General Discussion

One_Life_To_Give

(6,036 posts)

77. Wasn't possible regardless desirability

Tue May 31, 2016, 12:00 PM

May 2016

MacArthur was of a mind to force NK to unconditional surrender, but China had other ideas about having a democracy on their border. And it also risked drawing the Soviet Union further into the conflict. The choice was more like accept something less the total surrender or win WW3.

While in Aug 45 their ability was limited the desire was still there with the leadership. It would have become a continuing police action. Within 10 years we might have been right back at it.

on edit:

The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly.

- Japanese slogan in the summer of 1945.

Japan was finished as a warmaking nation, in spite of its four million men still under arms. But...Japan was not going to quit. Despite the fact that she was militarily finished, Japan's leaders were going to fight right on. To not lose "face" was more important than hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives. And the people concurred, in silence, without protest. To continue was no longer a question of Japanese military thinking, it was an aspect of Japanese culture and psychology.

- James Jones, WWII

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In defense of Harry S. Truman and the decision he had to make. [View all] MohRokTah May 2016 OP

Yes. He most certainly did. Press Virginia May 2016 #1

I say this with skin in the game. MohRokTah May 2016 #5

Yeah me too 47of74 May 2016 #21

My dad had started the war fighting the Japanese, later doing interdiction on German shipping and braddy May 2016 #33

Hindsight is always 20/20... Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #2

And yet people want that job so badly. tavernier May 2016 #3

Sorry. can't defend genocide. (nt) stone space May 2016 #4

Claiming it was genocide is ridiculous. eom MohRokTah May 2016 #6

Oh, silly me! stone space May 2016 #8

Yes, claiming it was genocide is the height of falsehood. eom MohRokTah May 2016 #9

The word does not mean what he thinks it means. Press Virginia May 2016 #11

Given that more than 120 million people of Japanese descent still live in Japan, ... MohRokTah May 2016 #12

I don't think that word means what you think it means. nt TeamPooka May 2016 #18

Ridiculous. mwooldri May 2016 #19

There's also the problem of no one blaming the Japanese leaders fort their role Bucky May 2016 #7

He had two bombs in the entire arsenal. MohRokTah May 2016 #10

That feels like a good argument, but the documentary record doesn't support it Bucky May 2016 #34

Using nuclear weapons (and primarily against civilians) will always be indefensible. NT LostOne4Ever May 2016 #13

But only 71 years after the fact. eom MohRokTah May 2016 #14

No it was wrong then too. nt LostOne4Ever May 2016 #16

Completely disagree. MohRokTah May 2016 #23

I'll take General MacArthur over yourself, thanks Scootaloo May 2016 #29

and yet seven years later that same MacArthur got fired by that same Truman... Bucky May 2016 #35

You're doing fine with just using logic Bucky May 2016 #40

It's May, not August. roamer65 May 2016 #15

Fuck Nuclear Genocide! (nt) stone space May 2016 #17

Even if one accepts that, one nuke was enough. Japan was badly beaten already. They weren't a threat Hoyt May 2016 #20

But of course Truman's job was also about making sure Japan wouldn't be a future threat Bucky May 2016 #36

Well, we didn't nuke Germany -- can't help but believe the fact Japanese are Asian had something Hoyt May 2016 #43

Maybe you should learn some history before jumping right to racism Lee-Lee May 2016 #45

Would you take Eisenhower's opinion: Hoyt May 2016 #51

Germany was never considered because targeting discussion started in spring 1945 Lee-Lee May 2016 #57

No, targeting and planning started long before. Hoyt May 2016 #58

No, it didn't- you clearly don't have a clue Lee-Lee May 2016 #62

This is why you have to study facts before arguing Bucky May 2016 #48

The plan was in place for over a year before, they ruled out Germany. Considering the time, and way Hoyt May 2016 #91

Nonsense MosheFeingold May 2016 #90

We would have nuked Germany. MohRokTah May 2016 #94

Germany was always first at bat. xmas74 May 2016 #96

Over a million soldiers, under arms, in the China theater at the time of surrender Hoyt... Marengo May 2016 #42

I know, and Vietnamese and Iraqis were threat to us too. There's always some BS argument for killing Hoyt May 2016 #46

Ah, so fuck everyone in territories occupied by Japanese forces... Marengo May 2016 #68

Yeah, our segregated troops, internment of Japanese, etc., indicate we were morally superior. Hoyt May 2016 #73

LOL! Please cite allied atrocities on the scale of the Imperial Japanese Marengo May 2016 #74

We are talking about the end of the war and whether it was necessary to nuke them. Even Eisenhower Hoyt May 2016 #76

Did Imperial Japanese forces surrender prior to the bombings? Marengo May 2016 #80

Without our intervention, Europe would have been screwed. yeoman6987 May 2016 #83

By the time we decided to kill innocent Japanese, they were no threat to anyone. They were worse Hoyt May 2016 #88

The Chinese? Who were shooting at us a few years later? jberryhill May 2016 #82

And what of China circa 1931-45? The same China that fought Japan virtually alone... Marengo May 2016 #87

(ha ha, the Russians sure made 'em look that way!) Bucky May 2016 #50

1,385,000 excluding Manchuria, and as I remember the Soviets had little interest... Marengo May 2016 #65

The Racist, Militarist Leadership Had Plenty Of Chance To End The War Vogon_Glory May 2016 #22

Several years ago there was an excellent program called The War question everything May 2016 #24

I just wish the atomic bomb had been ready a couple of years earlier. Nye Bevan May 2016 #25

Blowing up children while they play is good, you see DemocraticWing May 2016 #26

Thanks. In addition, there was no TV, no internet and the US was attacked by the JDPriestly May 2016 #27

Read "Racing the Enemy" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa Bucky May 2016 #37

Hiroshima was a horrible event, but the decision to drop the bomb JDPriestly May 2016 #86

There were tens of thousands of Allied POW's and civilians imprisoned in slave labor camps Trust Buster May 2016 #28

First, it's Harry S Truman jberryhill May 2016 #30

Tens thousands of US POW's and other nations slave laborers being starved and worked to death Lee-Lee May 2016 #47

And the North Koreans were more reasonable? jberryhill May 2016 #61

There was no "North Korea" then Lee-Lee May 2016 #63

The Japanese had little ability left to project military force jberryhill May 2016 #70

Wasn't possible regardless desirability One_Life_To_Give May 2016 #77

Odd how so many ignore the 1.3 million troops in the China theater... Marengo May 2016 #81

It would have been nice to have had the Japanese in China in August 1950 jberryhill May 2016 #84

Sure, as Imperial Japanese rule was oh-so progressive and beneficial... Marengo May 2016 #93

There was no way Operation Olympic would not have taken place Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #95

I presume you mean the invasion planned for 1946 MisterP May 2016 #31

Your defense of the Party is noted.... blackspade May 2016 #32

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? Bucky May 2016 #38

Bombing civilian targets was thought to be an effective way... blackspade May 2016 #67

I think Japan demonstrated the complete opposite of your point metalbot Jun 2016 #100

As a way of ending the war yes, it was a losing strategy . blackspade Jun 2016 #102

Trying to have a reasonable discussion with Hate-America-Firsters is a futile act. Odin2005 May 2016 #39

Discussion is never a futile act Bucky May 2016 #41

The problem is, it is RARELY an actual discussion. NT Adrahil May 2016 #54

Yes, it's impossible to have a discussion with people who think we can never do wrong. alarimer May 2016 #44

"Hate-America-Firsters"? Did you get that from the National Review? stone space May 2016 #55

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. Odin2005 May 2016 #89

Yet we have a responsibility to make sure those are the last two atomic weapons used in war. moriah May 2016 #49

Having read through most of the posts here so far, pangaia May 2016 #52

I agree. auntpurl May 2016 #53

Harry saved American lives. GOLGO 13 May 2016 #56

watched a show on pbs last night about suicide attacks by japan towards the end of ww2 dembotoz May 2016 #59

I'm standing right beside you!!!!! My dad (first Marine landing of WWII on Guadalcanal) tonyt53 May 2016 #60

I think the fact that they didn't surrender after the first one give you a pretty arely staircase May 2016 #64

The U.S.A. didn't build just a few bombs, we built huge bomb factories. hunter May 2016 #66

There were exactly TWO bombs in existence before Hiroshima MohRokTah May 2016 #69

Oh bother. Like I said, do the math. hunter May 2016 #71

I was in the European Theatre MosheFeingold May 2016 #72

Needs no defense. Absolutely correct decision. nt LexVegas May 2016 #75

The second bomb should have waited JPZenger May 2016 #78

Japan invaded China in 1931... 3-4 million Chinese soldiers 20 million Chinese civilians died 4139 May 2016 #79

And had we let the Japanese finish, we wouldn't have to fight Chinese and Koreans OR Vietnamese jberryhill May 2016 #85

Criticize it?? I celebrate it. My grandfather was in the pacific GummyBearz May 2016 #92

My grandpa was a ranger xmas74 May 2016 #97

Every unit in the ET was on standby for transfer to the Pacific after Germany surrendered. MohRokTah May 2016 #98

And he had already been a POW once. xmas74 Jun 2016 #99

My dad was in the first US island landing of WWII on Guadalcanal tonyt53 Jun 2016 #101

My uncle, who served as a recon pilot in the Pacific in WWII, felt the same way. Larkspur Jun 2016 #103

Not that I probably woulda been against it tirebiter Sep 2022 #104