|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I suspect from your writing style, and substance, that you don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you have some link to the actual, credible, military report making these claims? |
From Wiki:
The Americans were alarmed by the Japanese buildup, which was accurately tracked through Ultra intelligence.[16] Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was sufficiently concerned about high American estimates of probable casualties to commission his own study by Quincy Wright and William Shockley. Wright and Shockley spoke with Colonels James McCormack and Dean Rusk, and examined casualty forecasts by Michael E. DeBakey and Gilbert Beebe. Wright and Shockley estimated the invading Allies would suffer between 1.7 and 4 million casualties in such a scenario, of whom between 400,000 and 800,000 would be dead, while Japanese casualties would have been around 5 to 10 million.[17][18] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Since this discourse is not a scholarly discussion but just pathetic anti-Americanism which I despise. I will just stick to supporting the actions of the US. The main reason the bombs were dropped is that the allies (not just the US) were using anything they could come up with to make things very difficult for Japan. This attitude was supported by the fact, as I mentioned before, that 500,000 civilians were dying each month in Japanese occupied territories. Also the Allies did not want Japan to be occupied by Russia which was advancing (only because the Japanese had been tenderized by the US) so the allies wanted to speed up the surrender process. Another thing if the Atom bomb was not a main concern in the Japanese surrender, why did Hirohito's surrender speech specifically include the Atom bomb as a final factor? And why did the surrender just happen to come a day after the bombing of Nagasaki. |
Correct.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Steelrails showed the chronology and how the surrender of the Japanese coincided with the Russian advances in Manchuria. This makes sense because the surrender of the Japanese was timed rather strangely if it were due to the bombs. |
The Russians were opportunistic, waiting until Japan was f-ed up by the U.S. before starting their land grab. First A-bomb: August 6th. Then:
At two minutes past midnight on August 9, Tokyo time, Soviet infantry, armor, and air forces had launched the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation.[146] Four hours later, word reached Tokyo of the Soviet Union's official declaration of war.
...
As agreed at Yalta, the Soviet Union had intervened in the war with Japan within three months of the German surrender, and they were therefore entitled to the territories of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands and also to preeminent interests over Port Arthur and Dalian, with its strategic rail connections. The territories on the Asian mainland were subsequently transferred to the full control of the People's Republic of China in 1955; the other possessions are still administered by the Soviet Union's successor state, Russia.
Though the north of the Korean peninsula was under Soviet control, the logistic machine driving the Soviet invasion forces had given out before the entire peninsula could be seized. With the American landing at Incheon — some time before the Red Army could have remobilized and secured the entire peninsula — Korea was effectively divided. This was a precursor to the Korean War five years later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I suspect from your writing style, and substance, that you don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you have some link to the actual, credible, military report making these claims? |
From Wiki:
The Americans were alarmed by the Japanese buildup, which was accurately tracked through Ultra intelligence.[16] Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was sufficiently concerned about high American estimates of probable casualties to commission his own study by Quincy Wright and William Shockley. Wright and Shockley spoke with Colonels James McCormack and Dean Rusk, and examined casualty forecasts by Michael E. DeBakey and Gilbert Beebe. Wright and Shockley estimated the invading Allies would suffer between 1.7 and 4 million casualties in such a scenario, of whom between 400,000 and 800,000 would be dead, while Japanese casualties would have been around 5 to 10 million.[17][18] |
You conveniently left out the part right above your quote.
"A study from June 15, 1945, by the Joint War Plans Committee,[14] who provided planning information to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated that Olympic would result in between 130,000 and 220,000 US casualties of which U.S. dead would be the range from 25,000 to 46,000. Delivered on June 15, 1945, after insight gained from the Battle of Okinawa, the study noted Japan's inadequate defenses due to the very effective sea blockade and the American firebombing campaign. The Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General of the Army George Marshall, and the Army Commander in Chief in the Pacific, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, signed documents agreeing with the Joint War Plans Committee estimate.[15]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Preparations_to_invade_Japan
See also:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/158581212/Hiroshima-the-Strange-Myth-of-Half-a-Million-American-Lives-Saved
-can not copy and paste from this file, so I'm just putting the link here
Unfortunately many of the articles that further explain how these huge casualty figures are a myth are from academic journals with paywalls, but the huge numbers you are using are not credible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How many Japanese would have died in an invasion? How about Japanese + American?
You are posting opinions (selectively, too).
In Truman's 1955 Memoirs, "he states that the atomic bomb probably saved half a million US lives— anticipated casualties in an Allied invasion of Japan planned for November. Stimson subsequently talked of saving one million US casualties, and Churchill of saving one million American and half that number of British lives."[237] Scholars have pointed out various alternatives that could have ended the war without an invasion, but these alternatives could have resulted in the deaths of many more Japanese.[238] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| U.S. President Truman stated in 1953 he had been advised U.S. casualties could range from 250,000 to one million men.[10][11] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Contemporary estimates of Japanese deaths from an invasion of the Home Islands ranged from several hundreds of thousands to as high as ten million. General MacArthur's staff provided an estimated range of American deaths depending on the duration of the invasion, and also estimated a 22:1 ratio of Japanese to American deaths. From this, a low figure of somewhat more than 200,000 Japanese deaths can be calculated for a short invasion of two weeks, and almost 3 million Japanese deaths if the fighting lasted four months.[17] A widely cited estimate of 5 to 10 million Japanese deaths came from a study by William Shockley and Quincy Wright; the upper figure was used by Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy who characterized it as conservative.[18] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
You conveniently left out the part right above your quote.
"A study from June 15, 1945, by the Joint War Plans Committee,[14] who provided planning information to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated that Olympic would result in between 130,000 and 220,000 US casualties of which U.S. dead would be the range from 25,000 to 46,000. |
I did not "conveniently leave it out". Operations Olympic was only the first step of Operation Downfall.
The operation had two parts: Operations Olympic and Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Olympic involved a series of landings by the US Sixth Army intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyūshū.[8] Operation Olympic was to be followed in March 1946 by Operation Coronet, the capture of the Kantō Plain, near Tokyo on the Japanese island of Honshū by the US First, Eighth and Tenth Armies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
How many Japanese would have died in an invasion? How about Japanese + American?
You are posting opinions (selectively, too).
In Truman's 1955 Memoirs, "he states that the atomic bomb probably saved half a million US lives— anticipated casualties in an Allied invasion of Japan planned for November. Stimson subsequently talked of saving one million US casualties, and Churchill of saving one million American and half that number of British lives."[237] Scholars have pointed out various alternatives that could have ended the war without an invasion, but these alternatives could have resulted in the deaths of many more Japanese.[238] |
The problem is that you are still looking at Wikipedia, and not even posting the link to the wiki page to back it up.
That the people who used the Atomic bomb would seek to justify its use by quoting that figure is not surprising. The number is not credible. In all of WW II less than 500,000 Americans died, total. More than that number would have died going into an already weakened Japan? The Japanese would have kept fighting until they were all dead, yet gave up after less than 100,000 died in the A-Bomb attack? They would have fought to the bitter end, despite the probability of the Soviets completely overrunning them in Manchuria and Korea? Think critically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How many deaths would an invasion cause? How many deaths in total (including deaths from both sides)? Want to throw out a number?
The bombings saved all those lives plus prevented WWIII (and greatly reduced the number of future large scale conflicts) as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Americans were alarmed by the Japanese buildup, which was accurately tracked through Ultra intelligence.[16] Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was sufficiently concerned about high American estimates of probable casualties to commission his own study by Quincy Wright and William Shockley. Wright and Shockley spoke with Colonels James McCormack and Dean Rusk, and examined casualty forecasts by Michael E. DeBakey and Gilbert Beebe. Wright and Shockley estimated the invading Allies would suffer between 1.7 and 4 million casualties in such a scenario, of whom between 400,000 and 800,000 would be dead, while Japanese casualties would have been around 5 to 10 million |
Yes, nothing more impartial and non-politic driven than an Army study.
| Quote: |
| The Russians were opportunistic, waiting until Japan was f-ed up by the U.S. before starting their land grab. First A-bomb: August 6th. Then: |
The Russians had their hands full with Hitler prior to that. Something about that whole, Wehrmacht within sight of Moscow and million-man a side battles like Kursk and Stalingrad thing.
You have a completely deluded version of WWII history. You seem to have no recognition and concept as to the scope of the conflict involving the USSR against Nazi Germany and China against Japan. Most of the casualties and losses in men and materiel suffered by the Axis powers were to those two countries. Yes, the US played a significant war in bombing the industrial centers of both nations, to moderate effect (as much as WWII strategic bombing was capable of). Yes, the US provided raw materials and vital supplies to the British, the Russians, and the Chinese (of course, is this due to any greatness of America or mere geography?). And yes, the US submarine fleet was devastating to Japanese maritime commerce, but the territories the Japanese lost to the US and fleet losses suffered in protecting them were of minimal consequence outside of the Philippines and Okinawa's strategic location. In the end, it was the Russians and Chinese who were draining the Axis powers of their full resources and locking them into battles of attrition. It was them that was killing off their veteran soldiers and being a huge drain on their materiel resources.
And as for the bomb, why not accept the possibility that it was the Soviet invasion that prompted them to capitulate? I used to buy that overly-simplistic view as well, but keeping an open mind, reading, and understanding the power structures at work, it becomes apparent how critical the issue of Soviet control was. The Soviet invasion forced the Japanese and American's hands into negotiating a surrender. They had to strike a deal as soon as possible as it was in both's own best interests to do so. In fact it was critically important. The Americans new that if the Soviets got into China that they'd rout the KMT. They'd also demand a hand in Japan's surrender. The Japanese new that time had run out and they could no longer threaten a costly invasion as a negotiating tactic. If the Russians came into the picture that would mean death or imprisonment to virtually every member of the upper-classes.
Do you really think the Japanese and Americans had no back-channel negotiations going on at the time regarding surrender and what to do about the Soviet/Communist question?
Get a clue about how real power and interests work, not some 6th grade textbook answer you've swallowed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
How many deaths would an invasion cause? How many deaths in total (including deaths from both sides)? Want to throw out a number?
The bombings saved all those lives plus prevented WWIII (and greatly reduced the number of future large scale conflicts) as well. |
This is asinine. Of course it is impossible to throw out a number like it is some guessing game. Also I am unwilling to glibly trade American soldiers lives for civilian Japanese lives and call it some sort of worthwhile trade.
If it prevented WW III than what happened a few years later in Korea? McArthur wanted to use a Nuke, China gave up 100,000's of soldiers, the Soviet's were involved, but trying to hide it, and 15 countries fought on the UN side, with Japan's heavy involvement.
Mao knew America had the nuclear bomb, but Mao was never really known to care to much about spending Chinese lives. Stalin had forces near the Yalu River ready to go if that line was breached. I find your thesis to be severely unconvincing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hokie21 wrote: |
People painting the typical American as a bible thumping, gun toting religious nut is about as fair as painting the typical Canadian as a backwoods barely English speaking, logging/oil rigger retard.
I recently traveled around Canada and at times felt like I was in a very cold Alabama by the people I encountered. |
Not sure if this was directed at me, but I did indeed use some of those words. I did try to be careful though that I do not think it's a "typical American." But, there definitely are many Americans who fit that mold. I also believe (hope) that most do not.
In this link you can see some examples of what Canadians generally look down on:
http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/75447787843/speak-english-racist-revolt-as-coca-cola-airs
We know this isn't the majority of you guys down there, but it is there, and it is vocal. And it makes us laugh/cry/shake our heads. Hopefully it does the same to most of you posting here.
It's the same that the "Korean ajossi" can annoy many of us with their horking, spitting, racist attitudes. We know (or at least should know) that this is just a minority, and that most of them are okay people, yet we often vent about them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Newbie wrote: |
| Hokie21 wrote: |
| People painting the typical American as a bible thumping, gun toting religious nut is about as fair as painting the typical Canadian as a backwoods barely English speaking, logging/oil rigger retard. |
Not sure if this was directed at me, but I did indeed use some of those words. I did try to be careful though that I do not think it's a "typical American." But, there definitely are many Americans who fit that mold. I also believe (hope) that most do not. |
So much sanctimony over a stupid stereotype. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Newbie wrote: |
| It's the same that the "Korean ajossi" can annoy many of us with their horking, spitting, racist attitudes. |
I know it's a bit off topic, but why does the whole spitting thing bother everyone here so much? I'm having a hard time thinking of any moment in my entire life when someone spitting on the ground outdoors caused me to feel disgust, discomfort, or irritation. Why does this come up so much? I don't spit myself (because I don't smoke, so I don't need to spit), but if I felt like spitting, I wouldn't hesitate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Newbie wrote: |
| It's the same that the "Korean ajossi" can annoy many of us with their horking, spitting, racist attitudes. |
I know it's a bit off topic, but why does the whole spitting thing bother everyone here so much? I'm having a hard time thinking of any moment in my entire life when someone spitting on the ground outdoors caused me to feel disgust, discomfort, or irritation. Why does this come up so much? I don't spit myself (because I don't smoke, so I don't need to spit), but if I felt like spitting, I wouldn't hesitate. |
I think it's nasty - having to walk through, or side step, someone's mucus. Generally speaking, I don't think people should be projecting bodily fluids in public.
_______________
Slightly more on topic- I thought that there had been revelations that the Japanese had tried to surrender prior to the bombings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
