China the sleeping dragon? (Page 5)

FogofWar: "Fog, you are free to disagree but I don't believe that there is reasoning behind wars."

So there was no reason to declare war on Nazi Germany in 1939?


"-"the first on August 6, 1945 and the second on August 9, 1945."
-"The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October."
One bomb would've been an experiment, two isn't. And what was the reasoning behind that?"

The Empire of Japan was based on one sole principle: Victory at all costs. In the entire history of Japan; up until 1945; they had never lost a war. Their own soldiers were placing shotguns in their mouths; and holding grenades to their hearts rather than be taken prisoner; because defeat was utter shame. Japan had publicly admitted that they had zero intent to surrender. Even with what, 300,000 US soldiers on Japanese soil; they refused. Outnumbered 3 to 1 in Iwo Jima; a battle that was in no way shape or form possible for Japan to win; due to lack of supplies and reinforcements available; and no air or naval support like the US had; they still fought to the death. On 26 July 1945; Truman issued an ultimatum to Japan with Churchill and Chiang Kai-shek from China, stating that if Japan did not surrender; it would face "prompt and utter destruction." Japan still refused. For 6 months; the US bombed the piss out of some 67 Japanese cities with conventional bombs. Still Japan refused.

The US dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945; still Japan did not surrender. They then dropped another on Nagasaki on 9 August 1945. 6 DAYS LATER Japan admitted defeat; and agreed to the terms of surrender. The US did what had to be done.

Strategists determined the rate of casualties should the US continue with a conventional marine invasion of Japan. The estimate was into the millions; and an additional 2 years of campaign. The bombings killed no more than 240,000 initially; far less than projected otherwise. The US gave Japan plenty of alternatives; Japan refused them. Ask the people of Japan that were alive at that time who they blame; most will not say the US.

FogofWar: In Iwo Jima; of the 22,060 Japanese soldiers entrenched on the island; 21,844 died from fighting or ritual suicide. Only 216 were captured alive.

One month later; at Okinawa; some 200,000 US troops faced off against 70,000 Japanese army soldiers; and an additional 50,000 or so untrained troops. Of the some 120,000 Japanese combatants, roughly 107,000 were killed and only 7,400 captured alive.


Does this sound like an enemy that was anything but prepared to fight to complete death?


After issuing an ultimatum to surrender; or face utter annihilation...then watching damn near every single soldier fight to the death; and still refuse to surrender; get nuked; and STILL refuse to surrender...would you think twice about dropping a second one?

Comrade_: "So there was no reason to declare war on Nazi Germany in 1939? "

Which side of the war are you looking at? Nazi side or the Allies side. War takes 2 sides and both sides will always believe that they're in the right. There is no reasoning behind it.


I brought up the use of the Hiroshima bombing for the purpose that there is a possibility that nuclear bombs can be used.
You said that it was an experiment, then I told you that one bomb is an experiment not 2 and more. Now you go off to argue that the bombs caused "PEACE" please don't go down the Hiroshima debate with me. I hate anyone who thinks there was 'justice' in it or 'PEACE' as a result of it.

Comrade_: ...would you think twice about dropping a second one?

you know what? before things get too heated, I'll take my leave here, because I've argued the Hiroshima and Nagasaki before in the chatrooms with North Americans and it doesn't end well for them.

I'll leave the topic on China. If you want to continue to copy and paste unrelated things, then go right ahead.

davidk14: .

Caveman said:

Which side of the war are you looking at? Nazi side or the Allies side. War takes 2 sides and both sides will always believe that they're in the right. There is no reasoning behind it.

David responds:

I believe there comes a time when you must take a stand. In your statement, there is no reasoning behind taking sides either with the Nazi’s or against the Nazi’s? Are you out of your mind?

Caveman said:

I hate anyone who thinks there was 'justice' in it or 'PEACE' as a result of it [using nukes during WW2].

David responds:

Hate is a powerful word. I’m surprised you would use the word.

Whether you accept as fact or not, peace was the result of using nukes during WW2. Without the use of them, millions, perhaps tens of millions, American and Japanese alike would have died during the invasion of Japan by the US. Read the memoirs of General MacArthur during that period of history. The US had just finished the bloody and costly war in Europe and was bringing the war to an end in the Pacific which was also very, very bloody. American moral was very low due to the huge loss of American lives. The US had an opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of US lives as well as perhaps millions of Japanese lives by using those nukes. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Caveman said:

...you know what? before things get too heated, I'll take my leave here, because I've argued the Hiroshima and Nagasaki before in the chatrooms with North Americans and it doesn't end well for them.

David responds:

You say you have argued in the chatrooms with North American’s and it doesn’t end well for them. You have never debated me on it. It would be you that the debate would not end well on this topic. No personal attacks. We would first create a scenario using a fake country name. You game?

.

franklin1950: debates in the political forums are some of the most interesting and informative .

" hedger's rules of honorable controvercy " may help define a debate and prevent the enevitable personal breakdown.

Comrade_: David don't twist my words, but aim to understand them. In war there's no reasoning, the one goal between both sides is to eliminate or silence the other. If you looked at the previous quotes:
1. Caveman says: "In Hiroshima (I'm not saying that nuclear war will happen) but look at what happened in Hiroshima, no common sense was used. This is what happens in wars, no reasoning."
2. FogofWar says: " And sorry caveman; but there is much reasoning involved in war."
3. Caveman says: "Fog, you are free to disagree but I don't believe that there is reasoning behind wars."
4. FogofWar says: "So there was no reason to declare war on Nazi Germany in 1939?"
5. Caveman says: "Which side of the war are you looking at? Nazi side or the Allies side. War takes 2 sides and both sides will always believe that they're in the right. There is no reasoning behind it."

The error is mine for not explaining what "no reasoning in war" means: When two countries set out to war (no matter which side is wrong or right) no "reasoning" is used, they simple go out to destroy the other side, I gave the example of Hiroshima, that the US used no reasoning that this weapon would have this and that effect on the country, all they aimed to do was show their power.

Yes, I said hate, and it is a fitting word because it's something I don't forgive when Westerners use excuses for Hiroshima and say bs as "Well, they deserve it because look at what they did to Pearl Habour" crap like that as if the Japanese are not humans too. If you had a conversation with a Patriotic fanatic about Hiroshima these are the things you'll see them saying. That is why I ask to not go on that subject.

FogofWar: "Which side of the war are you looking at? Nazi side or the Allies side. War takes 2 sides and both sides will always believe that they're in the right. There is no reasoning behind it."


Then we should have left Hitler to exterminate the Jews; and the Aryan race take over the world?


"I brought up the use of the Hiroshima bombing for the purpose that there is a possibility that nuclear bombs can be used."

Did Japan possess nuclear arms to retaliate? This scenario is 100% inapplicable to modern times.

"I hate anyone who thinks there was 'justice' in it or 'PEACE' as a result of it."

So Japan didn't surrender to the US as a result?

"you know what? before things get too heated, I'll take my leave here, because I've argued the Hiroshima and Nagasaki before in the chatrooms with North Americans and it doesn't end well for them."

And your expertise in combat is based on what?


"I'll leave the topic on China. If you want to continue to copy and paste unrelated things, then go right ahead."

It was you that said war has no reasoning. It was you that brought up the comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither of those apply.

In Japan in 1945; the nuclear bombs were something that only the US had. It was leverage; and it was a tactical edge that they held over Japan. War is about evolving; and overcoming your enemy's ability to defend against you. Therefore tactics constantly evolve to the use of newer methods. What worked in WWII does not necessarily work today. Such comparisons are like saying that arrows are a good means of defeating an enemy assault because they killed countless hoplite soldiers in ancient Greece. Tactics evolve. You are comparing the use of something no one else had, on a nation to the use that half the world can do today.



David said: "Read the memoirs of General MacArthur during that period of history."

I would like to add that you can also look up Operation Downfall and see the formally planned Allied invasion of Japan set to begin in October 1945. There is substantial evidence that an all out invasion would have cost countless casualties as well as insane collateral damage with an enemy whose civilian populous would sooner take their own lives than fall to the enemy.


David said: "The US had just finished the bloody and costly war in Europe…"

And substantial evidence from the past wars have proven that prolonged combat increases fatigue and disease; resulting in a continually rising number of casualties, drastically increasing the death toll per capita by the day.

David said: "…and was bringing the war to an end in the Pacific which was also very, very bloody."

Statistics confirm that the costs of both the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima were higher than for D-Day. This war was getting really, really ugly…really, really fast.

"American moral was very low due to the huge loss of American lives."

As was Japan's Thousands of civilians had taken their own lives rather than face occupation of enemy forces. They even resorted to kamikaze bombing; which gave even more need for a massive and aggressive crush to the Japanese to get them to surrender.

"The US had an opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of US lives as well as perhaps millions of Japanese lives by using those nukes. There is no evidence to the contrary."

Exactly.

FogofWar: I too have never seen this debate end poorly for me. Again caveman; why don't you ask the people of Japan from that time what they thought.

There was an American journalist who traveled to Hiroshima a few years after the bombings. He had never been to Japan; and wasn't sure what to expect from the people that were his nation's mortal enemy not more than a couple years earlier. He said he was actually quite scared.

When he landed; he was taken in by a little old Japanese lady. She took him around and showed him the city...what remained of it. She took him into her home; and treated him with the utmost kindness.

When he finally asked the lady; how...how could she be so kind to him; after what his people did to hers...how could she not hate him for this...she smiled; and told him, "We do not blame the US for doing this; you were our enemy; and we would have done the same. We blame the Japanese government for letting it get this far."

FogofWar: "David don't twist my words, but aim to understand them. In war there's no reasoning, the one goal between both sides is to eliminate or silence the other."

Now it is you that is twisting words; and based off of ZERO experience.

War is not about eliminating or silencing the enemy; it is about forcing them into a position in which a continued fight is LESS advantageous than surrender. To do this requires you to force your enemy to do your will. How do you do this? Strategy.

You have zero experience with military strategy, if you would like to debate it; I would first suggest getting an education on it. Unfortunately there is only one way to get such an experience that is accurate.

"1. Caveman says: "In Hiroshima (I'm not saying that nuclear war will happen) but look at what happened in Hiroshima, no common sense was used."

Are you serious? The United States spent over 6 months strategizing ALL possible directions to take before using nuclear arms. They planned out the casualty cost of both scenarios; and determined the route that would accomplish their goal (Putting Japan into a situation that was far less advantageous to continue to resist than to surrender), with minimal effort and loss of life. This is the most naive thing you have stated thus far.




"The error is mine for not explaining what "no reasoning in war" means:"

And again I ask you; where has your education on this topic come from?

"When two countries set out to war (no matter which side is wrong or right)"

Who has ever said that war is about which side is "wrong" or "right"? There have been circumstances, like Hitler, in which it seems obvious which side is "wrong", but to whom? To Hitler we were "wrong". There is no "wrong" or "right", it is your beliefs and way of life, clashing with another. This is the most basic human instinct of all.

"no "reasoning" is used"

No matter how many times you state it; it doesn't make it any less true. Are you implying that there was no reasoning used in declaring war against Nazi Germany? Are you implying that there was no reasoning used in declaring war against Japan? Wow!

"War is the continuation of politics by other means." -General Carl von Clausewitz.

Are you saying that Carl von Clausewitz was wrong? That he didn't understand war like you do? Clausewitz fought his first war against Napoleon at the age of 13. He rose through the ranks; from a lowly Private (Lance Corporal in Prussian); up to the Chief of Staff of the Prussian Army. He did this by his insanely ingenious understanding of stratagem and politics. His work "Vom Kriege" also known as "On War" is the sole text that the entire NATO military is based on today. It is essentially the textbook to combat. Read it. You'll learn a thing or two.

"they simple go out to destroy the other side"

If that is the case; why did the US issue terms of surrender BEFORE commencing with the nuclear bombings? Your theory lacks basic logic.

"I gave the example of Hiroshima, that the US used no reasoning that this weapon would have this and that effect on the country, all they aimed to do was show their power."

So the Potsdam conference never occurred? Japan was not issued the Potsdam Declaration? Strange seeing as they signed it in September of 1945.

Japan's Supreme Council for the Direction of War had publicly stated their intent: TO FIGHT TO THE BITTER END!

The US gave them ample options from late 1944 up until August 1945 to surrender WITHOUT bloodshed…Japan refused.

FogofWar: "Yes, I said hate, and it is a fitting word because it's something I don't forgive when Westerners use excuses for Hiroshima and say bs as "Well, they deserve it because look at what they did to Pearl Habour""

When has anyone here stated something along these lines? Just because you are used to debating with degenerates does not mean you should assume that you are now.

Tell me, how would you have made Japan surrender to end the war WITHOUT the use of nuclear arms? Please provide evidence to indicate that the formula (yes; despite what you think there is one) for determining the cost of life from your method would have been lower and less costly than the nuclear bombs used.


"If you had a conversation with a Patriotic fanatic about Hiroshima these are the things you'll see them saying. That is why I ask to not go on that subject."

Yet you have heard none of these things; or anything remotely similar said here; so like you said to David: Stop twisting words.

davidk14: .

Caveman says: "In Hiroshima (I'm not saying that nuclear war will happen) but look at what happened in Hiroshima, no common sense was used. This is what happens in wars, no reasoning."

David responds: No common sense was used? Let’s see….Drop big ass bomb to end war early….hum….sounds good to me. What’s not to understand?

Caveman said: The error is mine for not explaining what "no reasoning in war" means: When two countries set out to war (no matter which side is wrong or right) no "reasoning" is used, they simple go out to destroy the other side, I gave the example of Hiroshima, that the US used no reasoning that this weapon would have this and that effect on the country, all they aimed to do was show their power.

David responds: Show US power? And what is wrong with that? Again….Drop big ass bomb to end the war with Japan….still sounds good to me. The US had planned the invasion of Japan for years so when the bomb came into existence, they dropped them hoping that the invasion plans would not be needed. Luckily, they weren’t and huge numbers of military and civilian lives were spared.

And you are going to love this…I think we should have sent in DVD’s of the nuke bombing of Japan and the aftermath of those bombings into Fallujah, Iraq along with this note….”You f%#^ with us, we will fx$& you up like you can’t even imagine. We will kill all of you sons of b*x%&xy”.

Now that’s a show of power.

Caveman said: Yes, I said hate, and it is a fitting word because it's something I don't forgive when Westerners use excuses for Hiroshima and say bs as "Well, they deserve it because look at what they did to Pearl Habour" crap like that as if the Japanese are not humans too. If you had a conversation with a Patriotic fanatic about Hiroshima these are the things you'll see them saying. That is why I ask to not go on that subject.

David responds: The policy of the United States regarding the Declaration of War with Japan was…Unconditional Surrender. Nothing more…nothing less. The Japanese had the choice to surrender when the US “came a nockin” on their homeland. They “chose” not to surrender. However they of course eventually did. The “tool” to end the war was not the blood of Americans, but the bomb. Enough American blood had been spilled getting to their homeland. So you suggest you would have rather have seen American blood spilled, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans and most likely millions of Japanese??? Not me and I bet if you ask any Marine that survived the Pacific war, they would agree.

Oh…I almost forgot this….I have a friend who joined the Marine Corp. in 1946. You know where they sent him? They sent him to the Philippines. You know what he did there? For the three years after the war was over, he fought Japanese soldiers who did not believe the war was over. He said the combat was as ferocious as any combat the Marines had seen previously. If we had invaded mainland Japan, the death and destruction would have been worse than the bombs.

.

FogofWar: Several soldiers; both American and Japanese testify to the fighting in the Philippines after the Japanese surrender. There were several Japanese naval ships that continued to fight until they too were forced to stand down. The Japanese culture had no comprehension of surrender until they were nuked. It was a hard reality; and one the populous blamed on their own leaders; NOT the USA.

Comrade_: You both can twist my statements and carry on with a list of excuses. I don't care. It was a cowardly act to use 2 NUCLEAR (yes, don't be scared to say nuclear, because it wasn't normal bombs)bombs. And I will always regard the US as cowards for that, not because it was done in the past, but because of the present and how they make excuses. Heyyy why don't you drop two bombs in Libya that will definitely stop the war, drop bombs where ever you want and act as if it was heroic.
Prove my point, YOUR wars have no reasoning and foresight behind it. And you're very stupid if you believe that those 2 nuclear bombs were dropped to settle a stalemate and not revenge.

Strange that only the people in North America always aim to justify using those bombs on Japan, while the rest of the world don't.

Comrade_: You know the funniest thing about it? Isn't the arrogance but the stupidity & the blind patriotism, similar to a religious fanatic. I do hope that China or any other future world power don't drop a few on you guys. War or no war. The only army I will respect is the Soviets and their contribution to WW2. Cowards gets no respect from me.

davidk14: .

Caveman said: “…You both can twist my statements and carry on with a list of excuses. I don't care….and I will always regard the US as cowards for that…And you're very stupid if you believe that those 2 nuclear bombs were dropped to settle a stalemate and not revenge….The only army I will respect is the Soviets and their contribution to WW2. Cowards gets no respect from me.”

David responds: I did not twist your statements. Your statements were already twisted and needed no help from me. There was no stalemate in the Pacific. The US was kicking the asses of the enemy. MacArthur started in the Philippines and methodically moved towards Japan destroying Japanese bases on the way. History is very clear about this. Once the US got a foothold on Guam, the Japanese knew their days were numbered. US bombers were bombing the crap out of the Japanese mainland. No twisting of facts regarding this. Stalemate? You are not educated regarding this conflict obviously. Again, no twisting of facts regarding this either.

Now regarding the Russians and WW2. They did take a beating in the early days of WW2 but “with the help of the US” the Russians came back towards the end of the war and pounced on the Germans. However, if you knew the history of this era, the Russians “murdered” hundreds of thousands of German soldiers who had surrendered. I’m not surprised that you would “respect” them for that horrible time in Soviet history.

You say the US were cowards for deciding to use thermonuclear weapons instead of sending in boots on the ground on mainland Japan. Perhaps you would have "respected the US" to have seen hundreds of thousands of US soldiers die instead, not to speak of the millions of Japanese civilians that would have die. To you, that would have been heroic.

.

StuckInTheSixties: Of note is the fact that in the final stages of the war in Europe, there was an onrush of civilian refugees and German military units heading WEST, towards the American, British and French forces, and fleeing the oncoming Russians to the east.

If the Russians were so worthy of your respect, why do you suppose this was, Caveman?

There is a wealth of information on World War II provided by those that were involved in the conflict. I suggest you hit your local library and avail yourself to this. I'd start with "The Last Battle," by Ryan Cornelius, about the final days of the war and the capturing of Berlin by the Russian Army. Perhaps you might also read "Flags Of Our Fathers," by James Bradley, which pertains to the latter stages of the war in the Pacific, and specifically, the fight for Iwo Jima. It's a pretty decent way to put that in proper context.

Forgive my bluntness, but your obvious ignorance on this subject is stunning.

Comrade_: I don't mind your opinion, because it is noticed that Westerns know little about the contribution of the Red Army during the war.
The Nazis posted most of there efforts, material and manpower on the Eastern front. The greatest majority of Nazis resources were used in an attempt to defeat the Soviets.

and something interesting:

"No other nation had deployed so much of their resources nor had suffered so much loss in their defeat of Germany. If one examines the casualties of the Western Allies, their total combined for the whole war did not even approach one single battle fought by the Soviets. It is mainly due to the secretive nature of the Soviet Union that the details of these Herculean efforts are only now becoming public knowledge."

I'm disappointed that you aimed to undermined the contribution of the Red Army to world war 2.

davidk14: .

Since Sixties will probably chime in on this, I will just say that I have found that...approximately….

78.5 million people died in WW2

32.2% - 25.3 million were Russian (14.6 million were civilians and 10.7 million were military)

67.6% - 53.1 million from all other countries in WW2.

.

StuckInTheSixties: Caveman says:
"I'm disappointed that you aimed to undermined the contribution of the Red Army to world war 2."

I did no such thing.

You were dwelling on the morality of the USA's decision to use the bomb, and comparing that in the moral sense to the Soviets. You said:

"The only army I will respect is the Soviets and their contribution to WW2."

As you say, the biggest sacrifices in the European Theatre were those of the Russians. Nowhere did I argue that point. You're equating numerical sacrifice with moral conduct, and trying to force my words within that erroneous comparison.

You've accused others of twisting your words. You twisted mine into a pretzel.

That said, if you are examining the moral implications of conduct of one countries armies to another, it's either ignorant, or hypocritical, not to acknowledge that when comparing the actions of the belligerents, the actions of the Allies were NOTHING like those of the Japanese, Germans and Russians. There was an obvious reason why German civilians and soldiers were heading west at the end of the war. Being captured by the Allies meant life. Being captured by the Russians meant death. It's as simple as that.

-- For comparison sake, between 34 and and 38 percent of Americans held by the Japanese as prisoners died; about two thirds of Russian prisoners held in Germany appear to have died; and the proportion of Germans Captured on the Eastern Front who died has been estimated to be as high as 80 percent. About 1 percent of Germans held as POWs by Americans died. --

Source: Citizen Soldiers - Stephen A. Ambrose

Nearly ALL Japanese taken prisoners by American forces survived. But keep in mind that there were very few. They simply refused to surrender. This cultural state of mind, the unwillingness to surrender regardless of the circumstance, is at the heart of why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

This moral question about the usage of the bomb has been on my mind for years, decades, actually. As such, over the years, I had the opportunity to ask many World War II veterans, including my father, what they thought of it. Every single person I spoke with felt nothing but gratitude for those bombs being dropped. For them, it was like having a death sentence lifted. For them, it was learning that the near certainty they had that they weren't going to survive this war was suddenly lifted. They were all sick of that war, sick of all the death and destruction, and they wanted it over. They wanted it over NOW.

Comrade_: Western Allies of WW2 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Allies)
Yugoslavia:446,000
Canada: 45,400
UK: 383,800
US: 416,800
France: 217,600
Latin America 1,000

Soviets military deaths: 8,800,000 to 10,700,000

I don't know where you got your statistics from, maybe you counted in Germany or something. I said the Western Allies vs the Soviets Military death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

(there is a pie chart of the military casualties, you can look at)

*note that "Soviet" is different from "Russia"

I simple admire their contribution to world war 2, is it a jealousy that you can't accept that? (rhetorical question, don't go off and answer via copy and paste)

I'm not for communism or inciting anything but this song is addictive...just saying:

StuckInTheSixties: Once again, where have I disputed the fact that Russia/USSR had a far greater number killed then any others?

You keep attributing my words as disputing that.

Please copy and paste my words that have either said or implied that.

Comrade_: That said, if you are examining the moral implications of conduct of one countries armies to another, it's either ignorant, or hypocritical, not to acknowledge that when comparing the actions of the belligerents, the actions of the Allies were NOTHING like those of the Japanese, Germans and Russians. There was an obvious reason why German civilians and soldiers were heading west at the end of the war. Being captured by the Allies meant life. Being captured by the Russians meant death. It's as simple as that.

This is your own words not mine, I said: "The only army I will respect is the Soviets and their contribution to WW2. Cowards gets no respect from me. I compared nothing.
These are nuclear weapons and I don't respect the ideology of 'nuke 'em to save lives' (which btw didn't happen to save more lives did it? we can see the effects now.)
You forget that this wasn't merely a military tactic but Politics was also involved. There is more to say on that nuclear attack than can be said here in this thread, there's more Politics behind it than you think, but it is easy to settle for what you are told.


Did you ask anyone who wasn't an American how they felt about the use of the nuclear bombs? Yeah well it was over NOW right? at the cost of other lives not imagined lives but real ones.

Comrade_: Those statistics were for David.

davidk14: Edit: wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

(sorry)