Did nuking Japan save more lives than an invasion of Japan?

[YmirGF]

I wholly support gnomon on this one.

 

[dust1n]

All war is a waste of lives.

The nukes saved more lives, only because Russia (after Germany fell) and the US states were willing to inflict as many as causalities as necessary to achieve their aims.

Ending the war by any means necessary would have saved more lives.

The Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and Koreans could have fought it out from there throughout history, like they ended up doing anyways.

Anyways, I don't think much about the war crimes of WW2 too much. WW2 is a war crime on humanity. At least it helped wash the romanticism out of warfare.

 

[JayJayDee]

Propaganda in wartime is used by all nations to make their own governments, in the eyes of their populations appear to be the "good guys".

Here is a video by Australian journalist John Pilger, that might make a few squirm, but its a very raw and confronting piece of journalism that needs to be seen. In wartime...no one is the good guy.

 

[Ingledsva]

I'm not going to go into the minds of the millions of people who suffered during WWII and saw the mass murder by the Axis upon civilians and responded with total war against civilians working for the military complex of those nations in order to protect the lives of their own people.

It's so easily and quite frankly morally juvenile to just state that "nothing you have said makes it OK to MURDER a civilian population! NOTHING!" I don't possess the moral high ground in order to make a backwards proclamation among people who saw their own innocent civilians murders by a nation complex and their resultant retaliation in self defense.

Maybe one day I could enter that fantasy land. But none of the drugs I've taken in my lifetime have ever led me to that delusional world to retroactively make such a simplistic proclamation.

It must be nice to live in such a fantasy that overrides the military experience of the numerous logisticians and military leaders who lived through those experiences and pushed so many innocent civilians who became soldiers to their death in taking island after island that the Japanese conquered and enslaved to make such a proclamation. The numerous blood baths they witnessed along with the factual accounts of the abhorrent conditions the enslaved populations endured, that captured soldiers endured in Southeast Asia and never mind the fact that by the time the U.S. was pushing back the Japanese occupation in the Pacific and China the fact of what their ally in Germany had achieved against the native Jewish population among other native populations in mass genocide......

That they decided to drop two bombs to end the war forgoing an ongoing conflict which the best military minds determined would have resulted in far more allied casualties against a nation industrial complex that exhibited the same atrocities their allies had done.

I wish I could be that much of a moron to retroactively damn after the fact based upon no legitimate argument anyone has presented in this thread such a condemnation of murder.

Go ask the Koreans. Go ask the Chinese. Go ask the many peoples of the Pacific. Go ask the Jews. Go ask the Roma. Go superimpose your idealistic world view upon the actual human beings who lived through that tragedy of mass warfare with your enlightened sense of armchair morality.

The actions of the U.S. and her allies were an act of total war that the Axis nations presented against the rest of the world. The firebombing of Japan was as devastating as what the atomic bombs presented but no one brings that up in the uber moralistic standards of what they think warfare should comprise. That peoples of a nation would react in kind to the extreme destruction aggressor nations presented among them or their allies.

Whenever people try to make absolute proclamations of morality in regards to what transpired in World War II most reasonable people must take a grain of salt. But the absolute condemnation of the accusation of outright murder by people who have obviously not presented an interest in the history of the war only leads to once conclusion.................

yawn.

I'm sorry. The absolute campaign conducted against Korea, Manchuria, China, Southeast Asia and the numerous Pacific Islands by the Japanese is not in question. Never have I read anyone complaining the outright enslavement, genocide and rape of the peoples of those numerous nations but the ultimate response by the U.S. and it's Allies to put an end to that campaign......suddenly they mount a moral high ground of ignorant proportion.

It's boring.

Any intelligent argument someone wants to add to counteract mine I would welcome. Screaming banshees of retroactive moralistic notions......boring.

I'm sorry. But the best estimates place the casualties at 200,000. These numbers pale in comparison to what the Japanese campaigns in Korea, Manchuria, China, Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, etc. came to. The loss of civilian life in those arenas while the Japanese civilians were engaged in carrying out the military industrial machine of the Japanese Army and Navy that led to the loss of life in those areas I mention.

I don't adhere to a simplistic minded view of immediate snapshots of war. There is a totality that must be remembered. The bombing of Nagasaki alone doesn't compare to what the Japanese military with it's civilian backing did in Nanking and the rest of China. The mass loss of life and rape that occurred there. Never mind the culture of not surrendering which I mentioned in my previous post about the Allied invasion of Okinawa and the casualties sustained there compared to what the Allies believed they would sustain in invading Japan to bring an end to the war.

But I'm sure you have jumped on forums denouncing such claims about the disallowance against civilian murder against what the Japanese and German military machines achieved against civilians knowing full well that those machines, as our all military machines, backed by a civilian population.

edit: Please don't bore me and say something intelligent other than "war is wrong". Of course it is. But let's not retroactively place our own moral superiority among people we know nothing of without at least a decent argument.

So we are to toss humanity to the winds - in favor of vengeance on civilians?

So you are saying it would be perfectly fine with you if the Japanese had drooped these same bombs on the USA civilian population, killing hundreds of thousands in the blasts, and hundreds of thousands more with radiation sickness?

And then withheld the pills and info they knew could help them with the resulting sickness?

No matter what the other side does in a war - it is NOT OK to murder civilian populations.

It is hilarious when people start belittling, - such as labeling the opposition to their view, - as simplistic minded.

The USA has killed far more people with it's wars, and meddling in other countries affairs, than Japan ever thought of.

*

 

[Laika]

Voted 'Yes', as I think the Japanese would probably have done the same as the Germans and fought till the end. I think the question is whether that was a sufficient pretext to use them, but we have the luxury of foresight and peace to discuss it.
Truman probably made the 'rational' decision in terms of reducing US casualties based on the assumption that resistance was going to be ferocious. What that says about us as a species, I'm not brave enough to figure out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties
Operation Downfall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Soviets invaded and occupied Manchuria (NE China) and the northern half of Korea in about three weeks (hence why North Korea went communist, not sure it's significance for China). It's a minor footnote in the history of World War II because the US used the Nukes very soon afterwards and that ended the war in the pacific. There is a possibility that continued Soviet intervention would have brought Japan down, but I'm pretty sure the Americans didn't want the Russians occupying the Japanese mainland or any more of China. They already had Eastern Europe to 'play' with and it wasn't long before ideological rivalries kicked in.

Soviet–Japanese War (1945) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nietzsche]

Please explain because I'm not really sure which part of what I posted you're responding to.

Germany, a state with far lower morale, fought until the bitter end, until Hitler shot himself. What makes you think Japan, who had not even been invaded yet, wouldn't?

As far as Okinawa: The people of Okinawa put up in the stiffest resistance the Americans have ever seen. These were civilians. And those who didn't resist committed mass suicide. Okinawa was a taste of what we'd have seen during Downfall.

 

[metis]

Germany, a state with far lower morale, fought until the bitter end, until Hitler shot himself. What makes you think Japan, who had not even been invaded yet, wouldn't?

As far as Okinawa: The people of Okinawa put up in the stiffest resistance the Americans have ever seen. These were civilians. And those who didn't resist committed mass suicide. Okinawa was a taste of what we'd have seen during Downfall.

That only works if one doesn't have the patience. The reality is that Japan's goose was already well-cooked, so a continued blockaid would probably have done the job over time. If they still refused and let their own people die, then that decision would be on their heads, not ours.

 

[Nietzsche]

That only works if one doesn't have the patience. The reality is that Japan's goose was already well-cooked, so a continued blockaid would probably have done the job over time. If they still refused and let their own people die, then that decision would be on their heads, not ours.

...

Do you have any idea how long that would have taken? How many people would have died? Japan was entirely willing and ready to do just what you're suggesting, and it would have taken months, maybe years. Let's go with the highest death toll for both Atomic Bombings, 246,000. Let's round that up to 300,000. Why? Because I could see that number being realistic if you included every single related-death from the following 60 years.

Now, how long would Japan have held out? Not entirely sure. A few years at least. How many would have died? Millions. The riots would have been put down by the Loyalist Factions in the military. The non-Loyalists would might have rebelled, and that would have caused some manner of civil war or such. The starvation alone would kill hundreds of thousands.

How much do you actually know about post-Meji Japan? Because you're betraying quite a bit of ignorance here.

 

[metis]

...

Do you have any idea how long that would have taken? How many people would have died? Japan was entirely willing and ready to do just what you're suggesting, and it would have taken months, maybe years. Let's go with the highest death toll for both Atomic Bombings, 246,000. Let's round that up to 300,000. Why? Because I could see that number being realistic if you included every single related-death from the following 60 years.

Now, how long would Japan have held out? Not entirely sure. A few years at least. How many would have died? Millions. The riots would have been put down by the Loyalist Factions in the military. The non-Loyalists would might have rebelled, and that would have caused some manner of civil war or such. The starvation alone would kill hundreds of thousands.

How much do you actually know about post-Meji Japan? Because you're betraying quite a bit of ignorance here.

First of all, no one knows, including you and I, how long it would last. Secondly, as an anthropologist, I have well studied Japanese culture over the years. Thirdly, since you're so absolutely certain you cannot be wrong and that I am so ignorant on the matter, our conversation just came to an end.

 

[Avi1001]

First of all, no one knows, including you and I, how long it would last. Secondly, as an anthropologist, I have well studied Japanese culture over the years. Thirdly, since you're so absolutely certain you cannot be wrong and that I am so ignorant on the matter, our conversation just came to an end.

Am I reading this right......did you just put the "Übermensch" on ignore....???....

 

[metis]

Am I reading this right......did you just put the "Übermensch" on ignore....???....

No, as I would not do that on the basis of just one post, especially since most of the time I tend to agree with him.

 

[Nietzsche]

First of all, no one knows, including you and I, how long it would last. Secondly, as an anthropologist, I have well studied Japanese culture over the years. Thirdly, since you're so absolutely certain you cannot be wrong and that I am so ignorant on the matter, our conversation just came to an end.

Let's compare. The Japanese had been fighting a war of some kind since 1936, the Marco-Polo Bridge Incident and such. Since they had been pushed back to the Home-Islands, they were no longer fighting for Empire, but for what in their minds was National Survival. The Japanese Authorities had reams and reams of propaganda based around saying that if they surrendered, Japan would meet the same fate as the subjugated African & Asian territories of the British, French & American Empires(Philippines for those unaware of America's case). To a Japanese individual who had been brought up in that country and was well aware of European-American history regarding conquered peoples, what do you think they would think?

In their view the entirety of the "White World" was at their doorstep. Barbarians at the gates. The Nazis fostered this kind of view, albeit less successfully, amongst people who had proof that it wouldn't be that bad. In Japan & Asia? They knew exactly what the Colonial Powers had done. Why would Japan be different?

 

[Nietzsche]

No, as I would not do that on the basis of just one post, especially since most of the time I tend to agree with him.

I apologize for jumping the gun like that. I am used to arguing with people who really don't know much of anything about the War, and use it only to draw inane parallels between today and then.

 

[metis]

I apologize for jumping the gun like that. I am used to arguing with people who really don't know much of anything about the War, and use it only to draw inane parallels between today and then.

No worries, especially since I've not had enough coffee yet to wake me up and realize what just happened.

 

[Frank Bunneh]

If the Japanese didn't invade Canada they wouldn't have been bombed, but this thread reminds me that I should take out my Arisaka and shoot it again, it's a good shooter and bought on the cheap! A weapon is useless if it just collects dust

 

[Nietzsche]

If the Japanese didn't invade Canada they wouldn't have been bombed, but this thread reminds me that I should take out my Arisaka and shoot it again, it's a good shooter and bought on the cheap! A weapon is useless if it just collects dust

what

Japan didn't invade Canada. They had an assault on the Aleutian Islands, but that was about as far as they got in North America.

 

[metis]

I don't care what you all say, I still love sushi.

 

[Frank Bunneh]

Japan didn't invade Canada.

Yes they did and the 6.55 Arisaka was and still is a good shooter

 

[Nietzsche]

Yes they did and the 6.55 Arisaka was and still is a good shooter

I have a Type 38 Calvary Variant.

When did Japan invade Canada?

 

[roger1440]

It is very easy to sit comfortably in our chair and philosophize what should or should not be done during war. War is a nasty game with only one rule, win. During wartime our ideas of what is moral or not is blinded by the pursuit of victory.

“Fight no battle unprepared, fight no battle you are not sure of winning; make every effort to be well prepared for each battle, make every effort to ensure victory in the given set of conditions as between the enemy and ourselves.” (Mao Tse Tung, father of communist China)

Quotations from Mao Tse Tung — Chapter 8