Revisit - A-bombs ended WWII Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[a425couple]

Revisit - A-bombs ended WWII Hiroshima & Nagasaki

I've said it before, For anyone who thinks they understand
the end of WWII, it is necessary to read a modern book by a
competent author. The 2001 book "Downfall: The End of the
Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard Frank is one of those.
https://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461

Another one is "Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45"
by Max Hastings. (2007)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000XPNUOA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

On page xix he writes,
"On the contrary, alternate scenarios suggest that if
the war had continued for even a few weeks longer,
more people of all nations - and especially Japan -
would have lost their lives than perished at Hiroshima &
Nagasaki.
The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway
has been so comprehensively discredited by modern
research that it is astonishing some writers continue
to give it credence."

[Jim Wilkins]

"a425couple" wrote in message news:***@news4.newsguy.com...

Revisit - A-bombs ended WWII Hiroshima & Nagasaki

I've said it before, For anyone who thinks they understand
the end of WWII, it is necessary to read a modern book by a
competent author. The 2001 book "Downfall: The End of the
Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard Frank is one of those.
https://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461

Another one is "Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45"
by Max Hastings. (2007)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000XPNUOA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

On page xix he writes,
"On the contrary, alternate scenarios suggest that if
the war had continued for even a few weeks longer,
more people of all nations - and especially Japan -
would have lost their lives than perished at Hiroshima &
Nagasaki.
The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway
has been so comprehensively discredited by modern
research that it is astonishing some writers continue
to give it credence."

---------------------
I look for accounts by participants, though for Japan they are rare.

Hiroshima was a first-time surprise. The death toll of 39,000 in Nagasaki
isn't much above the war's daily average.
75,000,000 / (6*365) = 34,247.

[Byker]

Post by Jim Wilkins
I look for accounts by participants, though for Japan they are rare.

Though non-nuclear, this one's my fave:
https://www.amazon.com/Night-Tokyo-Burned-Hoito-Edoin/dp/0312913850

"Since the end of World War II, the destruction of Dresden often has been
cited as the most dreadful example of civilian-targeted firebombing, but
this book amply demonstrates that several ""Dresdens'' were perpetrated
against Japan even before the atomic strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Edoin (prolific American military historian Edwin P. Hoyt, author of The
Bloody Road to Panmunjom, etc.) describes the development of the American
bombing campaign under the no-quarter leadership of Air Force Gen. Curtis
LeMay and the effect on the ground as witnessed and suffered by Japanese
city-dwellers while ``the fire dragon roamed the streets.'' The
blast-and-burn aspect is only one element in the powerful narrative; Edoin
includes the debate over the proper employment of the B-29 "Superfortress,''
the hopeless civil-defense efforts and the varying attitudes of Emperor
Hirohito, the military clique and the populace as the death toll mounted..."

[Byker]

Post by a425couple
Another one is "Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45"
by Max Hastings. (2007)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000XPNUOA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
On page xix he writes,
"On the contrary, alternate scenarios suggest that if
the war had continued for even a few weeks longer,
more people of all nations - and especially Japan -
would have lost their lives than perished at Hiroshima &
Nagasaki.
The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway
has been so comprehensively discredited by modern
research that it is astonishing some writers continue
to give it credence."

They surrendered because the Soviets were on the brink of invading Hokkaido.

Hirohito knew that there would be no place for a god-emperor in a
Soviet-subjugated society...

[a425couple]

Post by Byker

Post by a425couple
Another one is "Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45"
by Max Hastings.   (2007)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000XPNUOA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
On page xix he writes,
"On the contrary, alternate scenarios suggest that if
the war had continued for even a few weeks longer,
more people of all nations - and especially Japan -
would have lost their lives than perished at Hiroshima &
Nagasaki.
The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway
has been so comprehensively discredited by modern
research that it is astonishing some writers continue
to give it credence."

They surrendered because the Soviets were on the brink of invading Hokkaido.
Hirohito knew that there would be no place for a god-emperor in a
Soviet-subjugated society...

As to your "Hirohito knew", sorry, but he really didn't
know much about that Russian invasion AT THE TIME
he interrupted the War Cabinet meeting to tell them
he wanted Japan to surrender.

The Russian invasion had just started, and very little
was known about it in Tokyo, and very little had been
said about it in the War Cabinet meeting.

[Leper]

Post by a425couple

Post by Byker

Post by a425couple
Another one is "Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45"
by Max Hastings.   (2007)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000XPNUOA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
On page xix he writes,
"On the contrary, alternate scenarios suggest that if
the war had continued for even a few weeks longer,
more people of all nations - and especially Japan -
would have lost their lives than perished at Hiroshima &
Nagasaki.
The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway
has been so comprehensively discredited by modern
research that it is astonishing some writers continue
to give it credence."

They surrendered because the Soviets were on the brink of invading Hokkaido.
Hirohito knew that there would be no place for a god-emperor in a
Soviet-subjugated society...

As to your "Hirohito knew", sorry, but he really didn't
know much about that Russian invasion AT THE TIME
he interrupted the War Cabinet meeting to tell them
he wanted Japan to surrender.
The Russian invasion had just started, and very little
was known about it in Tokyo, and very little had been
said about it in the War Cabinet meeting.

Agreed.

[Byker]

Post by a425couple

Post by Byker
They surrendered because the Soviets were on the brink of invading Hokkaido.
Hirohito knew that there would be no place for a god-emperor in a
Soviet-subjugated society...

As to your "Hirohito knew", sorry, but he really didn't
know much about that Russian invasion AT THE TIME
he interrupted the War Cabinet meeting to tell them
he wanted Japan to surrender.
The Russian invasion had just started, and very little
was known about it in Tokyo, and very little had been
said about it in the War Cabinet meeting.

But those "in the know" KNEW...

[Jim Wilkins]

Post by a425couple

Post by Byker
They surrendered because the Soviets were on the brink of invading Hokkaido.
Hirohito knew that there would be no place for a god-emperor in a
Soviet-subjugated society...

As to your "Hirohito knew", sorry, but he really didn't
know much about that Russian invasion AT THE TIME
he interrupted the War Cabinet meeting to tell them
he wanted Japan to surrender.
The Russian invasion had just started, and very little
was known about it in Tokyo, and very little had been
said about it in the War Cabinet meeting.

But those "in the know" KNEW...
----------------
They knew that the Soviets possessed nothing faintly resembling the US Navy
to support an invasion against the world's most experienced and skilled
defenders.

[Keith Willshaw]

On 07/02/2021 20:51, Byker wrote:
ishing some writers continue

Post by Byker

Post by a425couple
to give it credence."

They surrendered because the Soviets were on the brink of invading Hokkaido.
Hirohito knew that there would be no place for a god-emperor in a
Soviet-subjugated society...

That is of course utter nonsense. The Japanese were still fighting in
Manchuria at the time of the Japanese surrender, more to the point given
the absence of aircraft carriers and shortage of landing ships, landing
craft, amphibious vehicles and long range aircraft there was no way for
the Red Army to reach Hokkaido. The few landing ships they hahd were
supplied by the US and the landing troops were US trained.

They did invade the Kuriles but got bogged down As I recall the
supporting naval force consisted mostly of minesweepers, armed trawlers
and a few old destroyers. They eventially took the island chain when the
Japanese garrison were ordered to surrender after the atomic bombing

The main targets for the invasion were Shumshu and nearby Paramushiro
which the Soviet marines failed to take as they had no weapons heavy
enough to crack the fortifications. 5 of the 16 LCI's were sunk. They
only tok their objectives AFTER the general surrender with no opposition.

The Soviet Army and Navy combined lost more than 800 dead and 1,400
wounded in the Battle of Shumshu, compared to 370 Japanese dead and 700
wounded. This made it the only battle in which the Soviets suffered
heavier losses than the Japanese.

[Jonathan]

Post by a425couple
Revisit - A-bombs ended WWII Hiroshima & Nagasaki
I've said it before, For anyone who thinks they understand
the end of WWII, it is necessary to read a modern book by a
competent author.  The 2001 book "Downfall: The End of the
Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard Frank is one of those.
https://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461
Another one is "Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45"
by Max Hastings.   (2007)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000XPNUOA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
On page xix he writes,
"On the contrary, alternate scenarios suggest that if
the war had continued for even a few weeks longer,
more people of all nations - and especially Japan -
would have lost their lives than perished at Hiroshima &
Nagasaki.
The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway
has been so comprehensively discredited by modern
research that it is astonishing some writers continue
to give it credence."

From what I've read the Japanese military could care less
about the suffering of the Japanese people and would have
held onto power to the bitter end. So the nukes provided
the needed shock to get the Emperor involved and put
a merciful end to the war.

Not to mention Stalin might have invaded if the war
went on much longer, so the nukes were the right
decision imo.

I also read that we were building one or two a month
and the assumption was we'd keep dropping them as
they became available. Glad it only took the two.

[Byker]

The A-bomb use caused the surrender and saved countless
solders lives. I believe at this time the US was in a two year
force buildup time. A testament to the island called Okinawa.
This island was so close to Japan, but so far as an invasion
launching spot. Just think of a D-day sized attack.

One of the alternatives to invasion was to aerial-spray their rice fields
with weed killer (2,4-D), resulting in famine, but this really wouldn't have
worked because, like in all dictatorships, the lives of ordinary citizens
mean nothing. Ever notice that trade embargoes against autocratic states
don't work? The dictators and their Praetorian guards continue to live
high-on-the-hog while the population does without...

[Jonathan]

Post by Byker

The A-bomb use caused the surrender and saved countless
solders lives.  I believe at this time the US was in a two year
force buildup time. A testament to the island called Okinawa.
This island was so close to Japan, but so far as an invasion
launching spot. Just think of a D-day sized attack.

One of the alternatives to invasion was to aerial-spray their rice fields
with weed killer (2,4-D), resulting in famine, but this really wouldn't have
worked because, like in all dictatorships, the lives of ordinary citizens
mean nothing. Ever notice that trade embargoes against autocratic states
don't work? The dictators and their Praetorian guards continue to live
high-on-the-hog while the population does without...

Sometimes 'dictators' just go golfing, high on the hog, while
3000 civilians die per day.

It took ten years of the Vietnam war to kill 60,000 US Troops
that's three...weeks of COVID. That's a 9/11 every day.

The taxpayers spent $144 million dollars on Trump's golfing
trips. If there's any justice Trump will die of old age
in...jail like most mobsters and dethroned dictators
tend to do.

[Stephen Harding]

Post by Jonathan
Sometimes 'dictators' just go golfing, high on the hog, while
3000 civilians die per day.
It took ten years of the Vietnam war to kill 60,000 US Troops
that's three...weeks of COVID. That's a 9/11 every day.
The taxpayers spent $144 million dollars on Trump's golfing
trips. If there's any justice Trump will die of old age
in...jail like most mobsters and dethroned dictators
tend to do.

Ah yes, the old Presidential golfing outrage game.

Wonder how many people Trump could have saved by not playing golf?

Obama allegedly played golf 10% of the days of his presidency. Wonder
how many people he could have saved during the SARS, Ebola, Zika and
swine flu outbreaks that occurred during his presidency?

As far as the costs, I would guess most of that, if true, would be for
security. I recall some smaller town in CT (maybe Newtown from the
school shootings there) was nearly bankrupt with increased police costs
for security when Obama visited.

I doubt Trump's greens fees would run that high!


SMH

[Jonathan]

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by Jonathan
Sometimes 'dictators' just go golfing, high on the hog, while
3000 civilians die per day.
It took ten years of the Vietnam war to kill 60,000 US Troops
that's three...weeks of COVID. That's a 9/11 every day.
The taxpayers spent $144 million dollars on Trump's golfing
trips. If there's any justice Trump will die of old age
in...jail like most mobsters and dethroned dictators
tend to do.

Ah yes, the old Presidential golfing outrage game.
Wonder how many people Trump could have saved by not playing golf?

If Trump had followed the science, not politicized wearing
masks and actually gave a crap about COVID the estimates
are 100,000 Americans would still be alive today.

If not 250,000.

Due to Trump 'delegating' his responsibility to the 50 states
America had 50 different COVID plans, and as a result
America suffered mightily as well as making the economic
collapse that much worse.

The American people have rendered their judgement on
Trump's COVID performance, and here it is...worst ever
and to use Trump's favorite phrase ..."BY A LOT".



A staggering 42% replied Trump is the worst president ever.
Another 10% rated Trump below average.
While only 22% gave him the highest rating.

To put that 42% in perspective, the average of all
presidents in the worst category is 14%.

Trump is...28% below the average for all presidents.


Worst ratings ever


HW Bush 4%
Ford 7%
Carter 15%
Obama 17%
GW Bush 36%
Trump 42%

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/politics/trump-presidency-history-analysis/index.html



Trump's approval rating is 25%, Nixon bottomed out at 24%.

Congrats repubs for giving America it's worst nightmare.
Under Trump more Americans died of COVID in ONE YEAR
than died in WW1, WW2 and Vietnam COMBINED.

No wonder he tried to overthrow the US govt and install
himself as 'Putin' for life. You Trumpsters worship
a Russian and don't even realize it.

Post by Stephen Harding
Obama allegedly played golf 10% of the days of his presidency.  Wonder
how many people he could have saved during the SARS, Ebola, Zika and
swine flu outbreaks that occurred during his presidency?
As far as the costs, I would guess most of that, if true, would be for
security.  I recall some smaller town in CT (maybe Newtown from the
school shootings there) was nearly bankrupt with increased police costs
for security when Obama visited.
I doubt Trump's greens fees would run that high!
SMH

[Keith Willshaw]

On 09/02/2021 22:01, Byker wrote:
invasion

Post by Byker

launching spot. Just think of a D-day sized attack.

One of the alternatives to invasion was to aerial-spray their rice fields
with weed killer (2,4-D), resulting in famine, but this really wouldn't have
worked because, like in all dictatorships, the lives of ordinary citizens
mean nothing. Ever notice that trade embargoes against autocratic states
don't work? The dictators and their Praetorian guards continue to live
high-on-the-hog while the population does without...

Well if you wanted to increase rice production that would do it. 2,4-D
kills broadleaf weeds. In California they use it to control weeds when
growing rice.

A secondary problem with this theory is that it only went into large
scale production in 1946. It was actuall developed in Britain during the
war to increase crop yields. You see it does not affect plants of the
grass species which of course includes rice.