Quote:
Originally Posted by leiden
I know that my response will be so three pages ago, but I feel I must interject here. When the bombs were dropped, the war in Europe was almost over, correct? And the US had invasion plans drawn up to estimate the force needed to attack the Japanese mainland and win. One show that I saw on the History Channel stated that this force would be in excess of 500K Allied infantry to attack the mainland and even then, the chances of success were not good and casualities to Allied forces would be extremely high. Remind yourself of the Japanese mindset. This is the culture that gave us samurai and kamikaze. This is the culture that sees surrender as cowardice.
|
Hadn't Berlin already fallen? Not sure on that score, but yeah, certainly over one way or another. Come on, that 'plan' was designed with one purpose- to aid the argument you're making right now. How about a consistant targetted bombing campaign? Or why invade at all- why not a blockade? We had all the options here, better technology, more people, better morale. Hell, you think Russia wouldn't have leaped at the opportunity to gobble up an island or two of Japan...oh theres another reason- guess America didn't want Japan surrendering to Russia eh? Gods.
And listen to yourself- despite their vaunted Samurai history they still surrendered...so yeah not exactly outside the realms of possibility is it?
Quote:
|
When the Japanese took a couple of Aleutian islands and the US went there in what was supposed to be an easy rout to remove the Japanese forces from Alaska, America suffered casualities to almost 2/3 of the force that it sent to remove a JApanese force that was half the size.
|
Great. Guess who was lost the pacific in the end? Oh yeah. Besides, what it was Samurainess alone that casued that? What about the two leadership, tech possibilities. And seeing as the allies did win eventually, I doubt taht ratio was all that consistant.
Bushido has been blown out of all proportion on this. Besides, someone here said that they had already tried to surrender, but were refused by the americans nominally because of the conditions of the surrender- keeping their Emperor or somesuch. I'll try and find the guy and get him in here, he seems far better versed.
Quote:
What I am trying to say is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events in our history, both as a nation and a world. However, if given the choice, I believe Truman chose the most expedient, least harmful method with which to end the war. (In case anyone cares, the US did warn Japan that another bomb was coming if they didn't surrender. They didn't. Thus, Nagasaki.)
Pride goeth before the fall.
|
Hmm, always wanted to know what the time delay between the two were. Yeah, not the trump-card you might think it was "Well bombing them once didn't dent their Bushidoness...I know, lets do it again!" Yeah that makes tonnes of sense.
I think it was a terrible event, one which many Americans can't reconcile themselves to the truth of. Unfortunate, as you're not responsible, and recognitioon of truth can only be a good thing I think.