Warbird Information Exchange

I would doubt it only because of the attempted coup by Japanese military hardliners on August 12th after the Emperor announced his intention to surrender. There were almost certainly some people in the Japanese government that wanted to end the war, but they were for the most part not in positions of great influence or power. Except, of course, for Hirohito.

_________________

How about a World Machete Day to remember the 800,000 Rwandians hacked to death in 100 days in 1994. The world has let that episode drift into history.

In the freak-onomics of war, those two terrible bombs saved millions of American and Japanese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVSuUF3K ... re=related

This show does a good job of explaining it. You have to watch it all to really understand all the factors and powers that were in plan. Also remember that there were military that wanted to continue the war after the second bomb was dropped. Agents had to hide the recording of surrender from the military to get it to the radio station.

Very very sad that humanity came to this point in history but I would have done everything I could have to end the war too.

It is good to talk about it for sure and express opinion.

The killing fields of Cambodia, Stalin's purge, Rwanda, etc...there are much worse things done and should be focused on but somehow get a pass with the press and those who set the teaching syllabus in the US. Boy they like to talk about the New Deal and the Teapot Dome Scandal but not little events in US history like WW1 and WW2, Korea and Viet Nam.

Kel

Bill,
If official estimates for the invasion of the home islands solidly were planned in the direction of around 8 to 10 million killed or wounded on both sides, don't you suppose that the War Dept. would have figured on a tremendous amount of hits and bullet holes in troops? Also, if you were in the Army, Navy, Marines, or any other part of the Military machine in June or July of 1945, with Germany surrendered, the war still raging in the Pacific Ocean and your unit got orders to report to a base on the West Coast or in the Pacific, would you think it was for an all expenses paid trip to learn to surf in Hawai'i?
Remember the last episode of 'Band of Brothers' where they are sitting by a lake in Germany and speculating on being sent to the Pacific?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

One of the great challenges with the study of history is that our knowledge of history is always incomplete, and also always expanding and changing as new sources of information become available. Early information - often incomplete information - on historical events becomes "fixed" (as in "set" or "cemented") into the collective consciousness as fact and ends up being difficult to un-fix (change perceptions of) when shown to be incomplete and/or in error.

The situation you describe above is just such an example. The existing belief that the leaders of Japan were trying to find a way to "end the war" prior to the atomic bombs is based mainly on a limited, heavily-redacted series of intelligence documents (Magic/Ultra intercepts and the like) declassified in the 1970s. Read as-is (which I've done), they certainly do present the appearance that Japanese diplomats were engaged in outreach efforts through various neutral parties.

That incomplete information has become "fixed" as "accurate" in the discussions surrounding the atomic bombings, and is used as a prima facie argument in support of the notion that the bombings were unnecessary.

The issue that arises is that the full, unredacted, documents were released in 1995. In their unredacted form, they show a VERY different (and, to existing perceptions of the situation shaped by the 1970s documents, inconvenient) picture. One where the Japanese diplomats engaged in outreach were acting on their own initiative, without approval from their own government, as "peace entrepreneuers", and where the officially-sanctioned Japanese efforts (via the Soviet Union) were intended to bring about not a true "peace" but rather a negotiated settlement that not only preserved the position of the Emperor as sovereign, but also the continued existence of the existing governmental order/power structure. IOW, a peace on the loser's (Japan's) terms, not the victors (Allied Powers).

In this regard, it is important to remember that the Japanese goal was never to "defeat" the US (Adm. Yamamoto's quote about marching into Washington and offering terms to the US President in the White House, among others, having been taken completely out of context), but rather to bleed the US into a negotiated settlement favorable to the existing power order in Japan. While the ultimate desired outcome shifted as the war progressed (from the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere at the beginning to the preservation and perpetuation of the existing order at the end), his mentality was present not only right up to the bombings, but also afterwards (consider the attempted coup that followed the surrender decision).

i've only skimmed this thread......... so i'm sure i've missed pertinent facets, i apologize for any feather ruffling through my laziness. pardon the pun.... it's a hot topic. but nobody has broached the german & japanese pursuit of the bomb. germany had it's set backs re: the technology. japan's war time nuclear bomb research history has been woefully ignored as well. as americans our hands aren't that dirty. these former enemies wouldn't have hesistated for a moment to nuke us if they beat us to the punch.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Inspector, any estimate of "8 to 10 million killed" seems far fetched. Where do you get such figures? The U S forces probably did not number 8 million, and that is probably many times over those killed in all the previous WW II invasions combined. At Normandy, against a stronger fortified coast than Japan had, the Allied losses were around 10,000.

Japan was very depleted at that point, had little navy left, little air power, and the Allies could have softened up the invasion island with airpower and naval power before invading one of the outer islands.. I believe that was the plan.

A soldier going to the west coast may well have speculated on being part of an invasion, but that is not the same as receiving specific orders.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I'm pretty sure that by the end of the fighting on Okinawa there was no doubt that mainland Japan would be the next target. There wasn't much left to choose from. Based on that I don't think there would have been quite the secrecy that surrounded Normandy. There were other options for invasion of Europe.

My Granddaddy was in the 77th ID as a medic. Although he went on to his great reward several years back, I remember him talking about the planned invasion of Japan. When the war ended he was doing amphibious training at Cebu in the Phillipines. They were specifically told when they left Ie Shima that they would be invading mainland Japan soon. I don't recall him saying that the atomic bombs saved him or anything like that but I do recall him saying that he had no doubt that he probably would have died if the invasion had gone through. I do know for certain that he had no qualms about the bombs being used!

I've got a lot of his military stuff but I don't believe I have any of his orders for anything except being sent home based on points instead of going to Japan as part of the occupation. I don't think that's uncommon for the time. Even my Daddy has very little from his time in the Marines, except his discharge papers. Versus me today, I've got every single set of crew orders, deployment orders and weight and balance forms I've ever filled out!

I've never talked to a veteran from that timeframe in the Pacific that wasn't sure he was heading for the invasion. If you have a chance to read the book "The Pacific" by Hugh Ambrose, around page 425 or so it talks about the Marines on Okinawa training for the mainland invasion and the grim prospects of it.

_________________
Brad

you had to have had alot of stars to receive the plans. as to lower ranks nobody received orders pertaining to the invasion. i've read indepth of the invasion plans.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Bill,
8 to 10 million TOTAL casualties, that was based on the best estimates of the War Dept. calculations that the Japanese military and civilian populations would do pretty much what the Russians did and fight to the death to hold the piece of dirt they were standing on probably down to little kids with rifles and other ordinance picked up from fallen victims.

Part of the initial invasion planning involved invading one of the Southernmost Islands (can't redall which one, it's early and I'm tired from moving), taking and holding just the Southern half and building airstrips and staging areas on that, while the rest of the island was to be subdued gradually by ground troops-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

As to soldiers receiving individual orders.... In all probability, it was the major unit that received the orders and everyone else under that command moved in lockstep to the trains, planes and automobiles -- but that is a different movie...

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones

My late father was a member of the 1st Armored Division in Italy when the European war ended. He had a ton of points as he'd been in the combat zone since Operation Torch. He was given several options for further service, one being to go home with the Division to begin training for Pacific service. The "newer" personnel weren't given any options--their orders were to return to the CONUS for training. Dad didn't ever say they were told it was for the invasion of Japan proper, but everyone figured that would be the task. He requested (and was so ordered) to stay in Italy for a short time with the Occupation forces, then home and back to the farm.

S

Sure. Of course. And while we're at it, please tell me how the damage caused by nuclear weapons would be confined to just the "enemy". Look at how allied soldiers who have been around depleted uranium rounds and the vehicles destroyed by them suffer from radiation sicknesses, as do their newborn and family members, as do the civilians we are allegedly there to defend and protect.

When we say that we'd use nuclear weapons, how can we not be saying that we'd be using them also on our own citizenry, when we take into account how radiation travels indiscriminately on wind and water currents, food supply, etc?

You want to "win" a war? Then I suggest that you don't get into one to begin with. I am inclined to think that America lost the Second War just as much as Germany, Italy and Japan did when I consider the 65 years of ill advised and misguided follies across the globe that stemmed from the (false) sense of bravado that came from having "won" the Second War.[/quote]


You do know DEPLETED Uranium emits less radiation then some granite countertops in people's homes correct? That's what they mean by depleted. Heck the radium in most of our aircraft emits more.
Whoever told you about that is outright wrong.

Now.... the Uranium cloud from the impact can cause a chemical pneumonitis, but not "radiation sickness".

Please give sources for this claim as my research ( holding a BS in chemistry and an MD degree with specialization boarding in Emergency Medicine, and specialized training in radiation disasters) has told me otherwise.

You too sound sorry the US and allies won the war. Just like the POTUS basically said "sorry" for marching the Japanese gov't across the Mighty Mo to sign the surrender papers with just about every plane we could get overhead. Are you too uncomfortable with the word "victory"?[quote="oscardeuce"]


Odeuce-How fortunate we are to have someone with all your academic credentials and training ("a BS in chemistry and an MD degree with specialization boarding in Emergency Medicine, and specialized training in radiation disasters") here to enlighten us with all your knowledge. In fact your schooling is so vast that I'm more than a little surprised (following?) that you seem to be threatened/angry/made insecure/whatever by the words of someone who from time to time thinks just a teensy weensy bit outside of the box...

Here's a source that you ask for: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/
You'll find several thousand others-take your pick-by Googling "depleted uranium rounds, radiation" that make my original point that these rounds are as deadly to those who shoot them as they are to those who are struck by them.

"Now.... the Uranium cloud from the impact can cause a chemical pneumonitis, but not "radiation sickness"." BFD...WHO CARES? The point I was making, Oscardeuce, is that there are long term consequences from using this type of ordinance that either result in a terrible death for those who have been around them or for their kin, or perhaps just as heinous, result in a life that is torture to live. Look it up.

Is the real solution to not using nukes again getting into a pi$$ing match (with skunks sometimes ) here at WIX? Nowhere I look have I seen a call to divest ourselves of our addiction to petroleum. Not on this post, not on Huffington Post, not with the douche, oh, sorry, tea baggers, not with Republicans and not with Democrats have I read ANYTHING saying that the real way out of most of our delemas today might very well be changing the provenance of at least most of our energy supplies and letting the oil companies and the Arab states be damned. NOBODY is talking about developing the alternate sources of energy that are available to us. If we started doing that how long would it be before we forgot where Astan, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., etc., were on the map?

"Uncomfortable with the word 'victory'?" Hardly. Adverse to Pyrrhic victories? Always.

If there was a little less handwringing over use of nuclear weapons 65 years ago, we probably would have made better use of our time to develop cleaner nuke power generation.
Mankind's ability to destroy itself with wooden sticks, blades, bullets, chemicals, fire, gases, starvation and yes, big bombs will continue until it disappears from this orb.
Try to treat your fellow man with a little kindness, but remember as a herd we are but animals.

I agree.

The current POTUS has already taken it off the table.

I'd gladly trade enemy lives for allied lives any day. As horrible as it is, to paraphrase a great American: you don't win by dying for your country, you win my making the other man die for his country.[/quote]

Sure. Of course. And while we're at it, please tell me how the damage caused by nuclear weapons would be confined to just the "enemy". Look at how allied soldiers who have been around depleted uranium rounds and the vehicles destroyed by them suffer from radiation sicknesses, as do their newborn and family members, as do the civilians we are allegedly there to defend and protect.

When we say that we'd use nuclear weapons, how can we not be saying that we'd be using them also on our own citizenry, when we take into account how radiation travels indiscriminately on wind and water currents, food supply, etc?

You want to "win" a war? Then I suggest that you don't get into one to begin with. I am inclined to think that America lost the Second War just as much as Germany, Italy and Japan did when I consider the 65 years of ill advised and misguided follies across the globe that stemmed from the (false) sense of bravado that came from having "won" the Second War.[/quote]


You do know DEPLETED Uranium emits less radiation then some granite countertops in people's homes correct? That's what they mean by depleted. Heck the radium in most of our aircraft emits more.
Whoever told you about that is outright wrong.

Now.... the Uranium cloud from the impact can cause a chemical pneumonitis, but not "radiation sickness".

Please give sources for this claim as my research ( holding a BS in chemistry and an MD degree with specialization boarding in Emergency Medicine, and specialized training in radiation disasters) has told me otherwise.

You too sound sorry the US and allies won the war. Just like the POTUS basically said "sorry" for marching the Japanese gov't across the Mighty Mo to sign the surrender papers with just about every plane we could get overhead. Are you too uncomfortable with the word "victory"?[/quote]


Odeuce-How fortunate we are to have someone with all your academic credentials and training ("a BS in chemistry and an MD degree with specialization boarding in Emergency Medicine, and specialized training in radiation disasters") here to enlighten us with all your knowledge. In fact your schooling is so vast that I'm more than a little surprised (following?) that you seem to be threatened/angry/made insecure/whatever by the words of someone who from time to time thinks just a teensy weensy bit outside of the box...

Here's a source that you ask for: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/
You'll find several thousand others-take your pick-by Googling "depleted uranium rounds, radiation" that make my original point that these rounds are as deadly to those who shoot them as they are to those who are struck by them.

"Now.... the Uranium cloud from the impact can cause a chemical pneumonitis, but not "radiation sickness"." BFD...WHO CARES? The point I was making, Oscardeuce, is that there are long term consequences from using this type of ordinance that either result in a terrible death for those who have been around them or for their kin, or perhaps just as heinous, result in a life that is torture to live. Look it up.

Is the real solution to not using nukes again getting into a pi$$ing match (with skunks sometimes ) here at WIX? Nowhere I look do I see a call to divest ourselves of our addiction to petroleum. Wouldn't doing so also divest ourselves many of our never ending wars?

Not on this post, not on Huffington Post, not with the douche, oh, sorry, tea baggers, not with Republicans and not with Democrats have I read ANYTHING saying that the real way out of most of our delemas today might very well be changing the provenance of at least most of our energy supplies and letting the oil companies and the Arab states be damned. NOBODY is talking about developing the alternate sources of energy that are available to us. If we started doing that how long would it be before we forgot where Astan, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., etc., were on the map?

"Uncomfortable with the word 'victory'?" Hardly. Adverse to Pyrrhic victories? Always.[/quote]


I add my credentials only to show I have some knowledge of the topic (as did you). I'm glad you make such light of 12 years of learning after I finished high school.

I do not believe anything that come from Rep Kucinich, he's basically ruined northern Ohio.

Like I said before there are many emitters out there worse than DU. What about all that copper and lead in our bullets? I'm sure there is a problem there too!?

Some may be sitting in your house. By some of those articles, radium containing instruments are WMD's. How many of us have them? I've tested mine and yup, they radiate. Many instruments in the O2-A emit also. I spent 3 days cataloging and marking the instruments and parts of instruments at MAPS. Heck the stuff laying around there's enough to make the NRC worried. We have alpha emitters in smoke detectors. I sure hope you don't spend much time above 20,000ft ASL, as that also greatly increases the amount of radiation you are exposed to.

The only viable "alternate energy" IMHO is fusion. The only exhaust would be He. That is light enough to leave the atmosphere. We are no where near a viable fusion reactor, but until then we are stuck with fission,oil, coal and gas.

Until the world is perfect, war will be a fact we cannot duck. We need to be ready to do all we can to be sure we protect our citizens. If I were POTUS, nothing would be off the table. At the very least I would want the otherside wondering and worried about the response. Not everything would hit the level of pushing the button, but the deterant would be there. It seemed to work well during the cold war (at least we didn't go MAD on each other), but now we face asymmetric threats that need to be dealt with just as forcfully.

I'm not glad Truman dropped those bombs, but I feel he made the right choice. He traded enemy lives for our lives. A tough decision, but when you take on that job, you know it will be full of them. I'm sure the Germans or the Japanese would have used them had they the chance. It so this would probably be written in another language. I am glad we won, we rebuilt those nations to the point they challenge us today. Has any culture rewarded their enemies with that gift? How did the victors treat the defeated in SEA? I did not see much rebuilding with the Hmong.......