The "Bomb"

No, it wasn't.

Roger's statement to which I politely replied baloney was... "The invasion would have been a military conflict with primarily military casualties.."

In Okinawa, There were 142, 000 civilian casualties, counting forced conscriptions. That far exceeds the number of Japanese military casualties.

There is no reason to expect the result to be any different in an invasion of the Japanese homeland. It might be far worse.

 

As compared to the invasion of Germany's Homeland---according to Stephen Ambrose's account of the 101st Airborne's trek through Germany after the standoff at Hagganaeu

According to Ambrose---German citizens were hospitable and more than welcomed the "Yanks"

 

You should watch a documentary called Nanking. Japanese ripping Chinese infants from their mothers and throwing them up in the air and impaling them on their bayonets as their sick idea of a game. What goes around comes around.

 

I was born before the bombs fell on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Judging by what was said by the returning GI's (my father one of them, a germ warefare officer) Truman's decision for the A-bombs being used on the Japanese civilian population was to demoralize the general public and break their trust and devotion to Hirohito.

It worked but at a horrible price which both nations mourn to this very day.

It's true, war is hell indeed.

HankD

 

I never said it was justifiable. I used an expression that is often true in human existence. It is a mystery, but one can't read the Bible without observing that God has used (uses?) countries (even evil countries) to punish the sin of other countries.

 

Can you source the 142,000 figure? The figure Wikipedia gives (not the best source, granted) is 100,000 Japanese soldiers and "tens of thousands" of civilians.

Actually, I have given reasons why an invasion of Japan may not have had civilians fighting on the Japanese side. My reasons are from decades of living in Japan and an intimate knowledge of the Japanese, their thinking and their society. The American "experts on Japan" who originally did the analyses of the possibilities for the American military did so with incomplete knowledge, most having never lived in Japan and some having never even visited there. Ruth Benedict, author of The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, was one Allied "expert" who had never even visited Japan.

The main mistake Benedict and others of her ilk made was in thinking bushido, the "way of the warrior," was something all Japanese held to. (By the way, Inazo Nitobe's book Bushido, a major source for many of these "experts," was a defense of the philosophy, not a scholarly presentation, and therefore filled with false impressions.) The truth is, feudal Japan had a caste system in which the samurai who held to bushido were at the top, but the farmers, artisans, merchants and burakumin were not trained in bushido. (See http://asianhistory.about.com/od/japan/p/ShogJapanClass.htm)

So since the average Japanese did not hold to bushido, and the descendants of the samurai were mostly in the military, I really don't believe the average Japanese would have fought the invaders.

 

It was the WW2 air war between Germany and England which started the mass killing of civilians between theoretically civilized nations.

 

Doesn't matter whether they actually take up arms or not. They would still die in large numbers. Just as in Okinawa.

Over 30% of the civilian population died.

 

Speculation.

You still haven't sourced this. How do I know these are the official US Army figures? And by the way, BB rules require that you source quotes.

Here is a Japanese Wiki article that is well footnoted and gives the figure of 38,754 for civilian deaths (not including those impressed by the Japanese army, which was given as 28,228):
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/沖縄戦#cite_note-megumi-46
So who do I believe, your unsourced figures or the Japanese sourced figures? The truth is we'll never know, since even this Japanese article talks about the absolute chaos of the battle, the incomplete figures on every hand, and the confusion after the war.

Edited in: P. S. Just as a matter of history, this Japanese article also makes the point that one reason for the death of so many civilians was that they did not obey the evacuation order.

 

As is your contention that civilian casualties would not be very many.

However, my speculation is based on facts in evidence. Two thirds of the civilian population of Saipan died and a third of the civilians on Okinawa died. These numbers are fact. I don't care if you believe the U.S. Army or not.

The only evidence you have presented for your speculation is purely anecdotal, with no facts in evidence. All you really have is your speculation.

But even if you are correct and the figures would be closer to 10% civilian casualties, how many would that be? 6 or 7 million. Even if prior WWII historical data were totally off base and the figure ended up closer to 2%. How many would that be? 1.2 to 1.4 million.

Bottom line, the atomic bombs forced the surrender of Japan and, by avoiding an invasion, saved far more Japanese lives than those of the American military

Japan should be thankful no invasion was necessary.

That's speculation, as well. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I would believe the US Army if you actually quoted them, but you haven't, nor have you sourced these figures or any other figures you have given. I believe in facts, not hearsay.

I see. So you consider 31 years as a missionary in Japan to be useless as a source for knowledge about the country and people? I've actually talked to many Japanese who either fought in the war or lived through it. Have you? I led a man to Christ who was a machine gunner in the war, Mr. Unomatsu Ueno. I have Mrs. Takasugi in my church who lived through the war, and my translation partner Mr. Miyakawa. I've talked with all of them about the war multiple times. But I guess all of that means nothing to you.

I gave a link to a Japanese website and quoted facts from there. Did you read the article?

 

I think it's relevant here to point out the differences in geography between Okinawa, Saipan and Honshu (the main island of Japan). I've been all over Honshu and to Okinawa on preaching trips, but not to Saipan.

Okinawa is pretty flat, with some gentle hills and occasional cliffs by the ocean, with some small mountains in the north. There were some caves that the Japanese military and some civilians hid in. I've been in the one where the Japanese commander committed suicide, and I've seen a Japanese movie based on the history of some civilian nurses who hid in a cave. But overall there were comparatively few places for the civilians to escape to on Okinawa. They were trapped with little or no escape from the bombs, shells and bullets.

As for Saipan, it seems similar to Okinawa in geography (http://hidalere.tripod.com/). However, it is only 20 by 9 kilometers (about 12 by 6 miles), so it's much smaller in size than even Okinawa (877 square miles). No place to run on Saipan!

Now consider Honshu, where the main Allied attack would have taken place. It is much, much larger than the other islands, and is 60 percent mountainous. My wife and I have been in the Japan Alps many times, and we've even climbed Mt. Fuji. Up in those mountains are many valleys, hot springs resorts, mountain farms, etc. Believe me, unlike Okinawa and Saipan there are many, many places on Honshu where the Japanese civilians could have fled from the Allied armies. This is a solid reason why there would not have been near the casualty rate as on Okinawa and Saipan.

These are all provable facts. Hopefully carpro will accept them as such. :type:

 

Having been through two wars; 2nd WW and Korea, I can look back and think of things we could have done better. It is always easier to look back and make decisions than to be there, running for your life and defending yourself.

In London alone my family lost three homes. We virtually lived either 80 feet under ground in the tube or in our back garden. We dug a hole and covered it with metal sheets.......ever seen the hole a bomb makes? That dug hole was a joke.

I can remember throwing stones at German bombers as they flew overhead. We could see the pilots. We had little defence early on. A few men with machine guns sitting behind sand bags. As kids (I was a teen then) we stood watching the men with guns and laughing at them.

We made the best of 5 years of bloody war. We went to school wearing gas masks and hoping we would get back for supper. Supper! can you imagine!

One uncle spent 5 years in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. Shortly after he returned home, he drove a motorcar into a cement bank and killed himself. We saw 100's of dead bodies around our area from bombing. Hence, we had no feelings for the enemy. Serve them right for our bombing in 1944, in Germany and in Japan.

After the war, we wanted to help where we could. That was our mentality. In fact, my bridesmaid was a German citizen and obvious friend of wife.

I say this as I read what many have to offer. Many who never experienced war, and frankly, I am amused by many comments.

When we came home from overseas, we adopted the Canadian motto, "Never Again". That is the way I still feel about war. Folks, it is easy to read a book or two about wars, but doesn't come near to experiencing it. Books only give some facts and few details, but it is what the author wants to say, and not always the whole truth.

Cheers, and God bless,

Jim

 

No problem with the facts, but the larger land mass would still be basically defenseless against fierce air attacks. Civilians would die by the tens of thousands.

So your conclusions are still pure speculation.

BTW What is your speculation concerning the number of Japanese civilian losses during and after an invasion. I don't believe you've ever said.

I would also guess that some of your anecdotal evidence would be tainted by an effort on the part of some Japanese to make the nuclear attacks appear to be unnecessary. Just a little more speculation. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I agree that civilians would die by the tens of thousands. I dare not speculate how many the total would be. In my view, though, purposeful targeting of civilians was wrong on all sides.

What I have been trying to prove to you on this thread is that there is valid evidence on the side of saying that the A bombs should not have been dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. (This was in response to your "baloney" post.)

Here is what you said to C4K in post 57:

I have been discussing the Japanese culture, which you say "says otherwise" to C4K's view that the bomb should not have been dropped on those cities. Yet you've not given a single aspect of Japanese culture which proves your point. Do you even know what bushido is? What State Shinto was? Do you know who the Kenpeitai were and why they were hated? (The father of a man in my church was Kenpeitai, and when he died they found letters from Japanese saying they wish they could kill him.") I think I have proven even without anecdotes that Japanese culture does not back up your position.

You shouldn't guess. You should ask. Your attempt to describe my position without asking me is way off the mark, and ethically suspect. If you'll go back in the thread you'll find that I was the one who listed various Japanese atrocities which, from God's viewpoint, may have needed divine retribution in the form of the A-bomb. America may have been God's tool. I'm also the one who pointed out that there were indeed military targets in the two cities.

As for the US military decision, there were a number of alternatives to dropping the bomb on populated areas, even though as I have said there were military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Japan consists of four main island and literally hundreds of smaller ones. One of those smaller islands off the coast of Tokyo could have been chosen as a demonstration of the bomb's capabilities. It would have been very easy to evacuate an island like Niijima of civilians, but Nagasaki and Hiroshima were large cities and nearly impossible to evacuate of civilians.

Another alternative target would have been bases in Hokkaido where we live, where virtually no Allied attacks took place yet 5 Japanese divisions were based. I've actually talked to folks who remember one lone American airplane strafing our city of Asahikawa during the whole war. So Hokkaido was a neglected target and could have been bombed with few civilian deaths.

Bombing a legitimate military target in Hokkaido could have been a sufficient demonstration of the A-bomb's power and gotten the same result as bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

This brings up the reasons for the choice of Nagasaki and Hiroshima by the US. The cities were actually chosen not only because of their military value, but because of the scientific data expected due to their geography. That's a pretty cynical way to choose to kill civilians, not much different than the activities of Unit 731 on the Japanese side.

 

I admitted no such thing. I find it strange that you have posted so much in the thread and don't know what I said. Go back and read it and find out.

And it's only polite to ask.

 

I know exactly what you have said and part of it is making personal attacks instead of presenting anything other than anecdotal evidence.

You've questioned my ethics and basically accused me of lying about the numbers of Okinawan civilian dead, yet you offer no empirical evidence to support your contentions, just the testimony of people who may have an agenda.

But since you have used Wiki as a source, maybe you will accept them as a source. I find it enlightening that you didn't bother to check there before indicating you thought it was all hearsay, like your evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

You're not used to discussions with me. If you were, perhaps you would have known that I always have a source for facts I present as evidence.

A word of advice:

Don't indicate I'm a liar or question my ethics again unless you have more proof than you have to support your position...whatever it is. I consider that type of behavior unethical.

 

I've not attacked you personally. I've questioned your sources. If you have a problem with that, then source your statements so I can make my own judgement about their validity.

Yes, I questioned your ethics for presuming to know what I was thinking. I stand by that. That is improper debating no matter how you cut it.

And no, I have not accused you of lying. I defy you to show where I've done that. All I've done is asked for the source of your information, which you have refused to give. For crying out loud, you still have not even given the source of your original quote giving purported US Army figures, as per BB rules. Do that and maybe we can move on.

Oh, great, finally you give a source. But you know what? Your source backs my figures, not yours: "... tens of thousands of local civilians were killed, wounded, or committed suicide."

Great. Then give your sources from now on on this thread.

Yes, I questioned your ethics (for stating what you think is my position out of the clear blue sky), and I stand by that. (And you consider that questioning your ethics is unethical? Really? :BangHead But I defy you to show where I've called you a liar. Never happened, never will.