• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

Oozlefinch said:
We cite facts, you are the one that screams "all the experts".

Tell us the experts who said the Soviet Bombing was going to destroy Japan.

And stop with the insults already, they are petty and only show what little facts you have to stand on.
Click to expand...




That's a very good point. He knows he's losing, so he turns to insulting people.
 
vegas giants said:
Well not according to the greatest military minds this country has ever known.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately American generals were not the ones calling the shots for the Japanese military, at least not directly.

The Japanese had lost the war in 1944 when what was left of their fleet sank in the Leyte Gulf. They just hadn't given up yet.

And they refused to do so until the Emperor said to on 9 August 1945, almost a year later. He had to break the deadlock, because the pro-war half of the Big Six refused to consider surrender unless their demands (which would have been no occupation or war crimes trials) were met.

The *rational* thing would have been to surrender in October 1944. But Imperial Japan was not a rational state.
 
Craig234 said:
Wrong, as has been explained dozens of times.
Click to expand...

There were four options:

1. Nuke.
2. Invade.
3. Let the Russians eat Southeast Asia
4. Go home and hope everyone plays nice.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Yeah? Who?
Click to expand...

And that is a lie, because if anybody looks at the figures the military experts gave for casualties in the invasion of Japan, they never said.

Just as they never said the figures for civilian casualties going into Germany. Such things just did not matter. Stay out of the way, you get left alone. Interfere, you get cut down like any other enemy.

I have read most of the reports dealing with casualties in Japan, and while a few did give huge numbers of military deaths by Japanese forces, none dealt with the numbers of civilian deaths.

I guess Saipan and Okinawa was either not worth considering, or dimply was ignored.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And that is a lie, because if anybody looks at the figures the military experts gave for casualties in the invasion of Japan, they never said.

Just as they never said the figures for civilian casualties going into Germany. Such things just did not matter. Stay out of the way, you get left alone. Interfere, you get cut down like any other enemy.

I have read most of the reports dealing with casualties in Japan, and while a few did give huge numbers of military deaths by Japanese forces, none dealt with the numbers of civilian deaths.

I guess Saipan and Okinawa was either not worth considering, or dimply was ignored.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm looking back on all the admirals and generals of the time, and none of them were in favor of the invasion over the bomb.

Also, civilian casualties were inferred. Hang on, BRB.
 
swing_voter said:
That's a very good point. He knows he's losing, so he turns to insulting people.
Click to expand...

As always. Is why like so many I have him blocked, and really only see his insanity when somebody else quotes him.

I do occasionally respond when he say something spectacularly idiotic, just to see if he will return to rationality. Like asking him what experts were talking about the massive Soviet bomber attacks that were going to make Japan surrender. I even listed each of their bombers, and their capabilities. BUt for some strange reason, he keeps insisting these "unnamed experts" are right.

I have a feeling those experts are whispering in his ear.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Yeah, I'm looking back on all the admirals and generals of the time, and none of them were in favor of the invasion over the bomb.

Also, civilian casualties were inferred. Hang on, BRB.
Click to expand...

I honestly would be interested, because the only one I know of that specifically talks about that is the Shockley Report.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Operation Downfall - History Learning Site

According to Leahy, 10 million Japanese casualties were expected. That is more people than were left in the Japanese military in 1945 (6,095,000 total remaining forces.)
Click to expand...

*laughs*

That *IS* the Shockley Report. Dr. Shockley was working for the Department of Navy at the time.

If the study shows that the behavior of nations in all historical cases comparable to Japan's has in fact been invariably consistent with the behavior of the troops in battle, then it means that the Japanese dead and ineffectives at the time of the defeat will exceed the corresponding number for the Germans. In other words, we shall probably have to kill at least 5 to 10 million Japanese. This might cost us between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including 400,000 to 800,000 killed.
Click to expand...

The actual (and earlier) Admiral Leahy report was a bit different. In it the losses in the Battle of Okinawa were considered, and the losses in his report were higher than those of early reports by the Navy. But still did not consider civilian losses. The final Leahy report thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). And interestingly enough, ignored the commitment by UK forces.
 
Oozlefinch said:
*laughs*

That *IS* the Shockley Report. Dr. Shockley was working for the Department of Navy at the time.



The actual (and earlier) Admiral Leahy report was a bit different. In it the losses in the Battle of Okinawa were considered, and the losses in his report were higher than those of early reports by the Navy. But still did not consider civilian losses. The final Leahy report thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). And interestingly enough, ignored the commitment by UK forces.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to say. The link states 10,000,000 casualties according to Leahy, and there were 6,095,000 people left in the Japanese forces. That leaves about 4,000,000 dead Japanese that aren't military.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Unfortunately American generals were not the ones calling the shots for the Japanese military, at least not directly.

The Japanese had lost the war in 1944 when what was left of their fleet sank in the Leyte Gulf. They just hadn't given up yet.

And they refused to do so until the Emperor said to on 9 August 1945, almost a year later. He had to break the deadlock, because the pro-war half of the Big Six refused to consider surrender unless their demands (which would have been no occupation or war crimes trials) were met.

The *rational* thing would have been to surrender in October 1944. But Imperial Japan was not a rational state.
Click to expand...

So we should not have listened to the greatest military minds this country has ever known when they say the war was over,?



Got it. Lol
 
Hamish Howl said:
Yeah, I'm looking back on all the admirals and generals of the time, and none of them were in favor of the invasion over the bomb.

Also, civilian casualties were inferred. Hang on, BRB.
Click to expand...

They were in favor of another option
 
I laugh at people who think they know more about we should have done than guys like Nimitz who have an entire class of aircraft carriers named after them

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,*[89]
 
Last edited:
Hamish Howl said:
Operation Downfall - History Learning Site

According to Leahy, 10 million Japanese casualties were expected. That is more people than were left in the Japanese military in 1945 (6,095,000 total remaining forces.)
Click to expand...

That 6 million number was just for the Japanese Army. It also is a hindsight number not known to Leahy at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yesterday caught a thoughtful C-SPAN interview.

The guest agreed that the death of Japanese non-combatants (civilians) was a terrible thing.

But he pointed out that millions and millions of non-Japanese non-combatants (mostly Chinese people) were killed in the war that was started by Japan. He estimated that of the millions and millions of non-combatant deaths in the Pacific War, Japanese non-combatant deaths were "only" about a million, while the Chinese number was much higher. I forget the number that he gave, but it was much, much higher than a million.

IMHO, what Japan did to the Chinese people (let alone to American servicemen) can never be forgotten or forgiven.
 
vegas giants said:
So we should not have listened to the greatest military minds this country has ever known when they say the war was over,?
Click to expand...

When did General MacArthur get to to decide what the Japanese leadership thought?

You keep ignoring discussing the meeting of the War Council on 9 August 1945. Why?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
When did General MacArthur get to to decide what the Japanese leadership thought?

You keep ignoring discussing the meeting of the War Council on 9 August 1945. Why?
Click to expand...

Well seeing as how he is a military genius and his opinion is backed by at least 7 other military geniuses I would say his opinion is more important to me than yours. Lol

If you have evidence about something....post it
 
vegas giants said:
Well seeing as how he is a military genius and his opinion is backed by at least 7 other military geniuses I would say his opinion is more important to me than yours. Lol

If you have evidence about something....post it
Click to expand...



It’s well known that MacArthur was an incorrigible gloryhound, a man infatuated with the vertical pronoun. He was brilliant, yes, but usually the first to admit it. He was incapable of admitting an error or taking responsibility when things went wrong—which they often did during his watch. He loved the trappings of power and stayed eternally vigilant to the micro-nuances of publicity. (If Twitter had been around during his time, he surely would have mastered it.) MacArthur refused to listen to inconvenient information, and he seldom cultivated or appreciated experts—he was the expert. It was said that he didn’t have a staff; he had a court.

Why Douglas MacArthur Is America'''s Most Overrated General | Time



Why don't you ever provide links for your arguments? It's like you're making stuff up.
 
swing_voter said:
It’s well known that MacArthur was an incorrigible gloryhound, a man infatuated with the vertical pronoun. He was brilliant, yes, but usually the first to admit it. He was incapable of admitting an error or taking responsibility when things went wrong—which they often did during his watch. He loved the trappings of power and stayed eternally vigilant to the micro-nuances of publicity. (If Twitter had been around during his time, he surely would have mastered it.) MacArthur refused to listen to inconvenient information, and he seldom cultivated or appreciated experts—he was the expert. It was said that he didn’t have a staff; he had a court.

Why Douglas MacArthur Is America'''s Most Overrated General | Time



Why don't you ever provide links for your arguments? It's like you're making stuff up.
Click to expand...

What link would you like? Just name it.


If you dismiss MacArthur do you dismiss every other 5 star military officer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom