You Know You Are Old When

[drssg]

Very good synopsis. I'd bet they also went into Truman's decision to use the bomb, which has been much-debated in the post-war years.

Of course he had to use the bomb, he really didn't have a choice, could you even imagine the political suicide of 2 - 4 million American casualties in a ground invasion, if he had not? Projected death toll of a Japanese ground invasion was 800,000 Americans, with 2 - 4 million total American casualties (wounded/MIA), and 5 - 10 million Japanese deaths.

Truman had no real choice, the bomb saved millions of lives and American casualties, despite taking unwarranted criticism after the fact. People who say he was attacking civilians truly have no clue as to how Japanese culture worked at the time, every citizen (women & children) was a soldier, who would defend their homeland to their death.

I don't recall whether that program debated whether the atomic bombs "should" have been used. I recall that there were actually far more Japanese civilian casualties from our incendiary carpet bombing than from the atomic bombs. Their cities were densely populated, with mostly wooden structures. Many of the casualties were from the resulting infernos, rather than the initial explosions.

It was a more desperate time, and all sides didn't make such a clear distinction between civilian and military targets. The civilian population ultimately supported the military.

 

[MossRoad]

That's a matter of semantics. Yes, there was no way victory was in their future. But we were still looking at multiple millions of lives lost, and likely over 10 million total casualties, to make that defeat official. The bombs were our best means of avoiding all that.

Or, once the Japanese were forced back to Japan, the US could have just blockaded the Japanese islands and continuously bombed the ports and industry into submission VS an invasion. They had no steel or oil to speak of at the time. That was the driving reason for their aggressiveness in the first place.

 

[LouNY]

Or, once the Japanese were forced back to Japan, the US could have just blockaded the Japanese islands and continuously bombed the ports and industry into submission VS an invasion. They had no steel or oil to speak of at the time. That was the driving reason for their aggressiveness in the first place.

Go back to school or better yet put on a uniform for few years.

 

[Alan46]

They had no steel or oil to speak of at the time. That was the driving reason for their aggressiveness in the first place.

Or, once the Japanese were forced back to Japan, the US could have just blockaded the Japanese islands and continuously bombed the ports and industry into submission VS an invasion. They had no steel or oil to speak of at the time. That was the driving reason for their aggressiveness in the first place.

Thanks for the history lesson.
I don’t think I ever knew that!

 

[drssg]

I dated a Japanese girl in college, and the subject of WWII somehow came up. I was curious about what Japanese history classes teach about WWII, so I asked her why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

She said, "There was no reason. We just attacked." That seems overly simplified to me, but I haven't heard much about the oil and steel industry in Hawaii.

When one man has absolute authority over a country, and he is considered to be their god, I can see how he would start to think that he deserves more. It doesn't really matter whether he has a rational justification or just an overly inflated view of his importance, IMO.

 

[masscity]

I dated a women in CA, originally from Germany. Her Dad was a soldier in the German Army in WWII.

He told her that if those damn Americans would have stayed out of the war they would have won.

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

I dated a women in CA, originally from Germany. Her Dad was a soldier in the German Army in WWII.

He told her that if those damn Americans would have stayed out of the war they would have won.

My reply would have been won what? Take over the world, elimination of Jews and proliferation of the Aryan race, under the leadership of a schizophrenic.

 

[ultrarunner]

Russia???

 

[Alan46]

I dated a Japanese girl in college, and the subject of WWII somehow came up. I was curious about what Japanese history classes teach about WWII, so I asked her why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

She said, "There was no reason. We just attacked." That seems overly simplified to me, but I haven't heard much about the oil and steel industry in Hawaii.

When one man has absolute authority over a country, and he is considered to be their god, I can see how he would start to think that he deserves more. It doesn't really matter whether he has a rational justification or just an overly inflated view of his importance, IMO.

I agree 100%!

 

[WinterDeere]

She said, "There was no reason. We just attacked." That seems overly simplified to me, but I haven't heard much about the oil and steel industry in Hawaii.

Japan was trying to expand throughout the 1930's, and US was already putting diplomatic pressure on them to halt it, and making threats that they would not allow their conquest to continue. Japan had fractured leadership at the time, their generals had gone "rogue", and were operating beyond the consent of the emperor or wider government. One or some of these military leaders felt that they could pre-empt an inevitable American attack or blockage of their expansion, by wiping out the entire American Pacific fleet in one fell swoop at Pearl Harbor.

Although they presented a united front throughout the war, it was later learned that many of their leaders were not happy with the military's essentially-unilateral decision to execute this attack. Of course everyone knows Admiral Yamamoto's famous quote, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve." He was one of those who did not approve of the attack, as he did not believe Japan could ever win an open war with the United States.

When one man has absolute authority over a country, and he is considered to be their god, I can see how he would start to think that he deserves more. It doesn't really matter whether he has a rational justification or just an overly inflated view of his importance, IMO.

You're not wrong in principle, but in this particular case, I think it was the opposite. "Too many generals", or "too many cooks spoil the broth" situation. The Emperor (and perhaps even their Admiral) had lost control over his military leaders, and they were acting on their own accord, without his consent.

 

[WinterDeere]

oh, and speaking of WW2 declarations of war….

 

[Jstpssng]

oh, and speaking of WW2 declarations of war….

Rueben James... Wasn't that a Kenny Rogers song?

 

[MossRoad]

Go back to school or better yet put on a uniform for few years.

Maybe you should read some history...

Faced with severe shortages of oil and other natural resources and driven by the ambition to displace the United States as the dominant Pacific power, Japan decided to attack the United States and British forces in Asia and seize the resources of Southeast Asia.

 

[MossRoad]

...

She said, "There was no reason. We just attacked." That seems overly simplified to me, but I haven't heard much about the oil and steel industry in Hawaii.

...

There was no oil or steel in Hawaii. There was the American fleet that was going to keep Japan in check for their aggressiveness in invading everything they could get their hands on in the south Pacific to gain the natural resources they so desperately needed.

Faced with severe shortages of oil and other natural resources and driven by the ambition to displace the United States as the dominant Pacific power, Japan decided to attack the United States and British forces in Asia and seize the resources of Southeast Asia.

 

[LouNY]

Maybe you should read some history...

Faced with severe shortages of oil and other natural resources and driven by the ambition to displace the United States as the dominant Pacific power, Japan decided to attack the United States and British forces in Asia and seize the resources of Southeast Asia.

Took you a long time to goggle that response,
They attacked because they wished to dominate the world, pure and simple.

 

[MossRoad]

Took you a long time to goggle that response,
They attacked because they wished to dominate the world, pure and simple.

It didn't take me any time to google that response. I rarely visit TBN on the weekends anymore, as my family life is more fun.

My father was in the south pacific in WWII for 3 years in a combat engineering battalion. I've got a pretty decent understanding of how and why Japan entered WWII and the after affects.

Japan was landlocked with no oil or steel, so they needed to go after those resources. They did not want to dominate the entire world. They wanted to dominate the South Pacific, the eastern portion of China, and Korea.

So they figured they could attack the US at Pearl Harbor, kill the carriers, sue for peace, and keep the concurred lands in the south pacific. Well, the carriers weren't home and they severely underestimated the industrial might of the U.S. to rebuild the war machine faster than Japan could take it out. And that's about that.

No invasion of the Japanese islands would have been needed once Japan's forces were pushed back to their islands, but a total blockade would have taken decades to resolve. Japan was done before the atomic bombs were dropped. It was just a matter of time. Japan was contained. The U.S. could have sued for peace and gotten it. That's not the way it turned out, of course, but that's one scenario that is pretty popular as to 'what if's?".

 

[LouNY]

It didn't take me any time to google that response. I rarely visit TBN on the weekends anymore, as my family life is more fun.

My father was in the south pacific in WWII for 3 years in a combat engineering battalion. I've got a pretty decent understanding of how and why Japan entered WWII and the after affects.

Japan was landlocked with no oil or steel, so they needed to go after those resources. They did not want to dominate the entire world. They wanted to dominate the South Pacific, the eastern portion of China, and Korea.

So they figured they could attack the US at Pearl Harbor, kill the carriers, sue for peace, and keep the concurred lands in the south pacific. Well, the carriers weren't home and they severely underestimated the industrial might of the U.S. to rebuild the war machine faster than Japan could take it out. And that's about that.

No invasion of the Japanese islands would have been needed once Japan's forces were pushed back to their islands, but a total blockade would have taken decades to resolve. Japan was done before the atomic bombs were dropped. It was just a matter of time. Japan was contained. The U.S. could have sued for peace and gotten it. That's not the way it turned out, of course, but that's one scenario that is pretty popular as to 'what if's?".

Good response except for the last paragraph.
That is pure bull crap, until that island was invaded and conquered there would have been no peace as they had no desire for peace.

 

[WinterDeere]

Yes, this issue has been debated, quite-hotly in the post-war years. Many suggest that Japan could have been just blockaded, and eventually surrendered. However, nearly every actual expert who has dug into this theory has concluded that it is false, and based either on incorrect assumptions, or at the very least failing to account for what was known by both sides at the time.

There's a popular paper on this subject, you can download it from a half-dozen sources for free, called "The Starvation Myth: The US Blockade of Japan in WW2", written by Christopher Clary, a professor of political science, whose research is focused on south Asian politics. I honestly don't know if this paper was accepted (reviewed/published), as the format doesn't conform to the standards of the research journals that I normally read and have published in, but it does dive into each of the popular arguments behind Moss's blockade proposal.

 

[MossRoad]

Good response except for the last paragraph.
That is pure bull crap, until that island was invaded and conquered there would have been no peace as they had no desire for peace.

Who cares if there would be no peace. They could no longer wage war off of their main islands. They were done. As has been learned many times since then, once you have an enemy isolated on an island with little natural resources, there's no point in invading the island. Japan had no steel to build new war machines. They had no oil to fuel them or the industries to make them. They were done. They were surrounded. They could sit there on their islands and shake their fists, but could no longer wage war off the Japanese islands. It was over.

 

[MossRoad]

Yes, this issue has been debated, quite-hotly in the post-war years. Many suggest that Japan could have been just blockaded, and eventually surrendered. However, nearly every actual expert who has dug into this theory has concluded that it is false, and based either on incorrect assumptions, or at the very least failing to account for what was known by both sides at the time.

There's a popular paper on this subject, you can download it from a half-dozen sources for free, called "The Starvation Myth: The US Blockade of Japan in WW2", written by Christopher Clary, a professor of political science, whose research is focused on south Asian politics. I honestly don't know if this paper was accepted (reviewed/published), as the format doesn't conform to the standards of the research journals that I normally read and have published in, but it does dive into each of the popular arguments behind Moss's blockade proposal.

And as I mentioned, it's just one train of thought. I'm just thankful to have had my father survive it.