|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 9, 2021 11:20:49 GMT -8
Probably most people don't know that, at the last minute before VJ day, Stalin invaded Manchuria. Here's the story.
Ahttps://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2020/01/07/the-soviet-invasion-of-manchuria-led-to-japans-greatest-defeat/
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 10, 2021 11:00:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 10, 2021 23:29:58 GMT -8
May well have been, but there was plenty of reason at the time to drop the bombs. In any case, the fire bomb raids on Tokyo killed at least as many people. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 11, 2021 8:51:25 GMT -8
May well have been, but there was plenty of reason at the time to drop the bombs. In any case, he fire bomb raids on Tokyo killed at least as many people. AzWm Both acts of terrorism IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 30, 2021 16:27:19 GMT -8
May well have been, but there was plenty of reason at the time to drop the bombs. In any case, he fire bomb raids on Tokyo killed at least as many people. AzWm Both acts of terrorism IMHO. Was the use of flame-throwers terrorism? Was the bombing and strafing of towns, roads and bridges all over northwestern France in preparation for Overlord terrorism? Just how many military weapons and campaigns should we not have used just to make sure that 70 some years later people, most of whose grandparents did not experience the war, would not now second guess those who were responsible for seeing to it that as few Americans as possible got killed? As as few of he enemy, I should add. You might want to look up what the fighting was like on Guadalcanal, the Marianas, the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. The Japanese were not inclined to surrender. Ever. Casualties due to an invasion of the home islands were estimated to be in the millions. Although beaten badly elsewhere, the assets in the home islands were nevertheless considerable. The Japanese were able to convince civilians in the Marianas to jump to their deaths from cliffs rather than surrender. Why should the planners of the American invasion of the home islands have believed that on their home soil civilians would not grab rifles, or maybe just knives, and charge Americans soldiers? Here's a line from the linked article below. Operation Downfall would have made Okinawa look like a picnic. I suggest you read the following text which goes into detail what was planned for Operation Downfall. nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/america-had-master-plan-invade-japan-during-world-war-ii-180106AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 31, 2021 9:24:21 GMT -8
Both acts of terrorism IMHO. Was the use of flame-throwers terrorism? Was the bombing and strafing of towns, roads and bridges all over northwestern France in preparation for Overlord terrorism? Just how many military weapons and campaigns should we not have used just to make sure that 70 some years later people, most of whose grandparents did not experience the war, would not now second guess those who were responsible for seeing to it that as few Americans as possible got killed. As as few of he enemy, I should add. You might want to look up what the fighting was like on Guadalcanal, the Marianas, the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. The Japanese were not inclined to surrender. Ever. Casualties due to an invasion of the home islands were estimated to be in the millions. Although beaten badly elsewhere, the assets in the home islands were nevertheless considerable. The Japanese were able to convince civilians in the Marianas to jump to their deaths from cliffs rather than surrender. Why should the planners of the American invasion of the home islands have believed that on their home soil civilians would not grab rifles, or maybe just knives, and charge Americans soldiers? Here's a line from the linked article below. Operation Downfall would have made Okinawa look like a picnic. I suggest you read the following text which goes into detail what was planned for Operation Downfall. nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/america-had-master-plan-invade-japan-during-world-war-ii-180106AzWm Textbook definition of terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.So no, use of a flame-thrower by one soldier on another, though horrific, does not qualify. Whereas atomic bombing and carpet bombing, where civilians are well known to be victimized, does qualify. And yes, I'm well aware of both how horrific the fighting was and the mentality of the Japanese soldier. That does not change facts. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 31, 2021 11:44:21 GMT -8
I don't think I got an response about what we should not have done in WWII to prevent second guessing 3/4 of a Century later. How about a list?
The basic fact here is that the Japanese were showing no signs of being willing to surrender in mid-'45 despite being badly beaten on every front. Their navy was destroyed. They had been unable to defeat the US in any battle starting with their withdrawal from Guadalcanal in early '43. No supplies of raw materials and oil were getting through to the home islands. (By the way, that was almost completely due to our unrestricted submarine campaign. We killed thousands of people on those ships. You think they were all combatants? Was that campaign terrorism?) Japan's industrial capacity was, if not completely destroyed, reduced to very little by the B-29 raids.
And yet, the Japanese, as 1945 wore on, were planning a comprehensive defense of the home islands. They expected an invasion and were quite ready to meet if. Just read the linked article to see what they were planning.
Those who want to second-guess the US point to the declaration of war by the Soviet Union. Maybe that was the last straw, I don't know. But if the Japanese expected a US invasion and were vigorously planning to meet it, why would they fear a Soviet declaration of war?
I strongly believe that Truman, Gen. Marshall, and the other top advisors felt that dropping the A-bomb, as terrible as it was, offered a chance to eliminate the millions of casualties that were anticipated if Operation Downfall were carried out. Were they right? We can never to totally sure, but I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
And let's not play the race card here. If Hitler had been more reasonable starting in mid-43, the Soviets might have been stalled east of Poland and we might still be planning a second D-Day. Do not doubt for a moment that we would have dropped an A-bomb on Berlin in '45.
If you want to criticize decisions made in the past by the US government, I have better candidates. How about the Spanish/American War? I can't defend that decision.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 31, 2021 15:59:51 GMT -8
I don't think I got an response about what we should not have done in WWII to prevent second guessing 3/4 of a Century later. How about a list? The basic fact here is that the Japanese were showing no signs of being willing to surrender in mid-'45 despite being badly beaten on every front. Their navy was destroyed. They had been unable to defeat the US in any battle starting with their withdrawal from Guadalcanal in early '43. No supplies of raw materials and oil were getting through to the home islands. (By the way, that was almost completely due to our unrestricted submarine campaign. We killed thousands of people on those ships. You think they were all combatants? Was that campaign terrorism?) Japan's industrial capacity was, if not completely destroyed, reduced to very little by the B-29 raids. And yet, the Japanese, as 1945 wore on, were planning a comprehensive defense of the home islands. They expected an invasion and were quite ready to meet if. Just read the linked article to see what they were planning. Those who want to second-guess the US point to the declaration of war by the Soviet Union. Maybe that was the last straw, I don't know. But if the Japanese expected a US invasion and were vigorously planning to meet it, why would they fear a Soviet declaration of war? I strongly believe that Truman, Gen. Marshall, and the other top advisors felt that dropping the A-bomb, as terrible as it was, offered a chance to eliminate the millions of casualties that were anticipated if Operation Downfall were carried out. Were they right? We can never to totally sure, but I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. And let's not play the race card here. If Hitler had been more reasonable starting in mid-43, the Soviets might have been stalled east of Poland and we might still be planning a second D-Day. Do not doubt for a moment that we would have dropped an A-bomb on Berlin in '45. If you want to criticize decisions made in the past by the US government, I have better candidates. How about the Spanish/American War? I can't defend that decision. AzWm Just like your posts in the Trump & Insurrection threads, you obtusely obfuscate, e.g. why do you require a "list" of some sort? I've made myself very clear: dropping WMDs on civilians is terrorism, plain and simple, regardless of justification of "what might have been." |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 23, 2021 18:42:11 GMT -8
Well, would you feel better if we had invaded the Japanese home islands, with allied and Japanese casualties running into the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions)? History records that we had every reason to believe that the Japanese were willing to fight to the last adult or child.
We have to consider the situation that existed at the moment of great historical events, not how we feel about them using our current values.
Consider this; how many times have you heard pundits complain about our fire-bombing of Tokyo? Not many, I'll wager. Results for the citizens of that city much the same as for those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Nov 25, 2021 20:28:58 GMT -8
I don't think I got an response about what we should not have done in WWII to prevent second guessing 3/4 of a Century later. How about a list? The basic fact here is that the Japanese were showing no signs of being willing to surrender in mid-'45 despite being badly beaten on every front. Their navy was destroyed. They had been unable to defeat the US in any battle starting with their withdrawal from Guadalcanal in early '43. No supplies of raw materials and oil were getting through to the home islands. (By the way, that was almost completely due to our unrestricted submarine campaign. We killed thousands of people on those ships. You think they were all combatants? Was that campaign terrorism?) Japan's industrial capacity was, if not completely destroyed, reduced to very little by the B-29 raids. And yet, the Japanese, as 1945 wore on, were planning a comprehensive defense of the home islands. They expected an invasion and were quite ready to meet if. Just read the linked article to see what they were planning. Those who want to second-guess the US point to the declaration of war by the Soviet Union. Maybe that was the last straw, I don't know. But if the Japanese expected a US invasion and were vigorously planning to meet it, why would they fear a Soviet declaration of war? I strongly believe that Truman, Gen. Marshall, and the other top advisors felt that dropping the A-bomb, as terrible as it was, offered a chance to eliminate the millions of casualties that were anticipated if Operation Downfall were carried out. Were they right? We can never to totally sure, but I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. And let's not play the race card here. If Hitler had been more reasonable starting in mid-43, the Soviets might have been stalled east of Poland and we might still be planning a second D-Day. Do not doubt for a moment that we would have dropped an A-bomb on Berlin in '45. If you want to criticize decisions made in the past by the US government, I have better candidates. How about the Spanish/American War? I can't defend that decision. AzWm Just like your posts in the Trump & Insurrection threads, you obtusely obfuscate, e.g. why do you require a "list" of some sort? I've made myself very clear: dropping WMDs on civilians is terrorism, plain and simple, regardless of justification of "what might have been." You can engage in all the inane rhetorical arguments you wish, but the fact that you are TYPING YOUR THOUGHTS IN ENGLISH rather than some other language underscores AzWm’s point. WW II was literally for the civilization and life on the North American Continent would have been much different if our forces didn’t win. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 20, 2022 18:51:59 GMT -8
May well have been, but there was plenty of reason at the time to drop the bombs. In any case, he fire bomb raids on Tokyo killed at least as many people. AzWm Both acts of terrorism IMHO. Maybe so, but it saved millions of lives of both sides and saved Japan from being bifocated like Germany, which would have resulted in untold additional misery. Russia wouldn't help them rebuild like the US did. |
|
