The Logic Off Topic list

> Should we have blockaded Japan, and
> allowed them to rebuild their military to attack us again, to finish up
> work on their own atomic bomb they were working on at the University of
> Kyoto, while kamakazing us the whole time, and raining thousands of
> explosive carrying balloons on the American mainland (which they did),
> and develop their submarine aircraft carrier to attack LA (something they
> almost finished), and continue developing their homegrown version of the
> ME262 jet?
>
This doesn't really make sense, to be fair.  Blockaded, the Japanese weren't
capable of any of these things.  Not to debate your other point that they
may have lived to the level where the island could support whatever
population remained and gone on as before, yes that might have happened.
And that might well have necessitated the atomic bomb use.  But as such they
couldn't have done the other things.

I've always been under the impression that the US could have beaten Japan 
without dropping the A-bomb.  Just like we beat Hitler.  

But we had this new toy, and...   "let's see if it works."



Now we have $40 billion to play with.

> From: dchapsk@...
> 
> I've always been under the impression that the US could have beaten Japan
> without dropping the A-bomb.  Just like we beat Hitler.

Just like 'we' beat Hitler??

If you studied that war, you would realize that 'we' included, in a larger
part than that of the USA, Russia.

In a message dated 9/23/01 12:14:15 PM, marc@... writes:

<< Just like 'we' beat Hitler??

If you studied that war, you would realize that 'we' included, in a larger
part than that of the USA, Russia.
 >>
 
I was using the broader, inclusive "we."

> I've always been under the impression that the US could have beaten Japan
> without dropping the A-bomb.  Just like we beat Hitler.
>

There is zero doubt that we "could" have beaten Japan without dropping the
A-bomb.  The debate centers around at what cost that would have been.  Some
argue that we could have blockaded the island and that they were near
collapse and would have surrendered with "minimal" loss of life, at least
well under the results of the atomic weapons.  Some argue that Japan would
have never surrendered, so to speak, and would have waited for invasion;
there is very little doubt that an invasion of Japan would have cost many
more lives than the dropping of the atom bombs.

> But we had this new toy, and...   "let's see if it works."
>
>
>
> Now we have $40 billion to play with.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

> From: dchapsk@...
> 
> I was using the broader, inclusive "we."

OK, but it's a different 'we' than the 'we' that bombed Japan.

In a message dated 9/23/01 12:42:24 PM, wilson.zorn@... writes:

<< Some argue that Japan would
have never surrendered, so to speak, and would have waited for invasion;
there is very little doubt that an invasion of Japan would have cost many
more lives than the dropping of the atom bombs. >>

Yes, but those lives would have been primarily soldiers.

The responsibility for taking thousands of civilian lives rested on the 
shoulders of Harry S. Truman.

In a message dated 9/23/01 12:49:12 PM, marc@... writes:

<< > I was using the broader, inclusive "we."

OK, but it's a different 'we' than the 'we' that bombed Japan.
 >>

Oui Oui, monsieur.  We did that all by ourselves.

----- Original Message -----
From: <dchapsk@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Atomic Bomb/Japan


>
> In a message dated 9/23/01 12:42:24 PM, wilson.zorn@... writes:
>
> << Some argue that Japan would
> have never surrendered, so to speak, and would have waited for invasion;
> there is very little doubt that an invasion of Japan would have cost many
> more lives than the dropping of the atom bombs. >>
>
> Yes, but those lives would have been primarily soldiers.
>

"would have been" is not factual but opinion.  The collateral damage of an
invasion (bombing of major cities) as well as moreover the likely response
of much of the Japanese population plus the necessary collateral civilian
damage by artillery may well have produced higher civilian casualties.  We
do not know for sure.  Personally, I have no idea.

> The responsibility for taking thousands of civilian lives rested on the
> shoulders of Harry S. Truman.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

>There is zero doubt that we "could" have beaten Japan without dropping the
>A-bomb.  The debate centers around at what cost that would have been.  Some
>argue that we could have blockaded the island and that they were near
>collapse and would have surrendered with "minimal" loss of life, at least
>well under the results of the atomic weapons. 

If they weren't willing to surrender even AFTER two atomic bomb attacks 
an the firebombing of Tokyo, do you really think they would just 
surrender on their own?

If we had blockaded them, they would have perfected their own atomic 
bomb, they would have perfected their jet, their long range 
intercontential bomber, etc - all of which they were working on. 

As for bombing them, they could do like the Chinese did when bombed by 
Japan, build factories in caves under mountains - of which Japan has 
many. 

>Yes, but those lives would have been primarily soldiers.

No, those primarily would have been Japanese women, children and elderly. 
I have spoken to older Japanese and they confirmed that they were taught 
to use spears to attack the expected American invaders. Watch the tapes 
of Japanese families jumping to their deaths in Okinawa because of the 
fear of American take over. 


>The responsibility for taking thousands of civilian lives rested on the 
>shoulders of Harry S. Truman.

Hirohito was reponsible for about 10,000,000 - 15,000,000 civilian deaths 
in China, Phillipines, Malaysia, Burma, etc. and a few in Pearl Harbor 
and probably some Korean comfort girls too. However, he lived quite a bit 
longer than Harry Truman. I think he just died 10 years ago at a ripe old 
age. So much for justice, huh? 

And what about that bastard Winston Churchill, who ordered the bombing of 
German cities? The US believed in pinpoint bombing of factories and 
military targets. But the Brits like firebombing cities like Dresden. 

Yeah, there are all kinds of bastards and sons of bitches. Especially 
that choir boy Joseph Stalin. Did you hear what happened to the German 
people, when the Russian soldiers came to town?

Why don't you quit trying to blame every thing on the United States. 
You're stupid fucks who don't know history.

----- Original Message -----

From: <dchapsk@...> wrote:

> I've always been under the impression that the US could have beaten Japan
> without dropping the A-bomb.  Just like we beat Hitler

that might be true but;

1. with millions more of dead on both sides.
2. The US didnt beat Nazi Germany, Russia did, the Russains and Japanese
agreed not to fight each other

> But we had this new toy, and...   "let's see if it works."
>

 they knew it worked because it was tested in the Nevada desert  (in what
became area 51, I think). The use of the atom bomb at the end of ww2
actually saved far more lives than it killed.

>
> Now we have $40 billion to play with.
>

lets hope it is spent wisely......

GAmoore - I think you're misunderstanding something here.  I'm making
neither argument.  I am indicating what some people have said on both sides
of the fence while responding to the person who posed a question that
regardless, we "could" have beaten Japan if atomic weaponry didn't exist.  I
don't think any military historian of note believes it was impossible for us
to beat Japan as of mid-1945 without atomic weaponry.  "Would" we have is
another question though almost no military historians believe we wouldn't
have, although it is very, very possible that the peace afterwards would
have been very different.  Also, you mixed up my comments with someone
else's about Truman and while I did write that below it disturbs me to have
my comments mixed with theirs, in no small part because I do not share their
opinions.  Anyway a few specific responses below.

----- Original Message -----
From: <GAmoore@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>; <DCHAPSK@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [L-OT] Atomic Bomb/Japan


> >There is zero doubt that we "could" have beaten Japan without dropping
the
> >A-bomb.  The debate centers around at what cost that would have been.
Some
> >argue that we could have blockaded the island and that they were near
> >collapse and would have surrendered with "minimal" loss of life, at least
> >well under the results of the atomic weapons.
>
> If they weren't willing to surrender even AFTER two atomic bomb attacks
> an the firebombing of Tokyo, do you really think they would just
> surrender on their own?
>

Um, they were willing to surrender after two atomic bombs and the
firebombing of Tokyo - because they did - ???????  Of course you may be
right that they were unwilling to surrender after one atomic bomb and the
firebombing of Tokyo.  We will never know.

> If we had blockaded them, they would have perfected their own atomic
> bomb, they would have perfected their jet, their long range
> intercontential bomber, etc - all of which they were working on.
>

Speculative by definition.  Perhaps you should have written that they could
have done these things.

> As for bombing them, they could do like the Chinese did when bombed by
> Japan, build factories in caves under mountains - of which Japan has
> many.
>

Yes, they could do that.  Incidentally, I hope you do realize and that
others aren't ignorant that Japan was incapable of importing the raw
materials required to maintain a credible war effort.  I am by no means
stating that they couldn't have killed lots of people and may have resisted
any and all peaceful attempts.  Simply that they were at a point where they
were incapable of maintaining mass industry at a level even remotely
competitive with the West by that point.

> >Yes, but those lives would have been primarily soldiers.
>
> No, those primarily would have been Japanese women, children and elderly.
> I have spoken to older Japanese and they confirmed that they were taught
> to use spears to attack the expected American invaders. Watch the tapes
> of Japanese families jumping to their deaths in Okinawa because of the
> fear of American take over.
>
>
> >The responsibility for taking thousands of civilian lives rested on the
> >shoulders of Harry S. Truman.
>

PLEASE BE CAREFUL IN QUOTING!  I did not say this, yet it appears alongside
my other statements.

> Hirohito was reponsible for about 10,000,000 - 15,000,000 civilian deaths
> in China, Phillipines, Malaysia, Burma, etc. and a few in Pearl Harbor
> and probably some Korean comfort girls too. However, he lived quite a bit
> longer than Harry Truman. I think he just died 10 years ago at a ripe old
> age. So much for justice, huh?
>
> And what about that bastard Winston Churchill, who ordered the bombing of
> German cities? The US believed in pinpoint bombing of factories and
> military targets. But the Brits like firebombing cities like Dresden.
>

To be fair the Americans participated in Dresden and are suspected by some
people (not necessarily a significant number) of some warcrimes.  There was
a good Discovery or History documentary on this and they interviewed
American airmen.

> Yeah, there are all kinds of bastards and sons of bitches. Especially
> that choir boy Joseph Stalin. Did you hear what happened to the German
> people, when the Russian soldiers came to town?
>
> Why don't you quit trying to blame every thing on the United States.
> You're stupid fucks who don't know history.
>

I think you should refrain from using the tone of your last sentence.  And I
sure hope the prior sentence was not referring to me since I have played no
role in attempting to blame "every thing" on the United States.
Incidentally, I'm not so sure that the poster stated that Hirohito or Stalin
were innocent at all and I don't think they were making relative
distinctions, to be fair.

>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Matthews" <Groovey@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Atomic Bomb/Japan


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <dchapsk@...> wrote:
>
> > I've always been under the impression that the US could have beaten
Japan
> > without dropping the A-bomb.  Just like we beat Hitler
>
> that might be true but;
>
> 1. with millions more of dead on both sides.
> 2. The US didnt beat Nazi Germany, Russia did, the Russains and Japanese
> agreed not to fight each other

#2 is rather misleading.  Russia, Britain, the United States, and a number
of other allies beat Nazi Germany.  There is considerable evidence, though I
am not claiming it's conclusive though I think it might be, that the Western
powers slowed their advance towards Berlin to allow the Russians to get
there at the same time if not first.  In any case, it is misleading to say
that the United States did not defeat Germany and Russia did.

>
> > But we had this new toy, and...   "let's see if it works."
> >
>
>  they knew it worked because it was tested in the Nevada desert  (in what
> became area 51, I think). The use of the atom bomb at the end of ww2
> actually saved far more lives than it killed.
>

It is widely believed to have saved far more lives than it killed.  (I
suppose I've hedged so much people think I don't share that opinion but I
do.  It just isn't quite 100% enough to say it's a fact, though).

> >
> > Now we have $40 billion to play with.
> >
>
> lets hope it is spent wisely......
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

At 2:26 AM -0400 01.9.24, GAmoore@... wrote:
>If they weren't willing to surrender even AFTER two atomic bomb attacks
>an the firebombing of Tokyo, do you really think they would just
>surrender on their own?
>
>If we had blockaded them, they would have perfected their own atomic
>bomb, they would have perfected their jet, their long range
>intercontential bomber, etc - all of which they were working on.

Japan at that time had no such abilities of any kind.
What "they" could do was to fly balloons reinforced with saccharide taken 
from a kind of potato and tell the citizens to fight with bamboo spears, as 
you wrote.

>Hirohito was reponsible for about 10,000,000 - 15,000,000 civilian deaths
>in China, Phillipines, Malaysia, Burma, etc. and a few in Pearl Harbor
>and probably some Korean comfort girls too.

I also think Hirohito was responsible.  Maybe he didn't want to start the 
invasion and war himself, nor know about massacre of innocent people, but 
he at least approved of the invasion.  Hirohito himself thought that way. 
When he met general Douglas McArthur , Hirohito said, "I came here as a 
person who's totally responsible for all decisions and actions that have 
been done in this war by the Japanese nation.  I came here to put myself 
into your hands.  I don't care what will happen to me.  Please do not 
distress Japanese citizens any more."

McArthur was deeply touched and did not accuse him.  I think it was a wise 
decision.  If Hirohito was executed, hatred against the US would cover all 
over Japan, and the US might lose one of the most important allies in the 
post WW2 world.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
KONDO Tatsuo (Kondo is my family name)
website: http://www.netlaputa.ne.jp/~kndt

----- Original Message -----
From: "KONDO Tatsuo" <kondo@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>; <DCHAPSK@...>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [L-OT] Atomic Bomb/Japan


> At 2:26 AM -0400 01.9.24, GAmoore@... wrote:
> >If they weren't willing to surrender even AFTER two atomic bomb attacks
> >an the firebombing of Tokyo, do you really think they would just
> >surrender on their own?
> >
> >If we had blockaded them, they would have perfected their own atomic
> >bomb, they would have perfected their jet, their long range
> >intercontential bomber, etc - all of which they were working on.
>
> Japan at that time had no such abilities of any kind.
> What "they" could do was to fly balloons reinforced with saccharide taken
> from a kind of potato and tell the citizens to fight with bamboo spears,
as
> you wrote.
>
> >Hirohito was reponsible for about 10,000,000 - 15,000,000 civilian deaths
> >in China, Phillipines, Malaysia, Burma, etc. and a few in Pearl Harbor
> >and probably some Korean comfort girls too.
>
> I also think Hirohito was responsible.  Maybe he didn't want to start the
> invasion and war himself, nor know about massacre of innocent people, but
> he at least approved of the invasion.  Hirohito himself thought that way.
> When he met general Douglas McArthur , Hirohito said, "I came here as a
> person who's totally responsible for all decisions and actions that have
> been done in this war by the Japanese nation.  I came here to put myself
> into your hands.  I don't care what will happen to me.  Please do not
> distress Japanese citizens any more."
>
> McArthur was deeply touched and did not accuse him.  I think it was a wise
> decision.  If Hirohito was executed, hatred against the US would cover all
> over Japan, and the US might lose one of the most important allies in the
> post WW2 world.
>

I'm sorry I can't recall the source but at one time I saw a documentary
which mentioned that one of the conditions of Japan's "unconditional"
surrender was that the monarchy would survive.

> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> KONDO Tatsuo (Kondo is my family name)
> website: http://www.netlaputa.ne.jp/~kndt
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>