9-11

[i kne albert davy]

There's no doubt Japan had already lost the war but the fact remains they would have defended their home islands harder than they had every other island in the defensive ring around Japan, for Japan the game was up when Saipan was lost (with 30k Japanese dead) did they seek peace then no. It didn't take one atomic weapon but two to convince them to surrender ,World War Two was a fight to the bitter end not a game, Japan was working on Nuclear weapons fortunately their technology was way behind the Americans as Japan would have no doubt used it against us as would Germany. Its all very well to say now almost 70 years on what a bad thing is was with freedoms we enjoy, at the time though it ended the most costly war in Mankinds history without countless millions more killed.

 

[Skashion]

But a conditional surrender to the US would have seen Japan continue to fight the Soviets, Nat China and Com China; elongating the civil war and thus likely seeing an invasion of Taiwan. How many lives would have been lost in this scenario?

Those aren't just letters on a document.

Continue to fight the Soviets? The Soviets only began fighting Japan on the 9th of August 1945 and is probably more responsible for the decision of unconditional surrender than the atom bombs were.

They were, the major sticking point was only the Emperor, who retaining his place after the war anyway. Most pointless deaths imaginable. Two letters on a document.

 

[GazC]

But a conditional surrender to the US would have seen Japan continue to fight the Soviets, Nat China and Com China; elongating the civil war and thus likely seeing an invasion of Taiwan. How many lives would have been lost in this scenario?

Those aren't just letters on a document.

Continue to fight the Soviets? The Soviets only began fighting Japan on the 9th of August 1945 and is probably more responsible for the decision of unconditional surrender than the atom bombs were.

They were, the major sticking point was only the Emperor, who retaining his place after the war anyway. Most pointless deaths imaginable. Two letters on a document.

Yes, continue to fight the Soviets, a conditional surrender wouldn't have necessarily have applied to the USSR and even if it did, with Japan continuing to fight Com Chi, which certainly would have happened with a conditional surrender, the USSR would have been drawn back into hostilities supporting Com Chi - as you say, you can't look at the dropping of the bombs and August Storm as mutually exclusive events.

If you think Hirohito to remain in power is the only condition that the Big Six wanted to apply to any surrender you couldn't be further from the mark.

By your logic; should Britain have accepted Hess' offer of conditional surrender and every death after that was pointless?

 

[Skashion]

Yes, continue to fight the Soviets, a conditional surrender wouldn't have necessarily have applied to the USSR and even if it did, with Japan continuing to fight Com Chi, which certainly would have happened with a conditional surrender, the USSR would have been drawn back into hostilities supporting Com Chi - as you say, you can't look at the dropping of the bombs and August Storm as mutually exclusive events.

If you think Hirohito to remain in power is the only condition that the Big Six wanted to apply to any surrender you couldn't be further from the mark.

By your logic; should Britain have accepted Hess' offer of conditional surrender and every death after that was pointless?

So you're talking about the conditional terms offered by the Japanese after the 9th of August but before the 14th of August?

Can't even believe you mentioned Hess. I'm laughing my head off here.

 

[GazC]

Yes, continue to fight the Soviets, a conditional surrender wouldn't have necessarily have applied to the USSR and even if it did, with Japan continuing to fight Com Chi, which certainly would have happened with a conditional surrender, the USSR would have been drawn back into hostilities supporting Com Chi - as you say, you can't look at the dropping of the bombs and August Storm as mutually exclusive events.

If you think Hirohito to remain in power is the only condition that the Big Six wanted to apply to any surrender you couldn't be further from the mark.

By your logic; should Britain have accepted Hess' offer of conditional surrender and every death after that was pointless?

So you're talking about the conditional terms offered by the Japanese after the 9th of August but before the 14th of August?

Can't even believe you mentioned Hess. I'm laughing my head off here.

Yes, in a world where the bomb wasn't dropped but the Soviet's still honoured Potsdam.

Why? It's a simple hypothetical question.

Ultimately the ends justified the means, given what would likely have happened had the Japanese surrendered conditionally to the US or unconditionally to the USSR I'm not sure why you can continue to argue differently. Especially with your rationale being innocent lives that were lost, or are you just not aware of how a conditional surrender would have differed to one without conditions?

 

[ElanJo]

I;m not a WW2 buff so there may be well known reasons for this that I am unaware of.

If the US would have suffered extreme amount of losses trying to conquer Japan without using the bombs wouldn't it have been a decent idea to let the Japanese fight the Soviets? Let the Soviets suffer the losses instead? Weaken 2 birds without even picking up a stone?

 

[i kne albert davy]

I;m not a WW2 buff so there may be well known reasons for this that I am unaware of.

If the US would have suffered extreme amount of losses trying to conquer Japan without using the bombs wouldn't it have been a decent idea to let the Japanese fight the Soviets? Let the Soviets suffer the losses instead? Weaken 2 birds without even picking up a stone?

We'd already done that in Berlin and the Russians still had the strongest land army in the World.

 

[GazC]

I;m not a WW2 buff so there may be well known reasons for this that I am unaware of.

If the US would have suffered extreme amount of losses trying to conquer Japan without using the bombs wouldn't it have been a decent idea to let the Japanese fight the Soviets? Let the Soviets suffer the losses instead? Weaken 2 birds without even picking up a stone?

In doing so the US would have not been able to occupy South Korea and Japan as it did; they also though Nat Chi would win the civil war - at this time America had genuine concerns of the spread of communism, especially with such vested interests in the Phillipines.

 

[Skashion]

Yes, in a world where the bomb wasn't dropped but the Soviet's still honoured Potsdam.

Why? It's a simple hypothetical question.

Ultimately the ends justified the means, given what would likely have happened had the Japanese surrendered conditionally to the US or unconditionally to the USSR I'm not sure why you can continue to argue differently. Especially with your rationale being innocent lives that were lost, or are you just not aware of how a conditional surrender would have differed to one without conditions?

Yalta, and why would the Soviets honour their promise when the purpose of doing so was to force the Japanese to capitulate in this hypothetical scenario where they have already capitulated. I could understand your argument if there was already a state of war and the western allies effectively stabbed the Soviets in the back and left them to clean up the mess but that didn't happen.

Erm, for the following reasons:
1. Hess was not in a position to do. He was a deranged man with no power or mandate to negotiate anything.
2. The idea that a surrender was offered in 1941 when the Germans were well on top is preposterous. Peace or an alliance is completely different to a surrender but see point one anyway.

However, it is an interesting point, could Britain have sued for peace and gotten it on favourable terms. Yes, Hitler didn't want war with Britain. Britain did choose to fight.

I'm not sure you can justify what you're saying would have happened.

 

[GazC]

Yes, in a world where the bomb wasn't dropped but the Soviet's still honoured Potsdam.

Why? It's a simple hypothetical question.

Ultimately the ends justified the means, given what would likely have happened had the Japanese surrendered conditionally to the US or unconditionally to the USSR I'm not sure why you can continue to argue differently. Especially with your rationale being innocent lives that were lost, or are you just not aware of how a conditional surrender would have differed to one without conditions?

Yalta, and why would the Soviets honour their promise when the purpose of doing so was to force the Japanese to capitulate in this hypothetical scenario where they have already capitulated. I could understand your argument if there was already a state of war and the western allies effectively stabbed the Soviets in the back and left them to clean up the mess but that didn't happen.

Erm, for the following reasons:
1. Hess was not in a position to do. He was a deranged man with no power or mandate to negotiate anything.
2. The idea that a surrender was offered in 1941 when the Germans were well on top is preposterous. Peace or an alliance is completely different to a surrender but see point one anyway.

However, it is an interesting point, could Britain have sued for peace and gotten it on favourable terms. Yes, Hitler didn't want war with Britain. Britain did choose to fight.

I'm not sure you can justify what you're saying would have happened.

It's gone 2am so yes my mistake, Yalta.

As I already said, it's likely there would have been war between them anyway, you only have to look at the border wars in the 30s.

As I said, it's hypothetical, and you still didn't answer the question. Besides, Hess' flight can easily be viewed as a conditional surrender, you could only debate who exactly would be surrendering to whom.

Why spare x amount of lives by conducting one event if by not conducting that event an amount greater than x perish at a later date? It's completely illogical. I could appreciate your opinion if I understood the reasoning!

Anyway, appreciate the conversation but I'm done for tonight, happy to pick up again tomorrow and given how far we've taken this thread of tangent, in its own thread.