|
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 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
hmmm well explain this bad boy then:
Quote: |
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
In a conference with President Truman on 18 June, Marshall, taking Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. |
Might want to get a better grasp of history there .
Wikipedia: Operation Downfall
And if you would like additional sources, I will be happy to provide them this evening.
Cheers. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just for kicks, here is another:
Quote: |
Casualty figures were a guess that changed with time. There are sufficient numbers available to support any post-war position that any author chooses to take. Low numbers are quoted as reasons to do the invasion, 125,000 for Olympic and to end the war. |
another website
Another website with the same numbers as Wikipedia:
Quote: |
The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 men, including 109,000 killed. Including Coronet, it was estimated that America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267,000 deaths.
Staff working for Chester Nimitz, calculated that the first 30 days of Olympic alone would cost 49,000 men. MacArthur�s staff concluded that America would suffer 125,000 casualties after 120 days, a figure that was later reduced to 105,000 casualties after his staff subtracted the men who when wounded could return to battle. |
history learning site |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
freethought wrote: |
no, sir... not a single intelligence assessment during the war calculated the totals above 100,000. Those came AFTER the war. Right and leftwing scholars concur on that point. |
Which "right and leftwing scholars" would those be, exactly? I trust you or they have perused these and other primary documents, right? That you are not merely Googling for editorials?
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/c4035.htm#truman
And, if you have not, why must all questions be politicized? Why not consult professional, dispassionate, or apolitical analyses? You simply picked the "right and leftwing" opinions and took them at face value?
I agree that we should not oversimplify any answer to any historical issue. But to emphasize "racism" over everything else to support your "coward" and "bully" thesis, and to imply that irrational U.S. fears about Soviet expansion (they were indeed expanding into Western Europe and preparing to invade and occupy northern Japan towards the end of the war) were paramount in the decision is simply disengenous.
And ending the war where the Japanese were showing no signs of accepting the unconditional surrender the Allies demanded, and ending it without expending countless Allied lives in a costly and bloody invasion of the mainland -- which threatend to be even worse than Normandy -- just because the Japanese leadership would not accept that it had lost, was the paramount concern and problem. There were undoubtedly several other variables and permissive factors (anything worth explaining has a multivariable explanation). But dropping the bomb was mainly intended to solve this problem.
I am finding it difficult to appreciate how you can look at Japanese behavior in the Pacific leading up to and during the Second World War and, comparing it to U.S. behavior at the same time, reach the conclusion that the U.S. acted as a racist, coward, and bully. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that's brilliant... wikipedia is a 'grasp of history'. btw, there are just as many books that conclude the exact opposite about the invasion and the bomb dropping as the ones the wiki cites. There is what is called the revisionist school that made a huge leap to the mainstream back in the 60s with books by Gar Alperovitz and others. The revisionist position, though dominant for many years, is now viewed as relying on now disputed or disproven ideas due to newly available documents. I do not espouse the revisionist position, but rather the synthesis position., wherein the idea that it was a must do is too simplistic, and that the Soviets, race, and many other concerns/issues played a defining role in the decision to use the bomb.
There are all kinds of books that are good for this topic, though the only one that I consider to be worthwhile that the wiki entry lists is Richard Frank's book, which is still fairly widely respected and is an excellent starting point for the subject. The issue with regards to casualties is that they were based on the Okinawa casualty rates, and Okinawa is thought to have been more of an exception than the rule. if you use Okinawa as the basis, you get casualties of dead and wounded at about 220,000. But that's literally in taking over ALL of Japan... which would never have been necessary or possible. This also leads to the entire would Japan have surrendered debate.
As for the racism issue, I'm not saying it was THE factor, what I'm saying is that it played a role. There are all kinds of studies to this effect. Political cartoons almost always portrayed the Japanese as monkees and later in the war rats also became prevalent. This is in stark contrast to the way germans were drawn. I'm not using this is ultimate proof, but rather a single example of how racism was a part of the mentality. Along with the unconditional surrender issue(which is now debated as to whether it was a big deal or not), there were all kinds of other issues such as the Soviet entry into the war. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Freethought: since the First World War, Allied propaganda consistently characterized the Germans as "Huns," or more directly, barbarians. In the aftermath of the First World War, if you recall, the French did not exactly extend the olive branch to the Germans, either.
Allied propaganda also portrayed the Japanese negatively -- without a doubt.
But this is what happens in war. People have been dehumanizing their enemies and opponents for over ten thousand years.
My issue with your position is the same one I have with most of the others here who so bitterly denounce the U.S. (and also the entire West) as you do on this thread: you seem to assume that we are the only ones who act aggressively or, at times at least, have held racist worldviews.
By doing so, you imply that everyone else in the world (the Japanese, the Latin Americans you cite on page one, and, of course, all other non-Western peoples and cultures) are all-wise, moderate, passive, and purely peaceful in their behavior and worldviews. What was, supposedly, once the Garden of Eden where everyone tolerated everyone else and lived in peace and prosperity, was decisively corrupted and soiled by the evil, racist West, which has colonized and brutally forced all women, all people of color, and all homosexuals into oppression and made them all but invisible -- and this especially applies to the United States, the Great Satan. (Sadly, this is no strawman, but merely the ultimate expression of what is usually alleged.)
And this is absurd.
This problem to which you refer and wrap the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in -- that is, "racism" -- is in fact a global, species-wide problem that we all need to work to overcome. It is not something the big, bad, cowardly, bullying United States inflicted onto the rest of the world -- and especially not the poor, innnocent, tolerant-of-all-other-races, minding-their-own-business Imperial Japanese.
You are living in South Korea and you cannot see this? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OntheOtherHand wrote: |
If an American said to me that he was disgusted by Canada's treatment of its aboriginal population, without also at least acknowledging his own nation's sorry record in this regard, I would assume that he was pushing another agenda besides simple humanitarianism. |
Freethought: this point about you and your motives still stands, and, indeed, it has only become clearer as you continue to write.
Still, I'll give you one more chance to clarify your position.
Freethought wrote: |
...the Soviets, race, and many other concerns/issues played a defining role in the decision to use the bomb. |
I think the word you are looking for is "decisive." But you cannot list several factors and say that, together, theirs were the decisive influence on Truman's decision-making.
One of the factors makes up the decisive reason. The rest are contributory, but not overriding.
You may even back away from this and suggest that there was no single decisive factor, but a combination of factors, the totality of which somehow led to the decision. But I do not think it likely.
Please clarify, then. What do you believe was the decisive factor, if any, in leading to the U.S. to attack Japan with nuclear arms? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was going to write something to the effect of "you're an american, aren't you?" But that's not what I want to say. I'm not passing the buck and saying whitey is a racist and everyone else is great. I'm speaking of THIS INCIDENT. I've studied Chinese war propaganda, been at elite gatherings of not yet publically released Chinese War propaganda, and what I've seen is that the propaganda coming from the Chinese was also very unflattering of the Japanese, as you might expect(rape of nanjing, chemical weapons experiments etc), but the number of 'racist' cartoons was about 5% of what was going on in the US (the art was also awful and the messages not very sophisticated). But that's part of the point, is that the American racial element in this propaganda in this case was extreme. Believe it or not, it's worse than the vast majority of similar cartoons the Nazis released about Jews. This is something that should not be ignored.
All of that said, of course its more than white people who are racist. I've received the white guy's cab route on more than one occassion in Korea, I dated/slept with women who had to sneak around to be with me because their parents don't want them with a non-korean. I know of 8 year old Koreans that make monkey noises when they see pictures of black people. I've had similar experiences in the city that claims to be the most multi-cultural in the world, Toronto, where a black woman would block her number whenever she called me, because she didn;t want me to have her number in case I callled and her family found out she was going out with a white guy(well, that or maybe I am that damn ugly...). Racism is everywhere and in all peoples.
All that said, this is essentially a case study. I know people take things personally, and of course we could discuss all kinds of racial stereotypes of various cultures, but I was referring to this one particular issue, during a specific time/event. That's exactly what a case study is. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
R. S. Refugee

Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand wrote: |
Quote: |
Not meaning to get to empirical on ya here, but when was the last time that members of our "white" race were on the receiving end of "shock and awe?"
|
Ya ever heard of a little town called Dresden? |
Yes, and that's my point OTOH. It's been more than half a century. (Not that I would wish for anyone to be on the receiving end of that "shock and awe.")
And how many millions of "non-white" people has the American military killed since then, do you figure?
Last edited by R. S. Refugee on Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
[
Please clarify, then. What do you believe was the decisive factor, if any, in leading to the U.S. to attack Japan with nuclear arms? |
What the decisive factor was, in my opinion, based on everything that I've ever read: ending the war. Yes, yes, a very broad answer, but it had to do with saving lives, MONEY and the economy, and the belief that the Japanese would not surrender. You can add to that list sending a message to the Soviets. The list goes on.
I've worked in high enough levels of government to know that sometimes there is a single reason why things are done, but more often than not it's an amalgam of factors. In this case you have the major costs of the war, both economic and human that were the overriding factors. If you're looking for "It was reason X that they dropped the bomb," I'm afraid I wont be giving you that, because the evidence, both documents and anecdotal do not support the one reason rationale.
'fraid that's the best I can do. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
freethought wrote: |
...this is essentially a case study. I know people take things personally, and of course we could discuss all kinds of racial stereotypes of various cultures, but I was referring to this one particular issue, during a specific time/event. That's exactly what a case study is. |
I disagree.
OP makes an allegation that the U.S. govt is a "coward" and a "bully," and you add "racist" to the thesis with your interpretation of U.S. motives in dropping atomic weapons on Japan -- and this, as evinced above, resonates well with R.S., too.
OP also lacks the dry language and the dispassionate weighing of evidence on an actual issue of substance that one might expect to find in a "case study." Rather, this thread presents a U.S.-centric interpretation of world history and the usual antiAmerican diatribe which you are now attempting to cloak in the guise of a scholarly "case study."
If you or R.S. want to take a stand against aggressiveness in international relations, and against racism generally, I and -- I would wager -- nearly everyone else who has contributed to this thread, would support your aims, as these are, indeed, real problems, deserving serious consideration, criticism, and suggestion.
What can we do to get people to live together in peace in places like the Middle East or subSaharan Africa, and elsewhere, for example? What can we do to remove racist bias from all of our individual societies and, more importantly, from our emerging global society?
You might be well advised to go about this in a different way, then, as the United States is not the center of these things in world history, and, moreover, if you stand against aggressiveness in international relations and against racism generally, you really do have much bigger fish to fry than Washington, or any of the other Western democracies, for that matter, at least in their current, multicultural form.
All of this notwithstanding, I agree that surely, somehow racism was involved in the U.S. decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan, at least as a permissive factor. I also do not think that it was decisive in any way. If we had had the technology earlier, we would almost certainly have used these weapons against Nazi Germany -- just as Hitler would have used them against Soviet Russia and probably Britain, too.
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why do we not do a mini comparative case study? What are the signifcant differences with respect to Iraq, NK and Iran? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Leslie Cheswyck

Joined: 31 May 2003 Location: University of Western Chile
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
R. S. Refugee wrote: |
On the other hand wrote: |
Quote: |
Not meaning to get to empirical on ya here, but when was the last time that members of our "white" race were on the receiving end of "shock and awe?"
|
Ya ever heard of a little town called Dresden? |
Yes, and that's my point OTOH. It's been more than half a century. (Not that I would wish for anyone to be on the receiving end of that "shock and awe.")
And how many millions of "non-white" people has the American military killed since then, do you figure? |
That's silly though. Why is it silly? Simply because no "non-white" country has had the power or means to subject a white-majority country to that level of violence. Furthermore, no white-majority country has been nuked due to MAD as well. That's why the cold war was hot in 3rd world countries.
And you're forgetting Kosovo. That was shock and awe was it not? That whole war was "shock and awe". I'm sure the Serbians would disagree with you that it has been more than half a century since white people have been bombed to bits. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
freethought wrote: |
that's brilliant... wikipedia is a 'grasp of history'. btw, there are just as many books that conclude the exact opposite about the invasion and the bomb dropping as the ones the wiki cites. There is what is called the revisionist school that made a huge leap to the mainstream back in the 60s with books by Gar Alperovitz and others. The revisionist position, though dominant for many years, is now viewed as relying on now disputed or disproven ideas due to newly available documents. I do not espouse the revisionist position, but rather the synthesis position., wherein the idea that it was a must do is too simplistic, and that the Soviets, race, and many other concerns/issues played a defining role in the decision to use the bomb.
There are all kinds of books that are good for this topic, though the only one that I consider to be worthwhile that the wiki entry lists is Richard Frank's book, which is still fairly widely respected and is an excellent starting point for the subject. The issue with regards to casualties is that they were based on the Okinawa casualty rates, and Okinawa is thought to have been more of an exception than the rule. if you use Okinawa as the basis, you get casualties of dead and wounded at about 220,000. But that's literally in taking over ALL of Japan... which would never have been necessary or possible. This also leads to the entire would Japan have surrendered debate.
As for the racism issue, I'm not saying it was THE factor, what I'm saying is that it played a role. There are all kinds of studies to this effect. Political cartoons almost always portrayed the Japanese as monkees and later in the war rats also became prevalent. This is in stark contrast to the way germans were drawn. I'm not using this is ultimate proof, but rather a single example of how racism was a part of the mentality. Along with the unconditional surrender issue(which is now debated as to whether it was a big deal or not), there were all kinds of other issues such as the Soviet entry into the war. |
look dude, it's simple:
you said no intelligence assesments said there would be hundreds of thousands of casualties. I was merely saying that was in fact not the case. Now if those assessments were accurate is a whole new ballgame.
If you want a non-internet source, I recommend David' McCullough's bio on Truman.
Truman Bio page on Amazon |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
R. S. Refugee

Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
bucheon bum wrote: |
And you're forgetting Kosovo. That was shock and awe was it not? That whole war was "shock and awe". I'm sure the Serbians would disagree with you that it has been more than half a century since white people have been bombed to bits. |
You're right. I did forget about that one exception since WWII. I stand corrected. Any more? |
|
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
|
|