Dennis Geiger

[London Blue]

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

100% not the Americans estimated they could end the war 6 months to a year sooner if they dropped the bombs, before they dropped the bombs they were suffering very small losses, but were fighting very time consuming battles from island to island, because the Japanese would not surrender, it was starting to become a war of financial pressure on America and they wanted it stopped as soon as possible, que the bombs. And are not 210,000 thousand manly women and children not more than you are talking about. 

 

USA military casualties against Japan, 111606 dead or missing and 253, 142 wounded.

Japanese military casualties from 1937-1945 have been estimated at 1,834,000, of which 1,740,000 were killed or missing.

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson stated "We shall in my opinion have to go through an even more bitter finish fight than in Germany. We shall incur the losses incident to such a war and we shall leave the Japanese islands even more thoroughly destroyed than was the case with Germany." From D-Day to V-E Day, the Western Allies alone suffered some 766,294 casualties. A study done for Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan. Japanese military directives ordered the execution of all POWs being held if Japan was ever invaded. 

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, which were believed to be conservative estimates; however, it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The Chief of the Army Operations Division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."

The Battle of Okinawa was one of the bloodiest in the Pacific, with an estimated total of over 82,000 direct casualties on both sides: 14,009 Allied deaths and 77,417 Japanese soldiers. Allied grave registration forces counted 110,071 dead bodies of Japanese soldiers, but this included conscripted Okinawans wearing Japanese uniforms. 149,425 Okinawans were killed, committed suicide or went missing, which was one-half of the estimated pre-war local population of 300,000. The Battle resulted in 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this figure excludes the several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds). The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing)

The Japanese society had over hundreds of years been brought up to believe that it was their duty to defend their sacred homeland and Emperor from invaders. The Japanese plans for the defence of Japan included the widescale use of civilians in that defence as suicide troops and conscripted soldiers.

 

I understand Dennis-Geiger is a history buff. 

 

 

 

[StevO]

Wow! I know we love a topic going off track a bit on TT, but I’ve just read a disagreement about how old and where Napoleon died. In a transfer thread?!

Im opening the wine.

[Formby]

21 minutes ago, StevO said:

Wow! I know we love a topic going off track a bit on TT, but I’ve just read a disagreement about how old and where Napoleon died. In a transfer thread?!

Im opening the wine.

For the thinking Evertonian...

[Shukes]

1 hour ago, StevO said:

Wow! I know we love a topic going off track a bit on TT, but I’ve just read a disagreement about how old and where Napoleon died. In a transfer thread?!

Im opening the wine.

You need to get it out of the fridge first!

[Palfy]

6 hours ago, London Blue said:

 

USA military casualties against Japan, 111606 dead or missing and 253, 142 wounded.

Japanese military casualties from 1937-1945 have been estimated at 1,834,000, of which 1,740,000 were killed or missing.

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson stated "We shall in my opinion have to go through an even more bitter finish fight than in Germany. We shall incur the losses incident to such a war and we shall leave the Japanese islands even more thoroughly destroyed than was the case with Germany." From D-Day to V-E Day, the Western Allies alone suffered some 766,294 casualties. A study done for Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan. Japanese military directives ordered the execution of all POWs being held if Japan was ever invaded. 

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, which were believed to be conservative estimates; however, it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The Chief of the Army Operations Division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."

The Battle of Okinawa was one of the bloodiest in the Pacific, with an estimated total of over 82,000 direct casualties on both sides: 14,009 Allied deaths and 77,417 Japanese soldiers. Allied grave registration forces counted 110,071 dead bodies of Japanese soldiers, but this included conscripted Okinawans wearing Japanese uniforms. 149,425 Okinawans were killed, committed suicide or went missing, which was one-half of the estimated pre-war local population of 300,000. The Battle resulted in 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this figure excludes the several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds). The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing)

The Japanese society had over hundreds of years been brought up to believe that it was their duty to defend their sacred homeland and Emperor from invaders. The Japanese plans for the defence of Japan included the widescale use of civilians in that defence as suicide troops and conscripted soldiers.

 

I understand Dennis-Geiger is a history buff. 

 

 

 

It was inhumane. It caused to much destruction. It killed to many innocent people, including children. It was unnecessary as Japan was effectively defeated. Read what Dwight Eisenhower said who was commander and chief of the allied forces at the time, and later repeated when 32nd President of the United States. He and his generals met with Stimson to tell him it was unnecessary to use such force and that the Japanese would surrender soon, and that they had many options available to them that would prevent further large scale loss of life on all sides. But the government needed to end the war quickly and came up with trumped up figures to justify the use of an atomic bomb, that were at the time and more so after disputed by the military who new Japan were close to defeat and were trying to negotiate a deal without losing face, and allowing their Emporer to remain in power, Truman would not accept any negotiations and would only accept full conditional surrender. The bombs were dropped with the sole intention of ending the war sooner and not for reasons of saving hundreds of thousands of American lives, the military leaders new more about that than the politicians. Directly after the bombings 85% of Americans said they were justified because of revenge for the attacks on pearl harbour in the main, now that the true facts have emerged about the loss of potential lives and the other more humane options of ending the war, now under 50% of Americans believe it was necessary to use the bombs, and I'm guessing they would be the same Americans who voted against Trump, the right minded ones with a conscience of right from wrong. 

[MikeO]

12 hours ago, Formby said:

For the drinking Evertonian...

Corrected

[StevO]

11 hours ago, Shukes said:

You need to get it out of the fridge first!

Filthy animal!

[London Blue]

7 hours ago, Palfy said:

It was inhumane. It caused to much destruction. It killed to many innocent people, including children. It was unnecessary as Japan was effectively defeated. Read what Dwight Eisenhower said who was commander and chief of the allied forces at the time, and later repeated when 32nd President of the United States. He and his generals met with Stimson to tell him it was unnecessary to use such force and that the Japanese would surrender soon, and that they had many options available to them that would prevent further large scale loss of life on all sides. But the government needed to end the war quickly and came up with trumped up figures to justify the use of an atomic bomb, that were at the time and more so after disputed by the military who new Japan were close to defeat and were trying to negotiate a deal without losing face, and allowing their Emporer to remain in power, Truman would not accept any negotiations and would only accept full conditional surrender. The bombs were dropped with the sole intention of ending the war sooner and not for reasons of saving hundreds of thousands of American lives, the military leaders new more about that than the politicians. Directly after the bombings 85% of Americans said they were justified because of revenge for the attacks on pearl harbour in the main, now that the true facts have emerged about the loss of potential lives and the other more humane options of ending the war, now under 50% of Americans believe it was necessary to use the bombs, and I'm guessing they would be the same Americans who voted against Trump, the right minded ones with a conscience of right from wrong. 

Eisenhower was C in C Europe and not as well as informed as the secretary of state for war and the Pacific campaign was not in his remit. 

The Allies had agreed that all the Axis countries would have to surrender unconditionally, it was a stated war aim, not Trumans decision.

Japan never tried to surrender for the most part, Suzuki's (Last War prime minister April to August 45)  military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been successfully invaded or lost a war in its history. Only the Navy minister, was known to desire an early end to the war. According to historians  Although Suzuki might indeed have seen peace as a distant goal, he had no design to achieve it within any immediate time span or on terms acceptable to the Allies. His own comments at the conference of senior statesmen gave no hint that he favored any early cessation of the war ... Suzuki's selections for the most critical cabinet posts were, with one exception, not advocates of peace either.

Given the above what was the more humane way of ending the war?

Shall we continue this in another thread?