Whos Ready For VJ Day !!!

I don't really like to categorize things as good or evil - but really no one can dispute that hitler was one sick and twisted individual.

Pretty much. I'm not sure what his real beef with the jews was.

The general feel of the country regarding the bombs tends to be this way. "You'd better believe we'd have used it if we had it."

If you go to the nuclear bomb memorials at Hiroshima or Nagasaki (and I really wish more people traveled abroad for perspective in general), there is no accusatory vibe at all. There's no "Look what the evil Americas did." The memorials and the museums at ground zero are more along the lines of:

"Look at what war does. Look at its inevitable conclusion. We need to work together as an international community to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used in anger again."

As an American living in Japan, I was expecting an attempt to make me feel guilty for it. I had mentally prepared myself for that. Surprisingly, this refusal to play the victim card, and the heartfelt plea for a nuclear-free world, was far more powerful and disarming than I was ready for. I actually needed to walk over to a bench and sit down for awhile.

That actually changes my perspective Jaerik. (Somewhat anyhow) But on a sidenote the Japanese are a proud people and aren't ones to take on a victimization mentality regardless of the circumstances.

1. The name of the US planning and logistics operation for the invasion of Japan was Operation Downfall (the amphibious landings themselves had their own names). Operation Downfall projected US casualties (killed, missing, and wounded) of 110,000 to 370,000 for the inition invasions of Kyushu and Honshu (Operations Coronet and Olympic). Note that neither invasion envisioned total occupation of the four largest home islands...that would have required follow-up operations known colloquially during WWII as "mopping up operations". Operation Downfall does not estimate mopping up casualties as these ops fell outside the operational directive. Note that total US deaths in combat for WWII was 242,000, with about 680,000 wounded and missing.

2. Operation Downfall predicted Japanese casualties, soldier and civilian, as 8-9 million. Note that Operation Downfall underestimated the number of suicide aircraft, midget submarines, and MXY-7 "Ohka" (US: "Baka") bombs the Japanese actually had on hand.

3. Total deaths to Fat Man and Little Boy were about 200,000. This total includes radiation deaths but excludes longer term deaths from cancer and milder radiation exposure. Note that the 10 March 1945 fire bombing of Tokyo killed more than 100,000 people by itself. That raid included 334 bombers. The 24 May bombing of Tokyo included 520 bombers. Operation Downfall included provision for 600+ bomber fire bombing raids at a greater tempo than had been practiced so far.

4. The atomic weapon project originally began as a British project under the code name of "Tube Alloys" (tanks get their name from this same British practice of hiding top secret projects under elaborate cover operations). The British began their project on the assumption that the Germans were actively developing the bomb. This was a solid assumption considering that from 9 April 1940 the Nazis controlled both the only plant for heavy water production in the world as well as the world's greatest atomic chemist (Neils Bohr). In the event, the British eventually destroyed the Norsk Hydro plant and rescued Bohr, but by then the Manhattan Project had already begun. Germany surrendered on 8/9 May 1945...the bomb wasn't needed to defeat them. The US landed on Okinawa on 1 April 1945 and secured the island on 24 June. The Trinity test of the first nuclear device occurred on 24 July 1945. In other words, Germany was gone before the bomb worked, but the bomb became operational while the US was planning the invasion of the home islands.

5. The very high death toll of the Okinawa landings led the US naval commanders to question the need for invading Japan when the "wither on the vine" strategy had worked so well in operations in the Pacific (most notably against Truk and Rabaul). They proposed a submarine blockade combined with relentless attacks from the Fast Carrier Task Force instead of an amphibious landing. This divergeance of opinion at this stage of the war when US planning had envisaged an amphibious landing of the home islands as early as 1905 (War Plan Orange) in itself speaks to the high cost in blood expected by US commanders.

In short, the atomic weapons saved many more lives than they cost. I hope this clears up some of the confusion I am reading on this thread.

That was a pretty good post Temeraire.
Data seems a bit regurgitated but you'll have that with this.
Just solidifies my concept of it.
Still don't think VJ should go to being a recognized holiday but that again is mostly due to political and economical factors, won't work as a distraction as good as christmas, gay marriage, and medical marijuana...lol.

The state is dumb, the holiday seems useless, but i will take my day off with a smile

I have International Left Handers Day off.
>.>
<.<

at least that makes more sense.

I had to reply to this part, even though I'm a bit late to the thread. Maybe I got lucky, but I went to a public high school in the US, and every time we went over WWII, it did NOT start with Pearl Harbor. There was discussion over Europe's failed appeasement policies regarding Hitler, and over how US leaders *wanted* to get involved in the war but didn't think the public would support it enough so soon after WWI, so they covertly sent supplies/aid where they could instead.

Not only did they send supplies/aid, the US also cut off Japans oil supply, pretty much forcing Japan to act against the US. Which, I think, was a plot from the US to get Japan to attack us, thus gaining civil support of joining the war.

In short, We were at war before pearl harbor, that just lead the massive resentment against the Japanese. No matter what you feel was right/wrong, both counties did what they felt was right at the time. I still support the A-bombs, because I still feel that saved more lives than the other option.But that is just my opinion.

If the US would have brought a ground war to main land Japan we would have 100% lost more lives then the Abombs would have caused. The only thing is, the lives lost would have been that of soldiers instead of civilians, which is what makes the abomb drops so horrible.

100% more lives?
*concerned face*

You read it wrong, it 100% that we would have lost more lives if we did a conventional attack of Japan, meaning there was no doubt whatsoever that the death toll would of been higher than if we just bombed them.

I am not the kind of guy to say this very often, but, "better them than us."

That, and the fact that although July 4, 1776 was momentous and largely free of combat, this didn't really do anything. The Revolutionary War - or War for Independence - established the country, and was in fact a war. And the result of that war, aside from many deaths, was literally the extraction of the American Colonies from the British Empire - decimated.

You could really even argue that the injustices (perceived or real) suffered by the colonists, who were unfairly taxed and had no influence on their governance, don't compare AT ALL to the injustices suffered by the Americans who died at Pearl Harbor, who were bombed from the sky, drowned, or burned alive.

Just sayin, myself.

No. I got what he said.
I just though how he said it was a bit off.
100% wasn't necessary to use, it more or less was an unnecessary stress point and I was just pointing that out :/
Oh I don't disagree with you in the thought that it was a sound idea in regards to lessening the loss of life for our soldiers, the point is...the concept of "independence" can be spun on an overall more positive note rather than VJ day which just celebrates Victory after nuke dropping.
I am not arguing about how bad it was, I'm just think that making it a national holiday would be completely in poor taste.

You would think it would be just military, but in truth, between bombers and tanks, the number of civilian lives lost could have been much more than what the A-bombs caused. Taking into consideration of countries that were invaded, according to http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm the civilan death count was 27M+, with only recording around 200K for Japan. with a full invasion, it could have been well over the death count from the bombs+ aftermath effects. It's hard to say 100% what would have happened. But the general thought is that it would have been worse for both sides in terms of lives lost if the bombs were never dropped.

Jaerik,
I wonder a bit about what the Japanese have to say about certain aspects of WWII. Namely, what do the Japanese have to say about the gunboat Panay, the Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, the Bataan Death March, the Death Railroad, POW camps such as Bicycle Camp and Cabanatuan, the Hell Ships, and the war crimes tribunal?

I have read that these things are not talked about at all in Japan, although no one is prevented from publishing articles about them in scholarly journals or otherwise censored. I have seen documentary films where Japanese veterans of the Death Railroad have denied that they ever abused or tortured POWs or civilians. I have also read an essay by a Japanese historian which basically denounces the war crimes tribunal as an attempt to exact retribution rather than an attempt to seek justice.

Straadin,
That's a simplification, but it works for HS history. There were congressmen who openly denounced the UK and promoted alliance with the Fascists. Most American politicians were fundamentally opposed to Communism and this tended to color their views of what was happening in Europe. You have the same problem today concerning Islamic Fundamentalism and the Middle East. Also, from the perspective of buying time with which to rearm, appeasement worked brilliantly. It basically won the Battle of Britain before it was ever fought if taken in this light.

One of the issues with modern history writing is perspective. We live in a shrinking world, yet most modern historians still follow the so-called "Anglo-American model of Western Civilization". This model basically ignores anything that originates outside Western Europe until the late Eighteenth Century...and it only changes then because of Imperialism. Errors within this model include the central role of Christianity (the dominant religion of neither the world nor its people before Imperialism), the origins of modern civilization in Europe (more correctly belongs in Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and China) and the separation of the European peasantry from Arab slavery and Indo-Oriental peasantry (all these groups formed a voiceless, persecuted majority...conditions did not change until Industrialism made conscript armies necessary).

I don't believe in a separate VJ Day holiday any more than I believe we should have a day for any other war. Are we going to begin remembering April 9 or November 11 or September 3 or March 23 or February 2 or August 12 or July 27?

I also don't believe in MLK Day, for reasons stated better than I could state them in the Morgan Freeman 60 Minutes outtake someone posted on page 421 of the LOL Pic thread.

There's a lot of good info in this thread. Despite sleeping through most of the classes in HS, I really do enjoy history.

There's a long history of lead-up to Pearl Harbor. (Note I do not mean the "FDR knew about it" conspiracy theory, which is utter ***.)

The US and Japan were in conflict for a long time before Pearl Harbor, mostly over what Japan was doing to Asia. China was a democracy at the time, and an ally of the US. The US was actively involved in helping defend China, sending both supplies and soldiers to fight the Japanese. The big clincher was when the US blockaded Japan as part of a massive oil embargo. Japan has very few natural resources, and no oil. The oil embargo essentially cut the Empire off at the knees. If they did not break the embargo, their entire military effort in Asia would have collapsed in a matter of months. Breaking the naval embargo was paramount to stop the collapse of the Empire, and hitting the US fleet at Pearl Harbor was a strategic attack of opportunity along those lines.

Japan actually transmitted a declaration of war to the US before the attack. Unfortunately, the Japanese diplomats in Washington were inept at their jobs, and due to a translation and equipment problem, (and also a mix up over time zones, which Japan doesn't have), the diplomats did not deliver the declaration of war until shortly after the attack began. Most of the diplomats resigned in shame over the mistake, because it resulted in Pearl Harbor being a sneak attack, which was considered dishonorable under the trumped-up ultra-nationalist quasi-Bushido code that Japan was pushing at the time.

Similarly, the pilots and carrier officers who led the attack were told that the declaration of war had been transmitted before they took off. When they landed and were informed that the declaration had been bungled, resulting in a sneak attack, the sense of shame was so overwhelming that several officers killed themselves on the spot.

Interesting, could be right. thanks for the response, going to have to show my dad, hes a history major and swears by the opposite in debates like this with his brothers lol

The history taught in US schools seems awfully biased if what i'm reading in this thread is true.

The general public knows that it happened and doesn't talk about it for a few reasons.

You have to understand that the US, during the occupation, reversed its opinion on a lot of what Japan did due to the threat of the USSR. The Cold War began the moment Hitler shot himself and the US and USSR found themselves staring at each other over a divided and occupied Europe. China had gone Commie, Korea was about to, the Iron Curtain came down across Europe, and the US desperately needed a strong, democratic, capitalist ally in Asia to stop the Domino Effect.

That's why the US quickly changed its mind on what to do with Japan. They decided NOT to charge the Emperor with war crimes, they pardoned a lot of the *** responsible for the death marches and Rape of Nanking, etc. They also said that anyone pardoned by international tribunal could not later be tried by a Japanese domestic court. Then they set up all the high-profile leaders like Tojo et al, hanged the lot of them, and called it a day. (They also took all the scientific results of Japan's heinous biological testing on Chinese prisoners, thank you very much.)

You have to understand that the Japanese citizenry had little to do with the war. Yeah, they waved flags and yelled banzai and long live the Emperor, but they had to. Most of the war was set up and run by a tight collection of politicians, the military they came from, and the mega-corporations that kept them in power and profited from the wars. Once the war was over, it was easy for the citizens (and the US agreed, for above strategic reasons) that the troublemakers had been dealt with, and justice had been done. The end. Let's be best friends now and never talk about this again!

Japanese textbooks tend to follow this notion. They're pretty masochistic in their treatment of the atrocities. ("OMG LOOK WHAT WE DID.") But simultaneously, shirk responsibility off on the *** who were all hanged during the tribunal. Thus, most Japanese consider it a shameful and embarrassing part of their history, but over and done with, so rarely talk about it.

Note however that over the past 10-15 years, there's been a resurgence of right-wing nationalists in Japan who are trying to whitewash the atrocities out of the textbooks. These *** are another story, and the source of ongoing domestic political debate.

If you take advanced or elective history classes (We had Studies of war) They gave a slightly bias opinion on what went on and more of a detailed view on what lead up to it. Not poor puppy dog american got attackedQQ then we sent out super soldiers and heroically defeated the bad bad Japanese!

This is me being highly opinionated and not so much fact, Just what I think was happeneing at the time:

Although The US was try to help defend China from Japan, the goverment did want to get involved in the war much sooner than what had happened but did not get involved due to the war being unpopular with most civians. With the oil embargo against Japan, I believe that the US goverment did know that some sort of attack was going to happen, maybe not the kind that hit Pearl Harbor, but an attack that they may or maynot have let happen inorder to get the public support it needed to get into the war.

The embargo put Japan in a place where they HAD to attack so they could continue their war campaign. Inorder to take out the embargo, they would have to cripple the US Navy. So Pearl Harbor was the perfect target. IF the US knew an attack was imminent, they may not have known the devastation that it would cause.

Again this was just my Theory of the attack. No way I can back up the claims. I may just be giving our goverment too much credit on knowing of an attack.. It's an interesting Theory nontheless.

I don't think it's "bias" per say. It's the fact that history is boring, and it's easier to just say Pearl Harbor started the war. You hit about 75% of the major points that way, and little Billy in 9th grade US History has a better chance of paying attention.

The 10-15+ years of conflict and political intricacy leading up to Pearl Harbor just take too damn long to explain. It's easier this way.

Unfortunately, the simplification of world history tends to lend itself to citizenry that grew up with a simplistic, "us vs. them," black and white, moral absolute view of international relations. Which arguably is coming back to bite us in the *** more and more these days.

1. As I stated before, Japanese casualties would have been 8-9 million had the invasion of the home islands proceeded as planned, according to the US planning estimate. The number of civilian deaths would have been greatly increased due to a rising tempo in B-29 bombing attacks. US casualty figures would have been 110,000 to 370,000 for the first two invasions only.

2. The immediate cause of direct conflict between the US and Japan was French Indochina. In mid-1941, the US found itself in the curious position of overtly supporting China while it was covertly selling massive amounts of oil and scrap steel to Japan. There was no convenient way to cut Japan off without provoking agression in Japan and outcry from a determinedly isolationist Congress. The solution adopted was to support China as best it could while forcing the Japanese to operate on a "cash and carry" basis. This led directly to the Burma Road (into British territory) and the Yunnan Railway (into French Indochina). The Chinese government was also allowed to actively recruit volunteers from the US military, which led directly to Claire Chennault's "Flying Tigers" (officially the First American Volunteer Group).

3. The Japanese could do nothing about any of these activities before 22 June 1940. That was the day the French surrendered to Germany and the Vichy governement was set up. The Japanese immediately began pressuring Vichy to cut off the Yunnan Railway. Japanese agression eventually led to occupation of French Indochina (moder day Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) in September 1941. By this time, the US had already cut off Japanese oil and scrap steel exports because of agression in French Indochina.

4. The Japanese were prepared for this. They concluded that they needed the massive oil reserves of the Dutch East Indies. Control of French Indochina secured their right flank. In order to secure the left flank, they needed the Phillippines. At that time, the Phillippines were a US colony. Therefore, the Japanese knew they were provoking the US, and the US knew that the Japanese were provoking them. US advisors actually made an estimate in late July 1941 that the US would be at war with Japan within six months.

5. The great surprise of the Pearl Harbor attack was not when, why, or even how: the US Navy had conducted practice bombing raids of Pearl Harbor which followed similar flight paths to those used by the Japanese, and the Royal Navy had executed a brilliant aerial attack on the Italian fleet base at Taranto on 11 November 1940. The great surprise was where. The US expected the attack to come in the Phillipines, not at Pearl Harbor. Modern military historians regard Pearl Harbor as a brilliant tactical success, but a huge strategic blunder. Had the Japanese concentrated their forces in the Phillipines and Dutch East Indies (their prime strategic targets), they likely would have finished their military operations there long before May-June 1942. As it was, by the time they finished, the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway had been fought and the US was firmly in control of the strategic destiny of the Pacific War.

6. Despite Stimson's claim that "gentlemen do not read each other's mail", the US Intelligence services had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code by the time of Pearl Harbor. As a result of the aforementioned Japanese bungling and this intelligence coup, President Roosevelt actually knew of the Japanese attack about 40 minutes before the Japanese delivered it (but ten minutes after the first bombs fell). The document in itself did not disclose the Pearl Harbor attack.

The problem I have with a lot of Americans is that they think "understanding" means "agreeing with." This is an oddly Western moral construct.

Sun Tzu and other Eastern philosophers have always said "know thy enemy." In other words, if you understand why your enemy does what they does, you have the upper hand. And no, "they hate our freedom" doesn't count. That only appeases a ***' 3rd grader.

In other words, say the world ends up with another Hitler. Understanding what led to his rise, understanding how ordinary people can be convinced to do evil things, comprehending the complex, morally-neutral events that led up to the war... it all gives you an upper hand in fighting him.

It does not mean that "understanding" him somehow prevents you from putting a bullet between his eyes the moment you see him.