War in the Pacific

[fintstone]

For those of you here that consider themselves "experts" on WW2 and the war in the Pacific...here are some interesting revelations:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?pg=1

perhaps you will see a parallel or two with the current situation.

[HardDrive]

Ummmmmm.....so. Let me get this straight. Trumans best evidence was secret radio communications, which he could not reveal. Some 30 years later this evidence comes to light.

So if my liberal mind can scrub off a few millenium of evolution and piece this together cromag style: Bush has the evidence, he just can't tell us. 30 years from now, us liberals will all feel really foolish when its revealed that....oh never mind......

LMAO. Your making parallels between WWII and Bush's current sinkhole? I would just LOVE to hear you run this past some WWII veterans.

flintsone, I will give you credit, you certainly stick to your guns.

[1967 R50/2]

There is nothing new in this article, but the position is still bogus.

There was no guarantee that the Japanese would surrender, even after we dropped the atomic bombs. The firebombing of Japanese cities was actually more devastating in real terms than the A-bombs were, but that did not force them to surrender.

I suggest you read up on Operation Downfall (Collectively Operations Coronet and Olympic). The alternatives to the a-bombs were very unattractive to the allies, but even moreso to the Japanese.

BTW: What parallels?

[Jamie79SC]

What is new here? Regardless of the presence or absence of any diplomatic initiatives, the Japanese Army and Navy were verging on collapse and were, in fact, much weaker than US intelligence thought. In any event, the bombs were dropped because:

1) Before the end of the war, the US insisted (rightly so in my opinion) on total surrender of Japan. One way to assure this was the use of these new weapons.
2) The US did not want to risk the many lives involved in an actual invasion of Japan if it was necessary to do so.
3) Of course there was an element of wanting to intimidate the Russians.

I really don’t understand what breakthrough evidence or analysis was presented in this article. Any comparisons between Truman’s decision making process and tools to those of Bush’s are fatuous to say the least.

[tabs]

The Japannese were split in the summer of 45...there was the peace faction that approached the Soviets to act as intermedaries with the USA ( the USSR was still at peace with Japan). Then there was the Hawks who wanted to fight to the finish....The big stumbling block was with Unconditional surrender....the Emperor who is considered to be divine would be removed... the Japanese probably would have surrendered under the condition that the Emperor remain in power. The USA wouldn't grant them the condition, which would have allowed the warring faction to remain in power in Japan...

After the fighting on Okinawa the USA realized it would be a house to house fight in Japan..and casualities would be astronomical. A secondary concern of the USA was a Soviet invasion of Japan..after the USA did all the work....the USA didn't want the Soviets in the Japanese homeland...So Truman dropped the bomb....the first bomb while shocking the Japanese didn't cause them to surrender, the second bomb got their attention but they were still willing to hold out...then the Soviets declared war and invaded Manchuria, routing the Japanese Army....and that was when Japan decide to call it quits...

[widebody911]

What's the point of having expensive toys if you can't play with them?

[Moses]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
The Japanese army and soliders were trained to never surrender, and they were very good at that. Some of the most vicious battles of all of WWII were fought on the little tiny islands in the Pacific.

This is perhaps one of the finest fables told in recent history. My father was a machine gunner in the first Marine landing force at Guadalcanal. In the early days of war in the pacific, many Japanese attempted to surrender. The U. S. Marines took no prisoners at Guadalcanal. They did not have the manpower to guard prisoners. All Japanese combatants were killed. The Japanese learned quickly that the white flag would not be honored.

In fairness, the Japanese also routinely killed U.S. Marines who attempted to surrender. War is ugly.

[Jamie79SC]

As a postscript to Tab's comments, it is interesting to note that Macarthur insisted on keeping the Emperor on the throne, reasoning that in his absence, the communists would be fill the vacuum. John W. Dower’s latest book; Embracing Defeat is a fascinating study of the US occupation of Japan.

There ARE some eerie parallels between our occupation of Japan and our occupation of Iraq. The chapter on writing the new Japanese constitution is especially apropos today.

[fintstone]

Imagine if we had allowed the militant Japanese remain in power...with a truce/surrender brokered by the Stalin. Since both Russia and Japan were intent upon world conquest, perhaps the new Axis would have been Japan/Russia...

[Jamie79SC]

Flint - Highly unlikely in my opinion. Japan and Russia had been bitter enemies since before WWI. In addition to competition over Korea there was an inherent ideological conflict between the fascist government and the communists. (I know Hitler and Stalin over looked that little issue, but I’ve got to think old Joe might have learned a lesson from that one…)

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by fintstone
Imagine if we had allowed the militant Japanese remain in power...with a truce/surrender brokered by the Stalin. Since both Russia and Japan were intent upon world conquest, perhaps the new Axis would have been Japan/Russia...

Unlikely. Lettng the militarists stay wasn't even a thought.

IF Japan did not surrender after the two atomic bombs and IF Operations and Olympic and Coronet were not successful AND the militarists were still in power, the Navy would have blockaded the home islands and starved Japan into submission while the air force pounded them from above.

By then of course, so many people would have died as to make the rest of WW2 seem like a cake walk. THAT is the worst case scenario. It's the classic case of what do you do when a fighter is down, but refuses to throw in the towel?

No. Truman was right to drop the bombs.

As an aside, once the bomb was created, politically speaking, it HAD to be used. There is no way any president could stand before the mothers of America and say "Well, we could have ended the war 6-months ago and your boys would be alive, but we thought NOT dropping the bombs would be better."

He'd be impeached for incompetence on the spot.

If the bomb had been finished in March, we would have dropped it on Berlin...afterall, we were only building it because we thought Hitler was working on one too.

I doubt Truman or Mac were too concerned about Russia taking over the Japanese home islands, as Russian naval power was negligible and they'd have to invade first. More likely they were concerned about Russia filling the vacuum left by the Japanese on the mainland.

[Jamie79SC]

Mac wasn't concerned about Russians invading - he was afraid of the Communist Party within Japan. In 2005 it's easy to forget how absolutly bat**** the US was about the spread of communism.

[Jamie79SC]

Wow, that censorship thing works great. Does this mean that you can't talk about ****ake mushrooms?

I guess it does