Obama's trip to Hiroshima - Good or bad?

[mirage62 0]

Quote

But you are right at a larger level. The US government wasn't going to accept a conditional surrender when they could get an unconditional one. There were lots of positives - better PR (as you mention) better control of the future of Japan, the ability to demonstrate a nuclear weapon to the USSR. The only negative was more US soldier (and secondarily Japanese) deaths. And during wartime that's a cost that the government had already signed up for.

You had me till the end Bill. The American public was not "signing up" to get in the war. The attack on Pearl harbor forced America in the war.

I also believe that the American public was tired of the war - with good reason but certainly other allied countries had a right to be even more weary.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[normiss 897]

I was of the belief that as a nation, we were committed to winning the war at all costs.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

I was of the belief that as a nation, we were committed to winning the war at all costs.

Mark I don't understand you comment.

Absolutely we were....and certainly with a little loss of American life as possible. For whatever side benefits (impress the Russians, PR) the bombs ended the war. The question isn't if we would have won (with our allies help of course) we certainly would have.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[normiss 897]

Maybe we've confused each other Fortson.

" The American public was not "signing up" to get in the war." in reply to the US Government had signed up for the losses.

I don't understand " if we would have won".

[mirage62 0]

The American people or Government didn't "sign up" for the war it was forced on them. Say unlike Iraq which was our fault - we "signed up" for that one....

I thought I wrote - "It wasn't a question if we would have won" certainly we would have won without dropping the bombs but also just as certainly at a great cost of American life.

I think that straighten it out?

Be safe buddy.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[jcd11235 0]

mirage62

The American public was not "signing up" to get in the war. The attack on Pearl harbor forced America in the war.

Nonsense. The US could have gone on with business as usual. However, the attack shifted public sentiment to favor getting in the fight. We signed up, we weren't forced.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,116]

>You had me till the end Bill. The American public was not "signing up" to get in the war. The attack on
>Pearl harbor forced America in the war.

No, we decided to jump into it with both feet. We could have done nothing other than defense and our continuation of support of the UK and our other allies; Japan would not have been able to land a second blow a la Pearl Harbor. We could have declared a "limited police action" and treated it like Vietnam. But we didn't - we decided to go to war with Japan.

You can argue that that was the best decision, and you could likely back that up with some fairly good observations on the length of the war and how much worse a Vietnam-type involvement would have been. But make no mistake - it was a decision on our part, not anything we were "forced" to do.

[mirage62 0]

Bill under any consideration do you seriously think that after the attack on Pearl Harbor there REALLY was - other than some academic word play on this board - there was a serious position to not declare war? One that really would have made sense given the public reaction?

I'm guess your putting that out here as an abstract straw man.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 3,116]

>Bill under any consideration do you seriously think that after the attack on Pearl Harbor there REALLY
>was - other than some academic word play on this board - there was a serious position to not declare
>war?

There was a strong anti-war sentiment in the US just BEFORE Pearl Harbor, especially after the losses we suffered in the Great War. This sentiment did not go away, but was overwhelmed by the anger that the attack on Pearl Harbor generated - and thus we decided to go to war.

Again, I am not saying that that was the wrong decision. I am merely pointing out that it was a decision; we were not "forced" to do anything. With that decision came costs.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I wonder if that was based upon the time it would take for the US to mount an invasion vs. the time it would take the Ruskies.

If the war had dragged on much longer, the Soviets would likely have "helped" conquer the Japanese. That would have meant at least some if not much of Japan winding up like East Germany. It is a good thing that the USSR was not able to "help".

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

billvon

>Bill under any consideration do you seriously think that after the attack on Pearl Harbor there REALLY
>was - other than some academic word play on this board - there was a serious position to not declare
>war?

There was a strong anti-war sentiment in the US just BEFORE Pearl Harbor, especially after the losses we suffered in the Great War. This sentiment did not go away, but was overwhelmed by the anger that the attack on Pearl Harbor generated - and thus we decided to go to war.

Again, I am not saying that that was the wrong decision. I am merely pointing out that it was a decision; we were not "forced" to do anything. With that decision came costs.

One thing to remember is that Japan's strategy was not to defeat the US (as in invade and take over). It was to push the US out of the western Pacific.
If they could have taken Midway, they would have had a pretty good chance of doing that.

Then they would have sought peace (on their terms) in a manner that would have let them be dominant (as in "empire") in eastern Asia. They would have had China, SE Asia, and all the Pacific Islands.

All they wanted was the same sort of empire that the European powers had had in Africa and the western hemisphere (and Asia for the British Empire). They were just a couple hundred years too late.

And the oddest part about it is that attacking Pearl Harbor was a stupid mistake. Yamamoto accurately described the reaction of "awakening a sleeping giant and filling him with a terrible resolve."

Prior to 7 Dec, the US was very isolationist. Had the Japanese "played by the rules" and simply declared war, they probably would have won. They had gotten pretty good at carrier ops and tactics. The US had pretty much ignored the carriers and was trusting in the battleships.

If the US Navy had tried to send the battleships to fight the Japanese (which was the basic plan prior to PH), the losses would have been horrific. Instead of a couple thousand dead (2500 or so), it would have likely been 10,000 or more. The carrier based planes would have sunk most of the battleships out in the open ocean, in unfriendly territory.
Losing that badly in a "fair fight" would have likely made the US seek terms favorable to the Japanese.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 2,148]

DJL

***

Quote

Got a source on that to save me a lazy google search. All I've ever read is about how the nation was preparing to fight to the last man and the citizens were being told that they had to fight or else we'd slaughter and torture them (As they did against their foes).

What the citizens were told was going to happen and what was going to happen would be two different things. The Japanese high command may have been nationalist fanatics but they weren't completely blind to reality.

Oh yeah, entirely. Even what we know now is mostly fueled by propaganda. One issue is that the high command was also very split between factions. There were both fanatics and realists, some who had power, some who didn't. They at least thought they had a quantity of time to decide and act. I wonder if that was based upon the time it would take for the US to mount an invasion vs. the time it would take the Ruskies.fanatics and realists can quickly change to the other. Just see how quickly the Never Trump folks have become Trump 2016

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

Nonsense. The US could have gone on with business as usual. However, the attack shifted public sentiment to favor getting in the fight. We signed up, we weren't forced.

Uh...in talking with my father-in-law over the years, He has a different take. If you call a declaration of war "signing up," then perhaps you are right. Many men like himself did head for the recruiting stations to sign up. However, the Pearl Harbor attack was not only received with a predominance of anger and indignation, it was also met with reluctance for the mindset was one of Germany on one side, Japan on the other, and the United Sates in between, unprepared and yes quite fearful of what they were facing. According to my father-in-law, the country did not see itself as a superpower at the time. Father-in-law went on to join the USMC, Second Marine Division and was in the invasion of Tarawa, fought on Saipan and Tinian. His eyewitness accounts of battle are grizzly and horrific to say the least. He is still alive today, will be 99 in July.

With respect to others wanting bona fide sources for the Invasion of Japan, I'll refer to the recently declassified "Nimitz Gray Book" published by the United States Naval War College. It can be downloaded. Naval Planning for "Operation Olympic" is found in Volume 7, pages 100 - 200.

[jcd11235 0]

Boomerdog

If you call a declaration of war "signing up," then perhaps you are right.

What else would you call it? Congress would not have declared war without a shift of public sentiment. Pearl Harbor provided that shift.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[normiss 897]

For the class presentation

Thanks for that, I'd only read minor pieces as used by the USN during my time in.

[Boomerdog 0]

"Signing up," is I think, a rather glib term in both the term and context of a declaration of war and not a term I would use given the gravity, implications, and ugliness of the matter.

[jcd11235 0]

Boomerdog

"Signing up," is I think, a rather glib term in both the term and context of a declaration of war and not a term I would use given the gravity, implications, and ugliness of the matter.

It was mirage62's terminology.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DJL 235]

***"Signing up," is I think, a rather glib term in both the term and context of a declaration of war and not a term I would use given the gravity, implications, and ugliness of the matter.[/quote

I think you guys are trying too hard on this "signed up" thing.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher