Untold History of the United States

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're presuming that Japan needed to be invaded at all.

Alternatives?

[klr]

You're presuming that Japan needed to be invaded at all.

Alternatives?

I'd rephrase that as "alternatives that wouldn't end up killing even more Japanese, perhaps many times more".

Not that this was the primary concern of the US policy and decision makers, but it just kind of worked out that way.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're presuming that Japan needed to be invaded at all.

Alternatives?

I'd rephrase that as "alternatives that wouldn't end up killing even more Japanese, perhaps many times more".

Not that this was the primary concern of the US policy and decision makers, but it just kind of worked out that way.

No alternative I've seen proposed that doesn't include a miracle would give fewer deaths. But people do love to say "There had to be another way." without having a clue what that would be.

[klr]

... and no sooner had I submitted the above that I remembered that the Japanese leadership seemed to care even less about its own people that the Americans did.

[Clinton Huxley]

You're presuming that Japan needed to be invaded at all.

Alternatives?

Off the top of my head - a rigorous naval blockade of the Japanese home islands, preventing any import of oil, coal or gas. Japan has limited domestic fossil fuel reserves. You could even allow food through the blockade. Now, would this have resulted in an eventual Japanese surrender with fewer casualties? I don't know. I am uncertain. The pro-bombing argument however is generally put forward with absolute certainty that there was literally no other option and when I see absolute certainty, I smell a rat.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

... and no sooner had I submitted the above that I remembered that the Japanese leadership seemed to care even less about its own people that the Americans did.

They were hoarding food for the soldiers, so they could be strong enough to die for the Emperor. That's the kind of logic we were working against.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're presuming that Japan needed to be invaded at all.

Alternatives?

Off the top of my head - a rigorous naval blockade of the Japanese home islands, preventing any import of oil, coal or gas. Japan has limited domestic fossil fuel reserves. You could even allow food through the blockade. Now, would this have resulted in an eventual Japanese surrender with fewer casualties? I don't know. I am uncertain. The pro-bombing argument however is generally put forward with absolute certainty that there was literally no other option and when I see absolute certainty, I smell a rat.

Wouldn't such a blockade... "sanctions" if you will... kill hundreds of thousands of civilians?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're presuming that Japan needed to be invaded at all.

Alternatives?

Off the top of my head - a rigorous naval blockade of the Japanese home islands, preventing any import of oil, coal or gas. Japan has limited domestic fossil fuel reserves. You could even allow food through the blockade. Now, would this have resulted in an eventual Japanese surrender with fewer casualties? I don't know. I am uncertain. The pro-bombing argument however is generally put forward with absolute certainty that there was literally no other option and when I see absolute certainty, I smell a rat.

Wouldn't such a blockade... "sanctions" if you will... kill hundreds of thousands of civilians?

And, as noted above, the military would be the last to die. First, again as noted above, babies and old folks. This is better than a quick end to the war in what fashion?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Japanese rice harvest of 1945 was the worst in about fifty years, IIRC. The amount of food available was down sharply.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're presuming that Japan needed to be invaded at all.

Not really --

It is my position that they would not have surrendered had they not been invaded. But, I can see that someone could make an argument to the contrary.

Obviously, one can suggest a blockade, but would you think a blockade of Japan would have cost less than 200,000 civilian lives? And, what of the 150,000 POW's that Zilla mentioned that were ordered to be executed? What of the towns slated for extermination in China, by the Japanese, if the surrender did not happen?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're presuming that Japan needed to be invaded at all.

Not really --

It is my position that they would not have surrendered had they not been invaded. But, I can see that someone could make an argument to the contrary.

Obviously, one can suggest a blockade, but would you think a blockade of Japan would have cost less than 200,000 civilian lives? And, what of the 150,000 POW's that Zilla mentioned that were ordered to be executed? What of the towns slated for extermination in China, by the Japanese, if the surrender did not happen?

The war wasn't just in Japan, they hadn't shrunk down to just the Home Islands.

[Coito ergo sum]

Good point, zilla.

[klr]

This was a central concern of the US political and military leaders. The objective was not just to "defeat" Japan, but to ensure orderly compliance to a surrender order, in Japan and everywhere else.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This was a central concern of the US political and military leaders. The objective was not just to "defeat" Japan, but to ensure orderly compliance to a surrender order, in Japan and everywhere else.

And the Emperor was key to that.

[Coito ergo sum]

This was a central concern of the US political and military leaders. The objective was not just to "defeat" Japan, but to ensure orderly compliance to a surrender order, in Japan and everywhere else.

Sounds reasonable and prudent, and likely to save lives.