, I'd like to think that we might be able to move on and stop being so damn vindictive and barbaric to one another.

Arguing with him is not worth your time. He's one of those hyper-patriotic types that will never see reason. Unless I can resume informed debate I will no longer respond to anything in this thread.

Umm yes. But by correct logic. The US only wanted to protect its own colonial empire.

Tokugawa77

Everyone can see it now. This individual claims that the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese sans declaration of war or prior notice of hostilites was justified.

This attitude is EXACTLY why the atomic bombings were not only justified, but necessary.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

What you propose would have condemed the nation to economic backwardness and it could never have recovered from the war to become one of the worlds strongest economies.

dkrustyklown

Which would have been an appropriate punishment for the cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor.

And would've left the United States deprived of what has become one of its most valuable trading partners in the entire world. . .

And would've left the United States deprived of what has become one of its most valuable trading partners in the entire world. . .

MetroidPrimePwn

My issue with this point is that the trade appears to be a one way street, with the Japanese government actively blocking US exports to their country in order to protect their own business interests. I think that we would have been better off without such an ally.

Yes I drop them then and I drop them now.

[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]

And would've left the United States deprived of what has become one of its most valuable trading partners in the entire world. . .

dkrustyklown

My issue with this point is that the trade appears to be a one way street, with the Japanese government actively blocking US exports to their country in order to protect their own business interests. I think that we would have been better off without such an ally.

Proposing genocide on the Japanese because their leaders sent a sneak attack on the US is bit too much don't you think?

Yes/Yes.

He did bring a horrible thing in the world but it did end WW2 much more quickly than it would've been if he didn't. Nuclear deterrent is a terrible thing and would keep any world leader on their toes, but in the end it was the logical decision.

I would be damned if I do and damned if I don't. Certainly not an easy decision though, regardless.

Proposing genocide on the Japanese because their leaders sent a sneak attack on the US is bit too much don't you think?

sleepingzzz

No one here has proposed genocide or anything like it.

Victory conditions that impose permanent poverty are not genocide.

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

Proposing genocide on the Japanese because their leaders sent a sneak attack on the US is bit too much don't you think?

dkrustyklown

No one here has proposed genocide or anything like it.

Victory conditions that impose permanent poverty are not genocide.

You're proposing they have a diet of 500 calories a day...

You're proposing they have a diet of 500 calories a day...

sleepingzzz

I guess you didn't read the follow up posts. I actually proposed that Truman should have scuttled their entire fishing fleet and set up a blockade to stop all imports into Japan...on top of nuking the empire of Japan and demanding that the entire royal family be turned over to US forces for immediate execution. The 500 calories was a guess.

One of the reasons we dropped nuclear weapons on them, is because Japanese soldiers had tortured and then murdered THREE MILLION civilians - mostly Chinese women and children.

. they used to line children up, and force them to watch as they chopped their mothers in half with machetes.

- - and they were threatening to murder three million more.

The cowards of the world would have let them do it. Thankfully - the US put a stop to it.

So . . . YES.

You're proposing they have a diet of 500 calories a day...

sleepingzzz

Furthermore, this thread is a hypothetical question about what would people do if they were Harry Truman, in 1945, and not about current policy. I certainly hope that you can tell the difference.

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

You're proposing they have a diet of 500 calories a day...

dkrustyklown

I guess you didn't read the follow up posts. I actually proposed that Truman should have scuttled their entire fishing fleet and set up a blockade to stop all imports into Japan...on top of nuking the empire of Japan and demanding that the entire royal family be turned over to US forces for immediate execution. The 500 calories was a guess.

I guess your plan could work though it would cost billions to constantly hold the blockade on the other side of the world. You also have the problem of revolts. The Soviet Union is quite close and could smuggle in weapons. They could easily do what Vietnam and Philippines did. Constant guerrilla attacks that would cost the US billions as well thousands of men power to police the country. Afghan has already bankrupt the nation enough. You want to police a country on the other side of the world.

I guess your plan could work though it would cost billions to constantly hold the blockade on the other side of the world. You also have the problem of revolts. The Soviet Union is quite close and could smuggle in weapons. They could easily do what Vietnam and Philippines did. Constant guerrilla attacks that would cost the US billions as well thousands of men power to police the country. Afghan has already bankrupt the nation enough. You want to police a country on the other side of the world.

sleepingzzz

You seem to be confusing the present with the past. Of course you couldn't do it now, but it could have been done back in 1945. Do you know what a hypothetical question is?

Even in 1945 that would not have been possible because the troops wanted to go home. Plus, your plan would be forever right? So if your plan would of went through Japan would still be under US military control today.

Ready to admit your trolling?

sleepingzzz

Who said forever? Now you're just making **** up. Oh, and personal insults are forbidden.

i was thinking about this.. and it had me thinking.

i was againsst the dropping on civilian cities. instead. i think i would of dropped one outside of the Emperor's palace, outside the city, but still within viewing distance so that they could see the sheer force of this ONE bomb. then the next day make a phone call and tell him his army and nation will suffer if they don't surrender.

Even in 1945 that would not have been possible because the troops wanted to go home. Plus, your plan would be forever right? So if your plan would of went through Japan would still be under US military control today.

Ready to admit your trolling?

sleepingzzz

I'm trying to answer the question in the OP by describing what course of action I would have taken in Truman's place. What are you doing?

[QUOTE="sleepingzzz"]

Even in 1945 that would not have been possible because the troops wanted to go home. Plus, your plan would be forever right? So if your plan would of went through Japan would still be under US military control today.

Ready to admit your trolling?

dkrustyklown

Who said forever? Now you're just making **** up. Oh, and personal insults are forbidden.

Well, you bought up this plan. So the US would only police Japan for what 1, 5, 10, years? How would that work? You wanted to explain so I want to listen and hear. Enlighten me.

Well, you bought up this plan. So the US would only police Japan for what 1, 5, 10, years? How would that work? You wanted to explain so I want to listen and hear. Enlighten me.

sleepingzzz

You're making assumptions, and I already explained it.

Given that the USA alternative was Operation DownfallI'd say we picked the better plan.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] And what good would crippling their entire country do? It's just revenge for the sake of revenge. If we instituted any of your completely insane and barbaric ideas Japan wouldn't be anything like the economic powerhouse it is today. What good did that do for Europe after crippling Germany with WW1 reparations? I don't know what else to say except that I find your ideas on exerting revenge on the Japanese people to be morally reprehensible. We've seen how it works, and it ends with terrible results. dkrustyklown

I seem to recall that Carthage stopped being a problem for Rome after the Romans pretty much devasted their country beyond repair. You act as if bringing a country down to the point of absolute ruin can't win a war against said country. There are countless examples in history of countries ruined beyond repair no longer posing a threat to their neighbors.

As an example, I point to the Spanish Reconquista, with a particular emphasis on the conquest of the Duero and Ebro valleys, which were vitally important to the Moorish kingdoms of Al Andalus. It wasn't the territorial loss of those valleys that did them in, because of the fact that the Christians lacked the population with which to actually colonize and maintain control of the valleys for a very long time. What did the Moors in was the Christian-Spanish penchant for stripping entire provinces of all of their agricultural infrastructure and causing famine in the cities that depended on it.

Bringing a country to absolute ruin can, in fact, defeat said country on a very long-term basis.

I think I see where your coming from now. I miss this post earlier. The problem with your idea is you're basing Japan on kingdoms that were destroyed hundred of years ago. Wars can no longer be won this way as evident in the Civil War. City populations are too large for you to simply annihilate into the ground. You will simply create large guerrilla attack bands. Starving the population would also get more hate directed at the US.

Japan's resentment would send millions of them to join groups that are againist the US. You would turn Japan into a giant terrorist breeding ground much like Afghan was before the US attacked.

Also if your idea was simply to cripple them so that they would never rise again you forget the Soviet Union at that time would of love to give Japan a hand in order to get them on their side. That would force the US to have to police the country. Other wise you basically would of had the Soviet Union rearming Japan.

Not only that but, you would also be causing suffering, starvation and diease to millions because of a select few individuals.

Japan had nothing left. They had no food and they were quickly running out of a means to fight. There is no evidence that Japan would have put up a strong fight on the homefront. On the contrary, they don't seem to have had the resources to do so.

The problem lies in the leadership. Even when they were clearly losing, the leadership was unable to admit it for quite some time. It's difficult to ascertain to what degree they were willing to throw the people of Japan away and to what degree the people of Japan were willing to take it.

god yes, the estimates made at the time for a traditional invasion was 1 million u.s. troops and 5 million japanese deaths.

had we possessed the bombs and not dropped them it would have been criminal.

btw, here is the vid of the mass japanese suicides of hundreds of civilians at marpi point now multiply that by what would have happened on the home islands during operation downfall and try to keep believing dropping the bombs was wrong. i doubt you will be able to fool yourself any longer.

CAUTION GRAPHIC CONTENT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDUy0uzmaU4

Yes/Yes

Because an invansion of the homefront would mean pillaging, rapings and tortures. I think it was for the best. The Japanese government was wanting to fight and die with honor...who knows how long it could of lasted.

The Japanese population back then weren't like today's modern day Japan. Back then their loyalty to their emperor was absolute. If Emperor Hirohito ordered them to jump off a cliff, they probably would. If he ordered every last man, woman, and child to fight to the death, they probably would. That would be a scary scenario for the invading Allies. The bloody battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa already gave a preview of what the Allies can expect with an invasion of teh Home Islands.

The Japanese had only two choices: Unconditional surrender or utter annihilation. The bombs demonstrated the latter is possible if the Japanese did not choose surrender. Some argued the Japanese were sending feelers for negotiations. That late in the war, they're not in a position to negotiate anything.

The Allies did give in to one thing. They spared the emperor because of the fear the population would rise up and take arms. If not, Emperor Hirohito probably would've been the first to be tried and hanged. Good thing MacArthur had some common sense and spared the guy.

You damn right I do. I do it just how they did it. Drop one bomb, wait a few days, drop another bomb. Take the honor out of dying for their so-called god.

The Japanese population back then weren't like today's modern day Japan. Back then their loyalty to their emperor was absolute. If Emperor Hirohito ordered them to jump off a cliff, they probably would. If he ordered every last man, woman, and child to fight to the death, they probably would. That would be a scary scenario for the invading Allies. The bloody battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa already gave a preview of what the Allies can expect with an invasion of teh Home Islands.

The Japanese had only two choices: Unconditional surrender or utter annihilation. The bombs demonstrated the latter is possible if the Japanese did not choose surrender. Some argued the Japanese were sending feelers for negotiations. That late in the war, they're not in a position to negotiate anything.

The Allies did give in to one thing. They spared the emperor because of the fear the population would rise up and take arms. If not, Emperor Hirohito probably would've been the first to be tried and hanged. Good thing MacArthur had some common sense and spared the guy.

jun_aka_pekto

And they did. Women threw their babies off of cliffs so they weren't captured by the allied forces. It was sad. This was sadly the only way we could have wrapped up the war quickly and without destroying everything in Japan.

And they did. Women threw their babies off of cliffs so they weren't captured by the allied forces. It was sad. This was sadly the only way we could have wrapped up the war quickly and without destroying everything in Japan.

Wasdie

It's sad because the Japanese population were so brainwashed with propaganda by their leaders. It's similar to many of the combatants (including the Allies). I mean, you have to if you want to keep fighting.

A lot of wartime footage showed the extraordinary discipline of the average Japanese to the emperor. I have to admit, enemy or not, I admired that kind of discipline (even if misguided).

Yes/Yes

Because an invansion of the homefront would mean pillaging, rapings and tortures. I think it was for the best. The Japanese government was wanting to fight and die with honor...who knows how long it could of lasted.

Jagged3dge

An invasion was not necessary.. Japan was already crumbling around their ears.. All they had to do is sit out in their big ships at their harbors and continue to blockade them..Many reputablemilitary men from Eisenhaur to the Admiral forseeing the entire Pacific theater, saw the bombings completely unnecessary to a toothless opponent.

[QUOTE="Jagged3dge"]

Yes/Yes

Because an invansion of the homefront would mean pillaging, rapings and tortures. I think it was for the best. The Japanese government was wanting to fight and die with honor...who knows how long it could of lasted.

sSubZerOo

An invasion was not necessary.. Japan was already crumbling around their ears.. All they had to do is sit out in their big ships at their harbors and continue to blockade them..Many reputablemilitary men from Eisenhaur to the Admiral forseeing the entire Pacific theater, saw the bombings completely unnecessary to a toothless opponent.

You're just assuming they would have given up even though there are countless reports saying just the opposite.

You're also assuming the rest of the world would have been fine with waiting the years it would have taken (if ever) for them to surrender while incurring the costs of a blockade that size.

Dropping the bombs were much more favorable than you're making them out to be. People wanted the war to be over, the Japanese had no signs of surrender what-so-ever, an invasion would have meant the death of over a million men (estimated) and the total destruction of Japanese culture, and the Soviet Union was preparing for a massive invasion of Japan from the north that nobody would have stopped.

Honestly, I dont know what I would have done. We have the advantage of looking back in time and saying, "I would have done this differently". But a lot of that decision making is based on what we know today as opposed to what we knew then. If I was leading a country during a time of a world war that had seen several hundred million people dead, I'd probably want a way to end the war quickly as well. But, certainly I dont like the idea of dropping a weapon of mass destruction on a city. Most of those people had nothing to do with the war. That's a shame. However, it's odd that people get very self righteous about the nuclear attacks and completely ignore the more massive civilian deaths carried out by conventional bombing and fire bombing. That was far, far worse, but I guess it doesnt have the sensational appeal that captivates the ignorant.

That was far, far worse, but I guess it doesnt have the sensational appeal that captivates the ignorant.

sonicare

I am pretty sure that many people are unaware of that. Not because they like sensationalism or anything like that. I was unaware of that statistic as well. But even if it is looked upon "more horrific", you must remember, it was 2 bombs, 2 bombs of which added 100,000+ lives to death.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Jagged3dge"]

Yes/Yes

Because an invansion of the homefront would mean pillaging, rapings and tortures. I think it was for the best. The Japanese government was wanting to fight and die with honor...who knows how long it could of lasted.

Wasdie

An invasion was not necessary.. Japan was already crumbling around their ears.. All they had to do is sit out in their big ships at their harbors and continue to blockade them..Many reputablemilitary men from Eisenhaur to the Admiral forseeing the entire Pacific theater, saw the bombings completely unnecessary to a toothless opponent.

You're just assuming they would have given up even though there are countless reports saying just the opposite.

You're also assuming the rest of the world would have been fine with waiting the years it would have taken (if ever) for them to surrender while incurring the costs of a blockade that size.

Dropping the bombs were much more favorable than you're making them out to be. People wanted the war to be over, the Japanese had no signs of surrender what-so-ever, an invasion would have meant the death of over a million men (estimated) and the total destruction of Japanese culture, and the Soviet Union was preparing for a massive invasion of Japan from the north that nobody would have stopped.

So you would sacrifice 200,000 lives so that you can save some money? In any case, the atomic bombs were not the sole factor in Japan's surrender- the Soviets invaded Manchuria at around the same time, and the Japanese Kwantuang army suffered such a resounding defeat that military planners held no hope of holding off both Allied and Soviet troops. It is often overlooked that the majority in the Japanese governmnet only sought to inflict enough casualties on the allies to force an armistice in which Japan would not be forced into unconditional surrender. It was only extremists in the army that wanted to fight on to the end at all costs. In any case, any hope for this plan crumbled when the Soviets violated the nuetrality agreement and declared war on Japan, as the Japanese were logical enoughto realize that they counld not fend off both of these enemies. So they surrendurred. The atomic bombs merely were a part of the Japanese realization that theywouldnot be able to bring the allies to the table.

You say that the Japanese would do anything the emperor told them too. This is of course just a stereotype of Japanese culture that we have in Anerica. When the soldiers said that they fight for the emperor, they don't just mean the actual guy, the emperor is merely a figurehead for which the country can rally around and holds no actual political power. Hirohito actually wanted to end the war earlier and was not enthusiastic about war in the first place. That being said, an execution would have still caused outrage, but this would be more caused by the fact that Japanese culture was being attacked and that someoen would have the berve to do that. It is hard to explain to westerners because Asian culture as a whole is so alien to us.