Should the U.S. have used nuclear weapons against Japan in World War II ?

^^ Basically summarizes what the US did to Japan with the the nuclear weapons. 'Nuff said.

nintendog66

Not even close dude. Japan would have resisted for months, if not years.

[QUOTE="nintendog66"]

^^ Basically summarizes what the US did to Japan with the the nuclear weapons. 'Nuff said.

morrowindnic

Not even close dude. Japan would have resisted for months, if not years.

Noone can possibly know that.

Planting radiation into generations and generations can never be seen as a decent option.

I don't think any American is or should be proud of that incident. Now if they -or the rest of the world- should be glad it immediately ended a war that could evolve into something even more unimaginable, that's another story.

Imagine though, if we went back in time and realised that if America didn't nuke Japan, the war would end with diplomatic measures etc.

Now that would be something to feel sad about.

They weredropped to demonstrate to the soviets our nuclear capabilities. Generals back at the time stated themselves an invasion was unnecessary.

Eisenhower: "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Admiral William Leahy: "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

Among many others:

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[QUOTE="nintendog66"]

^^ Basically summarizes what the US did to Japan with the the nuclear weapons. 'Nuff said.

morrowindnic

Not even close dude. Japan would have resisted for months, if not years.

Probably would have.... to the bitter end. Every man woman and child would be given a weapon, even if only a pitchfork. (I'm not American btw) BUT it was also a demonstration to the world "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU MESS WITH US" , and suddenly everybody knew USA holds great power. Not to mention they sent scientists not to help people suffering from radiation but rather to examine the effectivness on human subjests

They weredropped to demonstrate to the soviets our nuclear capabilities. Generals back at the time stated themselves an invasion was unnecessary.

Eisenhower: "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Admiral William Leahy: "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

Among many others:

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Rekunta

Well, wow.

If that's true than it's even sadder to see 200 people voted yes to the poll.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

There was no way to conventionally wage a war against Japan after they decimated our Navy.

Nuclear weapons were the only option.

taj7575

Yeah, but the Soviet Union already took care of Manchuria very quickly, and was ready to invade Japan.

If anything, the nukes possibly lessened the casualties for Japan.

While the Soviets had invaded Manchuria on Aug 9, the same day we dropped the second atomic bomb, they did not take care of it in such a short time, it was after that that the emperor told those in the military leadership that it was time to surrender.

The military even staged a coup d'état that failed and it was August 15 that the emperor went on the radio to tell the people of Japan that they were accepting the terms of the Potsdam Conference.

For those who think Japan was beaten, yes they were, but even years after the peace agreements were signed on the deck of the USS Missouri, there were those on islands that were bypassed who thought they were still at war and this goes to the 70's even.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

There was no way to conventionally wage a war against Japan after they decimated our Navy.

Nuclear weapons were the only option.

WhiteKnight77

Yeah, but the Soviet Union already took care of Manchuria very quickly, and was ready to invade Japan.

If anything, the nukes possibly lessened the casualties for Japan.

While the Soviets had invaded Manchuria on Aug 9, the same day we dropped the second atomic bomb, they did not take care of it in such a short time, it was after that that the emperor told those in the military leadership that it was time to surrender.

The military even staged a coup d'état that failed and it was August 15 that the emperor went on the radio to tell the people of Japan that they were accepting the terms of the Potsdam Conference.

For those who think Japan was beaten, yes they were, but even years after the peace agreements were signed on the deck of the USS Missouri, there were those on islands that were bypassed who thought they were still at war and this goes to the 70's even.

Thats great.. Japan right before the bomb, had no form of military to effectively hurt US military inless the US invaded.. Which wasn't neccesary what so ever.. Japan being a island nation as well as one that wasn't autonomous a simple blockade would have forced them to surrender in the end.. People keep saying "Oh they would have fought to the bitter end!" clearly not because they surrendered when a nuclear weapon dropped, and all of their military wasn't dead.. That wasn't to the bitter end like Iwo Jima that ended up having 99% of the enemy forces killed.. They surrendered.. So it stands to reason that a blockade would have had the same effects while causing minimal causalities on either side it would only take a few months.. As stated earlier Japan already was willing to have a peace though it was on their terms.. A month or two of blockades would have changed their tune..

There was no way to conventionally wage a war against Japan after they decimated our Navy.

Nuclear weapons were the only option.

airshocker

You really need to study up on the Pacific War. While we lost a couple of battleships, cruisers and destroyers and almost all of our aircraft, our Navy was not decimated. As stated, our carriers were not in port and were actually coming back from Midway. Destoyers even sunk Japanese minisubs.

During the Battle of Surigao Strait, six of the old battleships that were damaged at Pearl Harbor and later fixed exacted their revenge on the Japanese fleet sinking the Fuso and Yamashiro along with damaging the heavy cruiser Mogami which later sank after a collision with another Japanese ship.

Yamamoto always stated that it would be foolish to get into a war with us if we were not knocked out in the first round due to our manufacturing capabilities. Well, we were punch drunk but not knocked out as we still had our carriers which would be used at the Battle of the Coral Sea and again at Midway. Though we lost a couple of carriers, we had more being built and by the time the war was over, we had a Navy that was many times larger than prior to WWII and that included some 17 fleet carriers and even more escort carriers along with all other necessary ships.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Yeah, but the Soviet Union already took care of Manchuria very quickly, and was ready to invade Japan.

If anything, the nukes possibly lessened the casualties for Japan.

sSubZerOo

While the Soviets had invaded Manchuria on Aug 9, the same day we dropped the second atomic bomb, they did not take care of it in such a short time, it was after that that the emperor told those in the military leadership that it was time to surrender.

The military even staged a coup d'état that failed and it was August 15 that the emperor went on the radio to tell the people of Japan that they were accepting the terms of the Potsdam Conference.

For those who think Japan was beaten, yes they were, but even years after the peace agreements were signed on the deck of the USS Missouri, there were those on islands that were bypassed who thought they were still at war and this goes to the 70's even.

Thats great.. Japan right before the bomb, had no form of military to effectively hurt US military inless the US invaded.. Which wasn't neccesary what so ever.. Japan being a island nation as well as one that wasn't autonomous a simple blockade would have forced them to surrender in the end.. People keep saying "Oh they would have fought to the bitter end!" clearly not because they surrendered when a nuclear weapon dropped, and all of their military wasn't dead.. That wasn't to the bitter end like Iwo Jima that ended up having 99% of the enemy forces killed.. They surrendered.. So it stands to reason that a blockade would have had the same effects while causing minimal causalities on either side it would only take a few months.. As stated earlier Japan already was willing to have a peace though it was on their terms.. A month or two of blockades would have changed their tune..

See my post some 20 pages back.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

There was no way to conventionally wage a war against Japan after they decimated our Navy.

Nuclear weapons were the only option.

WhiteKnight77

You really need to study up on the Pacific War. While we lost a couple of battleships, cruisers and destroyers and almost all of our aircraft, our Navy was not decimated. As stated, our carriers were not in port and were actually coming back from Midway. Destoyers even sunk Japanese minisubs.

During the Battle of Surigao Strait, six of the old battleships that were damaged at Pearl Harbor and later fixed exacted their revenge on the Japanese fleet sinking the Fuso and Yamashiro along with damaging the heavy cruiser Mogami which later sank after a collision with another Japanese ship.

Yamamoto always stated that it would be foolish to get into a war with us if we were not knocked out in the first round due to our manufacturing capabilities. Well, we were punch drunk but not knocked out as we still had our carriers which would be used at the Battle of the Coral Sea and again at Midway. Though we lost a couple of carriers, we had more being built and by the time the war was over, we had a Navy that was many times larger than prior to WWII and that included some 17 fleet carriers and even more escort carriers along with all other necessary ships.

Not to mention Japan at the end had no navy or air force to speak of.. A few dozen battleships could have effectively blockaded all the port cities.

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"]

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]

Not quick enough. I mean, it tooktwo nukes to convince them to leave.

SpartanMSU

Maybe you should brush up on Japanese warrior culture at that time. They didn't have to have navy and an air force to fight the U.S...

YOU need to brush up on your history buddy...

... That was only if we invaded... That was absolutely not neccesary.. Japan was bleeding to death.. And this claimed warrior culture apparently wasn't as fanatical as thought to believed.. Afterall if these people are willing to blow themselves up and the like, why would they care what the enemy had even if it were a nuclear weapon.

Yes.

The Japanese were prepared to send their own people to death to begin with (like Operation Ten-Go which involved the Battleship Yamato was supposedly a suicide mission to begin with) so even if the nukes weren't dropped, more lives could have potentially been lost.

You really need to study up on the Pacific War. While we lost a couple of battleships, cruisers and destroyers and almost all of our aircraft, our Navy was not decimated. As stated, our carriers were not in port and were actually coming back from Midway. Destoyers even sunk Japanese minisubs.

During the Battle of Surigao Strait, six of the old battleships that were damaged at Pearl Harbor and later fixed exacted their revenge on the Japanese fleet sinking the Fuso and Yamashiro along with damaging the heavy cruiser Mogami which later sank after a collision with another Japanese ship.

Yamamoto always stated that it would be foolish to get into a war with us if we were not knocked out in the first round due to our manufacturing capabilities. Well, we were punch drunk but not knocked out as we still had our carriers which would be used at the Battle of the Coral Sea and again at Midway. Though we lost a couple of carriers, we had more being built and by the time the war was over, we had a Navy that was many times larger than prior to WWII and that included some 17 fleetcarriers and even more escort carriers along with all other necessary ships.

WhiteKnight77

Was never really interested in the Pacific War to be honest. I'm going off the movies and what I learned in school. Which, apparently, wasn't good enough.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"] It would be quick enough, Japan had almost no resources towards the end of WW2, the US blew up one of their main oil suppliers which provided 40% of the oil for the country, with the combination of Russia, Britian, France, Australia and other countries, I highly doubt the war would have lasted two months, you should brush up on your history.

sSubZerOo

Maybe you should brush up on Japanese warrior culture at that time. They didn't have to have navy and an air force to fight the U.S...

YOU need to brush up on your history buddy...

... That was only if we invaded... That was absolutely not neccesary.. Japan was bleeding to death.. And this claimed warrior culture apparently wasn't as fanatical as thought to believed.. Afterall if these people are willing to blow themselves up and the like, why would they care what the enemy had even if it were a nuclear weapon.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Maybe you should brush up on Japanese warrior culture at that time. They didn't have to have navy and an air force to fight the U.S...

YOU need to brush up on your history buddy...

LJS9502_basic

... That was only if we invaded... That was absolutely not neccesary.. Japan was bleeding to death.. And this claimed warrior culture apparently wasn't as fanatical as thought to believed.. Afterall if these people are willing to blow themselves up and the like, why would they care what the enemy had even if it were a nuclear weapon.

They were on their back and bleeding to death.. This would be much like stabbing a guy in the chest after you beat the crap of him and he is only semi concious on the ground..

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"] The peoplewere so blindly loyal to the emperor they would willinglykill their children for him, evidenced by the mass sucide on the emperors orders. Danm_999

Then you dont know much about the olden Japanese.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... That was only if we invaded... That was absolutely not neccesary.. Japan was bleeding to death.. And this claimed warrior culture apparently wasn't as fanatical as thought to believed.. Afterall if these people are willing to blow themselves up and the like, why would they care what the enemy had even if it were a nuclear weapon.

sSubZerOo

They were on their back and bleeding to death.. This would be much like stabbing a guy in the chest after you beat the crap of him and he is only semi concious on the ground..

Why has everyone jumped on this band wagon of saving a million lives by killing 500,000 civilians...

The japanese would NOT surrender UNCONDITIONALLY. The U.S COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE offered a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER. They did not pursue this. At all.

(The Japaneese could not be expected to surrender unconditionally due to the losses already made and their bushido code. The U.S knew they would not surrender in this way.)

They COULD have and SHOULD have instigated a NAVAL BLOCKADE. With a CRIPPLED ECONOMY, Japan was already faltering, plus with added pressure from Russia, they would have waltzed in a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER.

THey could have also used a show of force.

I do not think the use of atomic weapons is intrinsicly morally wrong, i just believe there were other alternatives that could have saved so many lives. The Americans were tired of war and were brash.

'Americans are like mushrooms. Kept in the dark, and fed a strict supply of bull**** .' Please wake up and try not to be sucked in by propaganda.

No, Japan was about to surrender.loco145

Well, the A bombs helped them further that decision a little bit.

Yes.. Cause America does it like a boss!!

I think nukes nees tobe used more. World is overpopulated. Let's drop it back down to about 2 billion. Otherwise, man is just upsetting the balance of nature. Tell the US to get to work saving the world from itself. Nukes away!

Never.

At first, my answer was absolutely not. After seeing quite a few documentaries my answer is yes.

I think nukes nees tobe used more. World is overpopulated. Let's drop it back down to about 2 billion. Otherwise, man is just upsetting the balance of nature. Tell the US to get to work saving the world from itself. Nukes away!

sonicare

And you get a nuke, and you get a nuke! Everybody gets nukes!

Why has everyone jumped on this band wagon of saving a million lives by killing 500,000 civilians...

The japanese would NOT surrender UNCONDITIONALLY. The U.S COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE offered a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER. They did not pursue this. At all.

(The Japaneese could not be expected to surrender unconditionally due to the losses already made and their bushido code. The U.S knew they would not surrender in this way.)

They COULD have and SHOULD have instigated a NAVAL BLOCKADE. With a CRIPPLED ECONOMY, Japan was already faltering, plus with added pressure from Russia, they would have waltzed in a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER.

THey could have also used a show of force.

I do not think the use of atomic weapons is intrinsicly morally wrong, i just believe there were other alternatives that could have saved so many lives. The Americans were tired of war and were brash.

'Americans are like mushrooms. Kept in the dark, and fed a strict supply of bull**** .' Please wake up and try not to be sucked in by propaganda.

IAMTHEJOKER88

The Americans gave them a clear warning of total annihilation if they don't surrender. Their opponent didn't.

A naval blockade wouldn't work one bit-haven't you heard of Japan's kamikaze tactics that have claimed a ton of ships and the personnel that work on them?

And do you think the Japanese would be that eager to surrender, especially when they realized Hiroshima was a nuclear wasteland but yet they continued to fight on? Only when Nagasaki was annihilated did they finally decide to wave the white flag.

Why has everyone jumped on this band wagon of saving a million lives by killing 500,000 civilians...

The japanese would NOT surrender UNCONDITIONALLY. The U.S COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE offered a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER. They did not pursue this. At all.

(The Japaneese could not be expected to surrender unconditionally due to the losses already made and their bushido code. The U.S knew they would not surrender in this way.)

They COULD have and SHOULD have instigated a NAVAL BLOCKADE. With a CRIPPLED ECONOMY, Japan was already faltering, plus with added pressure from Russia, they would have waltzed in a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER.

THey could have also used a show of force.

I do not think the use of atomic weapons is intrinsicly morally wrong, i just believe there were other alternatives that could have saved so many lives. The Americans were tired of war and were brash.

'Americans are like mushrooms. Kept in the dark, and fed a strict supply of bull**** .' Please wake up and try not to be sucked in by propaganda.

IAMTHEJOKER88

I'm not so much bothered that the U.S. used nuclear weapons against Japan, but the fact that they specifically targeted civilian populations. I don't care what the justifications were, intentionally killing tens of thousands of civilians is wrong.

I'm not so much bothered that the U.S. used nuclear weapons against Japan, but the fact that they specifically targeted civilian populations. I don't care what the justifications were, intentionally killing tens of thousands of civilians is wrong.

redstorm72

But killing soldiers isn't? Soldiers are human beings just like the rest of us.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

I'm not so much bothered that the U.S. used nuclear weapons against Japan, but the fact that they specifically targeted civilian populations. I don't care what the justifications were, intentionally killing tens of thousands of civilians is wrong.

bloodling

But killing soldiers isn't? Soldiers are human beings just like the rest of us.

Yes, but soldiers chose to put their life on the line for their nation, civilians don't. There is a difference between killing a soldier in combat and blowing up a city full of women and children.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

I'm not so much bothered that the U.S. used nuclear weapons against Japan, but the fact that they specifically targeted civilian populations. I don't care what the justifications were, intentionally killing tens of thousands of civilians is wrong.

redstorm72

But killing soldiers isn't? Soldiers are human beings just like the rest of us.

Yes, but soldiers chose to put their life on the line for their nation, civilians don't. There is a difference between killing a soldier in combat and blowing up a city full of women and children.

I seriously doubt most japanese soldiers chose to go to war. They were brainwashed just like the rest of the population and were probably forced to go to war.

Killing a soldier in combat is certainly not what would've ended the war.

I don't think it was a bad decision. If they wiped out Tokyo, now that woud've been too much in my opinion.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

But killing soldiers isn't? Soldiers are human beings just like the rest of us.

bloodling

Yes, but soldiers chose to put their life on the line for their nation, civilians don't. There is a difference between killing a soldier in combat and blowing up a city full of women and children.

I seriously doubt most japanese soldiers chose to go to war. They were brainwashed just like the rest of the population and were probably forced to go to war.

I don't support atomic weapons at all, but it was necessary to win the war. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

I seriously doubt most japanese soldiers chose to go to war. They were brainwashed just like the rest of the population and were probably forced to go to war.Treflis

Well, the reason why they went to war, according to officials, was because of a divine order. We all know what that implies.

No they shouldn't of been used. From what I've heard, the Japanese were trying to surrender already. The nukes were dropped so that we could take Japan before the Soviets got there as Stalin promised to help in the Pacific after the war on the European front ended. Eisenhower was against dropping the nukes as well as J. Rober Oppenheimer, the creator of the bombs.

[QUOTE="Treflis"]

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

I seriously doubt most japanese soldiers chose to go to war. They were brainwashed just like the rest of the population and were probably forced to go to war.bloodling

Well, the reason why they went to war, according to officials, was because of a divine order. We all know what that implies.

[QUOTE="IAMTHEJOKER88"]

Why has everyone jumped on this band wagon of saving a million lives by killing 500,000 civilians...

The japanese would NOT surrender UNCONDITIONALLY. The U.S COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE offered a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER. They did not pursue this. At all.

(The Japaneese could not be expected to surrender unconditionally due to the losses already made and their bushido code. The U.S knew they would not surrender in this way.)

They COULD have and SHOULD have instigated a NAVAL BLOCKADE. With a CRIPPLED ECONOMY, Japan was already faltering, plus with added pressure from Russia, they would have waltzed in a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER.

THey could have also used a show of force.

I do not think the use of atomic weapons is intrinsicly morally wrong, i just believe there were other alternatives that could have saved so many lives. The Americans were tired of war and were brash.

'Americans are like mushrooms. Kept in the dark, and fed a strict supply of bull**** .' Please wake up and try not to be sucked in by propaganda.

Desulated

The Americans gave them a clear warning of total annihilation if they don't surrender. Their opponent didn't.

A naval blockade wouldn't work one bit-haven't you heard of Japan's kamikaze tactics that have claimed a ton of ships and the personnel that work on them?

And do you think the Japanese would be that eager to surrender, especially when they realized Hiroshima was a nuclear wasteland but yet they continued to fight on? Only when Nagasaki was annihilated did they finally decide to wave the white flag.

You are missing the point. Or evading it. NEGOTIATED SURRENDER. NEGOTIATED! Not TOTAL or UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER as you have stressed.

Now re-read my paragraph.

The Japaneese Navy was beat. And not even Kamikaze bombers would have broken a naval blockade the strength the U.S navy was at. And yes, 500,000 civilian lives surpass the lives of considerably fewer American soldiers in war time.

Would the U.S surrender if someone totally annihalated one of their cities and its entire civilian population? No, you'd want to retaliate and beat the enemy to death with a stick. As irrational as it sounds that is what war, and anger, does to people.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="Treflis"]That's a pretty big and bold statement there, got proof?

Treflis

Well, the reason why they went to war, according to officials, was because of a divine order. We all know what that implies.

They were brainwashed so bad people killed themselves because they were convinced the americans would rape them and torture them. The Nazis forced civilians to go to war. Again, I am not 100% sure but I still wasn't proven to be wrong.

Yes, 1. It showed the soviets that we weren't messing around and 2. If we didn't use it the Japanese would of fought to the last man and many more casualties would have been suffered.

[QUOTE="IAMTHEJOKER88"]

Why has everyone jumped on this band wagon of saving a million lives by killing 500,000 civilians...

The japanese would NOT surrender UNCONDITIONALLY. The U.S COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE offered a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER. They did not pursue this. At all.

(The Japaneese could not be expected to surrender unconditionally due to the losses already made and their bushido code. The U.S knew they would not surrender in this way.)

They COULD have and SHOULD have instigated a NAVAL BLOCKADE. With a CRIPPLED ECONOMY, Japan was already faltering, plus with added pressure from Russia, they would have waltzed in a NEGOTIATED SURRENDER.

THey could have also used a show of force.

I do not think the use of atomic weapons is intrinsicly morally wrong, i just believe there were other alternatives that could have saved so many lives. The Americans were tired of war and were brash.

'Americans are like mushrooms. Kept in the dark, and fed a strict supply of bull**** .' Please wake up and try not to be sucked in by propaganda.

tylergamereview

But that would imply Hiroshima was an act of vengeance... which could not possibly be true. Because that is so morally f***** up.

[QUOTE="Treflis"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

Well, the reason why they went to war, according to officials, was because of a divine order. We all know what that implies.

bloodling

They were brainwashed so bad people killed themselves because they were convinced the americans would rape them and torture them. The Nazis forced civilians to go to war. Again, I am not 100% sure but I still wasn't proven to be wrong.

The Japaneese people were mostly isolated. When they hear of a foreign force that has destroyed what they believe to be an impressive fighting force, and seeing the brutality of the Japaneese army themselves, the common misconception was that the Americans had to be an even greater evil. So some would commit suicide, simply out of fear of a foe they did not know.

[QUOTE="Treflis"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

Well, the reason why they went to war, according to officials, was because of a divine order. We all know what that implies.

bloodling

They were brainwashed so bad people killed themselves because they were convinced the americans would rape them and torture them. The Nazis forced civilians to go to war. Again, I am not 100% sure but I still wasn't proven to be wrong.

This is about the Japanese, not the Nazi's. Also, yes there were some who were so afraid of the US soldiers that they commited suicide but that was a incredible minority. But there will always be that kind of people in every country. That doesn't mean civilians were forced to fight US soldiers, they could've chosen themselves to fight them to try to protect their homes, but forced at the end of the war when they knew they had the US navy in the Horizon would've caused civil unrest and possibly nationwide riots.Treflis

They were told that they needed to fight or else they would all die. Anyone writing anything about why people shouldn't go to war were executed. Their propaganda was so strong that conscription or not, it's almost the same.

[QUOTE="Treflis"]This is about the Japanese, not the Nazi's. Also, yes there were some who were so afraid of the US soldiers that they commited suicide but that was a incredible minority. But there will always be that kind of people in every country. That doesn't mean civilians were forced to fight US soldiers, they could've chosen themselves to fight them to try to protect their homes, but forced at the end of the war when they knew they had the US navy in the Horizon would've caused civil unrest and possibly nationwide riots.bloodling

They were told that they needed to fight or else they would all die. Anyone writing anything about why people shouldn't go to war were executed. Their propaganda was so strong that conscription or not, it's almost the same.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="Treflis"]This is about the Japanese, not the Nazi's. Also, yes there were some who were so afraid of the US soldiers that they commited suicide but that was a incredible minority. But there will always be that kind of people in every country. That doesn't mean civilians were forced to fight US soldiers, they could've chosen themselves to fight them to try to protect their homes, but forced at the end of the war when they knew they had the US navy in the Horizon would've caused civil unrest and possibly nationwide riots.Treflis

They were told that they needed to fight or else they would all die. Anyone writing anything about why people shouldn't go to war were executed. Their propaganda was so strong that conscription or not, it's almost the same.

"To reform the military, the government instituted nationwide conscription in 1873, mandating that every male between the age of 17 and 40 undertake three years active service, followed by a further two years in the first reserve (active) and another two in the second reserve (standby)"