State of mind

Skeptical wrote:
Not really.

At the Potsdam Conference (17 July to 2 August 1945), after Germany's unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945,[1] the Allies divided "Occupation Zone Germany" into four military occupation zones — France in the southwest, Britain in the northwest, the United States in the south, and the Soviet Union in the east

The Soviet military forces did not need to invade, they were already in Germany as part of the allied effort to defeat Germany.

Sure it is, because they tried to force peace on the people. You cannot force another country to accept your version of peace, you need to let them find it themselves. Which is why West Germany (at the time) and Japan have flourished so wonderfully.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Not really.

At the Potsdam Conference (17 July to 2 August 1945), after Germany's unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945,[1] the Allies divided "Occupation Zone Germany" into four military occupation zones — France in the southwest, Britain in the northwest, the United States in the south, and the Soviet Union in the east

The Soviet military forces did not need to invade, they were already in Germany as part of the allied effort to defeat Germany.

Sure it is, because they tried to force peace on the people. You cannot force another country to accept your version of peace, you need to let them find it themselves. Which is why West Germany (at the time) and Japan have flourished so wonderfully.

Yeah, because the Enola Gay dropping the bomb on Japan really didn't force peace on them. They voluntarily wanted peace....

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Not really.

At the Potsdam Conference (17 July to 2 August 1945), after Germany's unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945,[1] the Allies divided "Occupation Zone Germany" into four military occupation zones — France in the southwest, Britain in the northwest, the United States in the south, and the Soviet Union in the east

The Soviet military forces did not need to invade, they were already in Germany as part of the allied effort to defeat Germany.

Sure it is, because they tried to force peace on the people. You cannot force another country to accept your version of peace, you need to let them find it themselves. Which is why West Germany (at the time) and Japan have flourished so wonderfully.

Granted East Germany was occupied by the Soviets but there was no war per se. One can say there was peace. We may not like that version of peace but yet it existed.

BladeRunner wrote:
Yeah, because the Enola Gay dropping the bomb on Japan really didn't force peace on them. They voluntarily wanted peace....

That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that.

Skeptical wrote:
Granted East Germany was occupied by the Soviets but there was no war per se.  One can say there was peace.  We may not like that version of peace but yet it existed.

There was plenty of conflict, which is why lots of people tried to flee East Germany. It might as well still been a war zone. Except instead of bullets it was starvation.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Granted East Germany was occupied by the Soviets but there was no war per se.  One can say there was peace.  We may not like that version of peace but yet it existed.

There was plenty of conflict, which is why lots of people tried to flee East Germany. It might as well still been a war zone. Except instead of bullets it was starvation.

Didn't you say the Soviets invaded Germany?

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:
Yeah, because the Enola Gay dropping the bomb on Japan really didn't force peace on them. They voluntarily wanted peace....

That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that.

The stupid is strong in this one. ^

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:
Yeah, because the Enola Gay dropping the bomb on Japan really didn't force peace on them. They voluntarily wanted peace....

That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that.

No they werent. The Japanese Supreme Council for the most part were in favor of continuing the war. As history recalls they were divided over whether the attempt to inflict as many casualties on the U.S. in an invasion hoping to negotiate better terms of surrender vs having negotiations with the Soviets in an attempt to negotiate better terms. The late entry of the Soviets into the war plus the A bombing of Nagasaki proved too much for Emperor Hirihito who ordered the Supreme Council to accept the unconditional surrender. Crikers, your history is the pits.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:
Yeah, because the Enola Gay dropping the bomb on Japan really didn't force peace on them. They voluntarily wanted peace....

That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that.

I am curious, what historical document did you delve that from?

nightlight88 wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:
Yeah, because the Enola Gay dropping the bomb on Japan really didn't force peace on them. They voluntarily wanted peace....

That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that.

I am curious, what historical document did you delve that from?

He doesn't need any

BladeRunner wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:
Yeah, because the Enola Gay dropping the bomb on Japan really didn't force peace on them. They voluntarily wanted peace....

That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that.

I am curious, what historical document did you delve that from?

He doesn't need any

Ahhhhh yessssss

the good old progressive "FEEEEEELING"

nightlight88 wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:
Yeah, because the Enola Gay dropping the bomb on Japan really didn't force peace on them. They voluntarily wanted peace....

That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that.

I am curious, what historical document did you delve that from?

Mr Addams is partially correct in that the cabinet of the Japan didn't want to surrender for their history told of them never losing wars. There are a lot of ancient civilizations that prided themselves upon that. However there was one very important person who had the emperor's ear, Shun'ichi Kase. While the Big Six (Japan) were considering the offer thanks to that diplomat's words, sadly the US didn't give them time. Which is where hindsight is 20/20.

To answer your question however is the book Japan's Decision to Surrender.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:
Yeah, because the Enola Gay dropping the bomb on Japan really didn't force peace on them. They voluntarily wanted peace....

That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that.

I am curious, what historical document did you delve that from?

Mr Addams is partially correct in that the cabinet of the Japan didn't want to surrender for their history told of them never losing wars. There are a lot of ancient civilizations that prided themselves upon that. However there was one very important person who had the emperor's ear, Shun'ichi Kase. While the Big Six (Japan) were considering the offer thanks to that diplomat's words, sadly the US didn't give them time. Which is where hindsight is 20/20.

To answer your question however is the book Japan's Decision to Surrender.

How long after the first bomb was dropped did they drop the second? Seems like there was adequate time and damn sure adequate motive to surrender.

Darth Cheney wrote:
How long after the first bomb was dropped did they drop the second?  Seems like there was adequate time and damn sure adequate motive to surrender.

3 days. Not what I would call time friendly.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:
Yeah, because the Enola Gay dropping the bomb on Japan really didn't force peace on them. They voluntarily wanted peace....

That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that.

Are you claiming the Japanese Empire had already decided to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki had A bombs dropped on them?

Skeptical wrote:
Are you claiming the Japanese Empire had already decided to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki had A bombs dropped on them?

I'm saying they were considering it and hindsight being 20/20 it sucks we did what we did without a lot of thought. We are talking less than two months after the initial testing to using it on a local populace of civilians.

I do not believe that was right, not a popular view of the "glory" days I'm sure but the "greatest generation" is the one that has made the majority of human rights mistakes.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Are you claiming the Japanese Empire had already decided to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki had A bombs dropped on them?

I'm saying they were considering it and hindsight being 20/20 it sucks we did what we did without a lot of thought. We are talking less than two months after the initial testing to using it on a local populace of civilians.

I do not believe that was right, not a popular view of the "glory" days I'm sure but the "greatest generation" is the one that has made the majority of human rights mistakes.

According to the source you stated as using for your claim, "That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that", in reference to using the A bomb on Japan,

Butow went to Japan, interviewed the surviving leaders, read the documents, and remembered that people don't always tell you the truth, or even remember it. When he was done, his considered judgement was that the Japanese leaders themselves didn't know when they would have surrendered if Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't been nuked.
Butow lays out the inner workings of the Japanese war cabinet, showing how a few men refused to face the fact that Japan had lost World War II. He tells how Japanese diplomats overseas tried to get peace negotiations going, only to be undercut by their own govt. He describes the way the Allies tried and failed to understand Japan.
We'll never know what would have happened if the atomic bombs had not been dropped. But after reading JAPAN'S DECISION TO SURRENDER, you'll understand -- if you're honest -- how the Japanese leadership dithered away their chance to avoid the holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and why Truman felt he had no better option than using the atomic bomb

Doesn't agree with what you claimed about they were ready to surrender,


You might want to go study a little more history of that portion of WW2 and in particular against the Japanese.  If the Japanese were willing to have at least 75,000 troops killed (that is known) defending a piece of real estate 16 miles long and 12 miles wide (the southern portion of Okinawa) how many do you think would die when the Japanese homeland was invaded?

Skeptical wrote:
According to the source you stated as using for your claim, "That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that", in reference to using the A bomb on Japan,

Butow went to Japan, interviewed the surviving leaders, read the documents, and remembered that people don't always tell you the truth, or even remember it. When he was done, his considered judgement was that the Japanese leaders themselves didn't know when they would have surrendered if Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't been nuked.
Butow lays out the inner workings of the Japanese war cabinet, showing how a few men refused to face the fact that Japan had lost World War II. He tells how Japanese diplomats overseas tried to get peace negotiations going, only to be undercut by their own govt. He describes the way the Allies tried and failed to understand Japan.
We'll never know what would have happened if the atomic bombs had not been dropped. But after reading JAPAN'S DECISION TO SURRENDER, you'll understand -- if you're honest -- how the Japanese leadership dithered away their chance to avoid the holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and why Truman felt he had no better option than using the atomic bomb

Doesn't agree with what you claimed about they were ready to surrender,


You might want to go study a little more history of that portion of WW2 and in particular against the Japanese.  If the Japanese were willing to have at least 75,000 troops killed (that is known) defending a piece of real estate 16 miles long and 12 miles wide (the southern portion of Okinawa) how many do you think would die when the Japanese homeland was invaded?

Japanese honor is far more important than you seem to give it credit for, which is why I'm not surprised you don't understand their culture well enough to know they were defeated and ready to surrender.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
According to the source you stated as using for your claim, "That was also a huge mistake, they were ready to surrender before that", in reference to using the A bomb on Japan,

Butow went to Japan, interviewed the surviving leaders, read the documents, and remembered that people don't always tell you the truth, or even remember it. When he was done, his considered judgement was that the Japanese leaders themselves didn't know when they would have surrendered if Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't been nuked.
Butow lays out the inner workings of the Japanese war cabinet, showing how a few men refused to face the fact that Japan had lost World War II. He tells how Japanese diplomats overseas tried to get peace negotiations going, only to be undercut by their own govt. He describes the way the Allies tried and failed to understand Japan.
We'll never know what would have happened if the atomic bombs had not been dropped. But after reading JAPAN'S DECISION TO SURRENDER, you'll understand -- if you're honest -- how the Japanese leadership dithered away their chance to avoid the holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and why Truman felt he had no better option than using the atomic bomb

Doesn't agree with what you claimed about they were ready to surrender,


You might want to go study a little more history of that portion of WW2 and in particular against the Japanese.  If the Japanese were willing to have at least 75,000 troops killed (that is known) defending a piece of real estate 16 miles long and 12 miles wide (the southern portion of Okinawa) how many do you think would die when the Japanese homeland was invaded?

Japanese honor is far more important than you seem to give it credit for, which is why I'm not surprised you don't understand their culture well enough to know they were defeated and ready to surrender.

Speaking of Japanese culture and the battle for Okinawa, have you visited Suicide Cliff, the Shuri Castle, the memorials near Okinawa City, or talked to many Ryukyuan people.  There are estimates as many as 150,000 civilians were killed in the battle on Okinawa and they were tired of war.  Yes, the non combatants for the most part wanted the war to be over but they did not make policy the, the leaders  in Tokyo did.

What it boils down to is the people may have been ready to surrender but the leaders weren't.

Skeptical wrote:
Speaking of Japanese culture and the battle for Okinawa, have you visited Suicide Cliff, the Shuri Castle, the memorials near Okinawa City, or talked to many Ryukyuan people.  There are estimates as many as 150,000 civilians were killed in the battle on Okinawa and they were tired of war.  Yes, the non combatants for the most part wanted the war to be over but they did not make policy the, the leaders  in Tokyo did.

What it boils down to is the people may have been ready to surrender but the leaders weren't.

Which is why I think we should have waited. They easily could have been a public outcry had we waited longer after the offer of surrender was rejected, or even use it on an island that wasn't inhabited by millions.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Speaking of Japanese culture and the battle for Okinawa, have you visited Suicide Cliff, the Shuri Castle, the memorials near Okinawa City, or talked to many Ryukyuan people.  There are estimates as many as 150,000 civilians were killed in the battle on Okinawa and they were tired of war.  Yes, the non combatants for the most part wanted the war to be over but they did not make policy the, the leaders  in Tokyo did.

What it boils down to is the people may have been ready to surrender but the leaders weren't.

Which is why I think we should have waited. They easily could have been a public outcry had we waited longer after the offer of surrender was rejected, or even use it on an island that wasn't inhabited by millions.

What would've a demonstration detonation accomplished that the firebombing of Toyko, which was witnessed by millions of Japanaese, didn't? Between 100K - 200K people died and over 15 square miles were reduced to ashes, more death and damage than Hiroshima saw.

Besides, there was only enough material to build two bombs leaving only 1 bomb if the demonstration failed or failed to convince the Japanese to surrender. If the Japanese had not surrendered after Nagasaki the U.S. would have been forced to return to firebombing although there was very precious little left to bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were the only remaining population centers that hadn't been bombed. Japan was completely hollowed by the B29s.

Not only did the A bomb save thousands of American lives it, ironically, saved 100s of thousands of Japanese lives.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
What would've a demonstration detonation accomplished that the firebombing of Toyko, which was witnessed by millions of Japanaese, didn't?  Between 100K - 200K people died and over 15 square miles were reduced to ashes, more death and damage than Hiroshima saw.

Besides, there was only enough material to build two bombs leaving only 1 bomb if the demonstration failed or failed to convince the Japanese to surrender. If the Japanese had not surrendered after Nagasaki the U.S. would have been forced to return to firebombing although there was very precious little left to bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were the only remaining population centers that hadn't been bombed. Japan was completely hollowed by the B29s.

Not only did the A bomb save thousands of American lives it, ironically, saved 100s of thousands of Japanese lives.

Sure that played a part and brought it to their attention, but don't try to say that the bombs dropped resulted in less deaths than the fire bombings. That is so horribly distorted especially with the radiation poisoning for decades later.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
What would've a demonstration detonation accomplished that the firebombing of Toyko, which was witnessed by millions of Japanaese, didn't?  Between 100K - 200K people died and over 15 square miles were reduced to ashes, more death and damage than Hiroshima saw.

Besides, there was only enough material to build two bombs leaving only 1 bomb if the demonstration failed or failed to convince the Japanese to surrender. If the Japanese had not surrendered after Nagasaki the U.S. would have been forced to return to firebombing although there was very precious little left to bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were the only remaining population centers that hadn't been bombed. Japan was completely hollowed by the B29s.

Not only did the A bomb save thousands of American lives it, ironically, saved 100s of thousands of Japanese lives.

Sure that played a part and brought it to their attention, but don't try to say that the bombs dropped resulted in less deaths than the fire bombings. That is so horribly distorted especially with the radiation poisoning for decades later.  

Well, Mrs Chamberlain, I am glad you weren't there making the decisions.

nightlight88 wrote:
Well, Mrs Chamberlain, I am glad you weren't there making the decisions.

I only hope we never have to suffer a similar fate and that if it comes to that decision the other side will be far more understanding than we were.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:
Well, Mrs Chamberlain, I am glad you weren't there making the decisions.

I only hope we never have to suffer a similar fate and that if it comes to that decision the other side will be far more understanding than we were.

The most effective way of preventing the scenario you fear is to make certain the "other side" does not have the capability to make this country hope the "other side" is "understanding" !