# Atomic Bombings of Japan **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803 "2009-11-24T17:52:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/eada6e/32.png) [@\_Undecided\_Adrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Undecided_Adrian)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/161 "2009-11-26T13:59:23Z")
I’d like to expand on one point touched earlier: As a German, I absolutely think it was the right thing to demand an unconditional surrender. It’s true that the WW1 armistice was a big influence on the conditions that led to WW2 in Germany, and there was no way that the Allies would have let that happen again. Of course it led to more casualties in the short term, on both sides, but as much as it pains me to say it I think it was worth it. And the results speak for themselves, I think: Both Germany and Japan are now Allies to the US, because we were forced to realize what we had done (in Germany at least) and the treatment after the war was fair. The US wasn’t as successful in that department since then… ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/162 "2009-11-26T15:04:41Z")
> [@'\[Undecided](#): > > Adrian;11820880’]The US wasn’t as successful in that department since then… Aren’t you forgetting Grenada? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/163 "2009-11-26T19:12:21Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > 1. Japan was done. More than 60 cities had been leveled with conventional bombs. The island was blockaded. The Soviets were done in Europe and attacked Manchuria. As has been noted by other posters, the flaw in this argument was that Japan wasn’t surrendering. In fact, the Navy started its bombardment of the home islands in [July 1945](http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=54), along with continuing bombing by the Air Force. No surrender. > [@](#): > > 2.. Intercepted messages said they were talking to the USSR to get a peace treaty. We knew that but rejected it demanding "unconditional surrender’. They wanted to retain the emperor. Not exactly. As late as [July 22](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf)(warning: pdf) the Japanese wanted to retain “national structure.” Whether that meant just the office of the Emperor or something more complex is something historians still debate – and you can’t just flatly state the Japanese were only asking for retention of the Emperor. > [@](#): > > 1. Marshall predicted 25,000 casualties if we had to take the islands. Not quite. [Marshall predicted 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days.](http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm) MacArthur predicted 125,000 casualties in the first 120 days (later revised to 105,000.) In other words, the two Army leaders were predicting about 1,000 casualties per day. The Navy projections were even higher. No one was predicting the invasion would be over after 30 days – or even 120 days. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/164 "2009-11-26T19:32:12Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Keep in mind, **gonzomax** , the Japanese actions during WWII weren’t much different from that of Nazi Germany: > > (Warning – some of the images - as well as the article! – are extremely disturbing) > > [Nanking Massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre) > > [Japanese War Crimes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes) > > [Unit 731](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) (Sounds like Dr. Mengele would fit right in, eh?) > > People always talk about how evil the Nazis were, but not too many know that the Imperial Japanese were just as bad. I don’t defend Japans actions. what they did in Manchuria was disgusting. But the winners write the history books. We were guilty of atrocities too. War is ugly and we should quit doing it. We had little choice in WW2, but our actions since have been reprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/165 "2009-11-26T19:38:48Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I don’t defend Japans actions. what they did in Manchuria was disgusting. But the winners write the history books. We were guilty of atrocities too. War is ugly and we should quit doing it. We had little choice in WW2, but our actions since have been reprehensible. Are you saying the Western Allies (not the Soviets) and Imperial japan were morally equivalent in World War 2? Japan deserved punishment a hundredfold. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/166 "2009-11-26T19:43:11Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I don’t defend Japans actions. what they did in Manchuria was disgusting. But the winners write the history books. We were guilty of atrocities too. War is ugly and we should quit doing it. We had little choice in WW2, but our actions since have been reprehensible. This sounds like a tu quoque to me; the Allies undoubtedly did some pretty unpleasant things in WWII, but systematic murder and torture of innocent civilians was not one of them. The Japanese and German regimes had this at their heart, and we were right in stopping them as soon as we were able. You’re also forgetting that 81,000 Allied prisoners (according to wiki, but it’s cited) were freed at the end of the war - if the war had gone on much longer you can bet that the dwindling resources of the Japanese would not have been used to feed prisoners. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/167 "2009-11-26T19:58:59Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > As has been noted by other posters, the flaw in this argument was that Japan wasn’t surrendering. In fact, the Navy started its bombardment of the home islands in [July 1945](http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=54), along with continuing bombing by the Air Force. No surrender. > > Not exactly. As late as [July 22](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf)(warning: pdf) the Japanese wanted to retain “national structure.” Whether that meant just the office of the Emperor or something more complex is something historians still debate – and you can’t just flatly state the Japanese were only asking for retention of the Emperor. > > Not quite. [Marshall predicted 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days.](http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm) MacArthur predicted 125,000 casualties in the first 120 days (later revised to 105,000.) In other words, the two Army leaders were predicting about 1,000 casualties per day. The Navy projections were even higher. No one was predicting the invasion would be over after 30 days – or even 120 days. I find several cites on Marshall’s estimates, from 25,000 to 1 million. But when does the armed forces ever predict an easy victory? They always think they need a ton of troops and munition. They always overestimate the difficulty and needs. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/168 "2009-11-26T20:36:31Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I find several cites on Marshall’s estimates, from 25,000 to 1 million. But when does the armed forces ever predict an easy victory? They always think they need a ton of troops and munition. They always overestimate the difficulty and needs. Well, in [Operation Overlord](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord) - another amphibious invasion - the Allies, with a force consisting of 2 million men by August, suffered 226,386 casualties. The Germans did not have the same ‘fight to the death mentality’ that the Japanese had, nor were they defending their homeland. In Operation Overlord the Allied invasion forces actually outnumbered the German occupying forces. In an invasion of the Japanese home islands they would have been outnumbered considerably. > [@](#): > > To make matters worse, General MacArthur, based on previous operations in the Pacific, believed that U.S. intelligence typically overestimated Japanese strength. MacArthur downplayed his own staff’s casualty estimates and told General Marshall that he “regarded the operation (Olympic) as the most economical one in effort and lives that is possible.”(1) Mac’s casualty estimates for the commencement of [Downfall](http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rKWwLED5A6QC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=operation+downfall+casualties&ots=qJFPzRyJCA&sig=v1ql76QyT0-n_pf6O3r7BM6XbFc#v=onepage&q=operation%20downfall%20casualties&f=false) were 105,050 KIA, MIA or WIA. Other estimates done by the Joint War Plans Committee came up with initial figues of 193,500. If northern Kyushu was occupied, this figure rises to 220,000. Marshall was using estimates from Luzon in the Phillipines, Leahy countered that the experience in Okinawa (a 35% casualty rate) would be more apt. These are only American casualty estimates, mind. Given that civilians were killing themselves in Okinawa who knows what the Japanese death toll would have been. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/169 "2009-11-26T20:48:36Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I find several cites on Marshall’s estimates, from 25,000 to 1 million. But when does the armed forces ever predict an easy victory? They always think they need a ton of troops and munition. They always overestimate the difficulty and needs. Actually, it’s thought that the Army was downplaying the probable casualties because they didn’t want Truman to get cold feet. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/170 "2009-11-26T21:16:54Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > Well, in [Operation Overlord](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord) - another amphibious invasion - the Allies, with a force consisting of 2 million men by August, suffered 226,386 casualties. > > The Germans did not have the same ‘fight to the death mentality’ that the Japanese had, nor were they defending their homeland. > > In Operation Overlord the Allied invasion forces actually outnumbered the German occupying forces. In an invasion of the Japanese home islands they would have been outnumbered considerably. > > Mac’s casualty estimates for the commencement of [Downfall](http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rKWwLED5A6QC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=operation+downfall+casualties&ots=qJFPzRyJCA&sig=v1ql76QyT0-n_pf6O3r7BM6XbFc#v=onepage&q=operation%20downfall%20casualties&f=false) were 105,050 KIA, MIA or WIA. Other estimates done by the Joint War Plans Committee came up with initial figues of 193,500. If northern Kyushu was occupied, this figure rises to 220,000. Marshall was using estimates from Luzon in the Phillipines, Leahy countered that the experience in Okinawa (a 35% casualty rate) would be more apt. These are only American casualty estimates, mind. Given that civilians were killing themselves in Okinawa who knows what the Japanese death toll would have been. Except Japan was whipped, used up and pretty defenseless. we controlled the skies and could bomb at will. This was not like the other invasions. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/171 "2009-11-26T21:24:09Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > This sounds like a tu quoque to me; the Allies undoubtedly did some pretty unpleasant things in WWII, but systematic murder and torture of innocent civilians was not one of them. The Japanese and German regimes had this at their heart, and we were right in stopping them as soon as we were able. > > You’re also forgetting that 81,000 Allied prisoners (according to wiki, but it’s cited) were freed at the end of the war - if the war had gone on much longer you can bet that the dwindling resources of the Japanese would not have been used to feed prisoners. [Allied war crimes during World War II - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II) We are just people. In war all sides commit atrocities. Pretending we did not do horrible, illegal things is comforting but not true. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/172 "2009-11-26T21:55:36Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Except Japan was whipped, used up and pretty defenseless. we controlled the skies and could bomb at will. This was not like the other invasions. Not so. By 1944 the RAF and USAAF had air supremacy over the Luftwaffe. > [@](#): > > Despite signs of an 11th-hour technological “knockout blow,” the Luftwaffe of 1944-45 was an ineffective force, incapable of controlling the tempo of operations or even of causing the AAF more than occasional inconvenience. > **[News Archives](https://www.findarticles.com/news/)** > > Explore the News Articles featuring Technology, Business, Entertainment, and Science & Health topics. Access reports, insights, and stories. We had, as far as I can see, only three real options for dealing with Japan in the latter half of 1945. The first option - continued blockade and bombardment, hoping to ‘starve them out’. The pros - Minimal U.S. casualties, apart from perhaps the odd kamikaze attacks on blockading ships. The cons - Absolutely no guarantee of ‘starving them out’. The Japanese had been in a precarious situation in terms of food and resources for the duration of 1945, with U.S. subs enjoying naval superiority. > [@](#): > > While a naval blockade and strategic bombing of Japan was considered to be useful, general Douglas Mac Arthur considered a naval blockade of Japan ineffective to bring about an unconditional surrender. General George C. Marshall was of the opinion that air power over Japan as it was over Germany, would not be sufficient to bring and end to the war. While most of our top military minds believed that a continued naval blockade and strategic bombing campaign would further weaken Japan, few of them believed that the blockade or the bombing would bring about her unconditional surrender [http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/invasion2.html](http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/invasion2.html) > [@](#): > > Some today assert, in effect, that it would have been more humane to have just continued the conventional B-29 bombing of Japan, which in six months had killed nearly 300,000 people and displaced or rendered homeless over 8 million more. They also assert that the growing US blockade would have soon forced a surrender because the Japanese faced, quote: “imminent starvation.” US Planners at the time, however, weren’t nearly so bold, and the whole reason why advocates of tightening the noose around the Home Islands came up with so many different estimates of when blockade and bombardment might force Japan to surrender was because the situation wasn’t nearly as cut and dried as it appears today, even when that nation’s supply lines were severed. [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm) - Massive casualties among Japanese civilians from starvation, disease and bombardment. Witness the deaths from bombing runs earlier in the year. - No hope of rescuing the thousands of Allied prisoners of war held on the home islands. - Allows time for the Soviets to invade, increasing post-war communist power. An ‘east and west’ Japan, if you will. The second option - Operation Downfall, comprised firstly of Operation Olympic and then Operation Coronet. The pros - Probably quicker than a pure blockade option. - Would also possibly limit Soviet power, with American boots on the ground. The cons - It would be an absolute bloodbath that would make Operation Overlord look like a training exercise. > [@](#): > > “We hated the Japs but nobody had the slightest desire to go there and fight them because the one thing we knew was that we’d all be killed. I mean we really knew it. I never used to think that, I used to say the Japs would never get me. But there was no question about the mainland. How the hell are you going to storm a country where women and children, everybody would be fighting you? Of course we’d have won eventually but I don’t think anybody who hasn’t actually seen the Japanese fight can have any idea of what it would have cost.” > > - Austin Aria, veteran of the Okinawa campaign. [http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap5.htm#N\_1\_](http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap5.htm#N_1_) - Civilian casualties would be in the hundreds of thousands. Witness the horrendous situation on Okinawa. > [@](#): > > “For a long time, the Japanese Imperial Army announced that, on other islands, the women had been raped and killed, and the men were tied at the wrists and tanks were driven over them,” said Nakamura, now a guide at a museum that bears bullet holes. “Japanese Imperial Army repeated that again and again, and we believed that announcement completely.” [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/world/asia/20iht-oki.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/world/asia/20iht-oki.html) - The Japanese, as previously pointed out, had the capability to put up a formidable resistance. They were fully prepared for an American invasion with Operation Ketsu-Go, ready to fight tooth and nail. > [@](#): > > " The sooner the Americans come, the better…One hundred million die proudly." > > - Japanese slogan in the summer of 1945. [http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm](http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm) - The Soviets would still have influence in post-war Japan. The invasion wasn’t going to be over quickly. The third option - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The pros - Minimal American casualties. - Allowed the Japanese to surrender whilst keeping ‘face’. Surrendering because of a ‘wonder weapon’ was not as disgraceful as surrendering in open combat. - The quickest option. Allows for an occupying force to be sent in immediately, post-surrender. No Soviet influence. - Demonstrates the bomb to the world. In a post-war world establishes the image of the bomb in popular conciousness as something to be avoided at all costs - although decision makers likely wouldn’t have factored this. The cons - A large amount of civilian casualties. - Radiation effects that linger on after the war - although the decision makers couldn’t have known this at the time. If you were Truman, which of the options would you pick? Any option is going to result in the deaths of Japanese civilians, that was the grim reality. The main priority was ending the war as soon as possible, with a minimal amount of casualties all-round. The bomb allowed for this. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/173 "2009-11-26T22:01:12Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Allied war crimes during World War II - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II) We are just people. In war all sides commit atrocities. Pretending we did not do horrible, illegal things is comforting but not true. I am aware of this. But the Allied mentality was not one of aggressive warfare, eugenics, nationalism. The driving force behind Imperial Japan and the Third Reich was. You can’t really compare the atrocities committed by the Axis forces to tragic incidents committed by the Western Allied powers. Axis war crimes were systematic, part of the regime. The needed to be stopped, as soon as possible, by whatever means we had at our disposal. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/174 "2009-11-26T22:50:14Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I find several cites on Marshall’s estimates, from 25,000 to 1 million. But when does the armed forces ever predict an easy victory? They always think they need a ton of troops and munition. They always overestimate the difficulty and needs. So with different estimates by the same person ranging by a factor of 40, you choose to cite the lowest one in your argument, ignore the qualifier “in the first 30 days,” then backpeddle by saying “they always overestimate.” If you have no confidence in military estimates, don’t use them in your arguments. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/175 "2009-11-27T00:10:00Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Except Japan was whipped, used up and pretty defenseless. we controlled the skies and could bomb at will. This was not like the other invasions. Saying this over and over again doesn’t make it true. The allies had control of the skies, but there were still at least 600,000 soldiers in Japan, plus whatever civilian forces could be mustered as they were in Okinawa. Further bombing was unlikely to change anything because pretty much everything that could be usefully bombed, already was. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/176 "2009-11-27T00:29:18Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > Saying this over and over again doesn’t make it true. The allies had control of the skies, but there were still at least 600,000 soldiers in Japan, plus whatever civilian forces could be mustered as they were in Okinawa. Further bombing was unlikely to change anything because pretty much everything that could be usefully bombed, already was. Indeed. It’s similar to the contemporary view after D-Day that Germany was in a similar position. Years of bombardment, the Soviet meat grinder, the opening of a second front…bound to be on their last legs, right? A total pushover? [Er](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden)…[no.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2009, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/177 "2009-11-27T01:04:06Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > Indeed. It’s similar to the contemporary view after D-Day that Germany was in a similar position. Years of bombardment, the Soviet meat grinder, the opening of a second front…bound to be on their last legs, right? A total pushover? [Er](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden)…[no.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge) Not the same at all. Once we actually got to Germany it was like Japan would have been ,a mop up operation. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/178 "2009-11-27T01:16:51Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Not the same at all. Once we actually got to Germany it was like Japan would have been ,a mop up operation. You realize that the “getting to” part is called “war”, right? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/179 "2009-11-27T01:27:18Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Not the same at all. Once we actually got to Germany it was like Japan would have been ,a mop up operation. You fail to answer…any other points. And no, it wouldn’t. It would have killed hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and Japanese soldiers, as well as civilians. You are wrong on many levels here; > [@](#): > > But while the naval side of the Pacific War displayed the broad, sweeping moves so loved by historians, land combat in the Pacific had little in common with the maneuver warfare that went a long way toward keeping casualties comparatively low in France and the central German Plain. The closest European commanders came after D-Day to the corps-level combat which was the stock and trade of Army and Marine divisions in the Pacific was the prolonged fighting in the Huertgen Forest and Normandy’s hedgerows- close-in, infantry-intensive slugfests that produced many bodies on both sides [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm) Which is why the most apt comparison is Operation Overlord. Even then, everything points to Operation Olympic being a lot bloodier. A number of different circumstances, mainly the direct, amphibious invasion of the enemy homeland. > [@](#): > > Japan stripped Honshu of assets to build up Kyushu, where. 900,000 soldiers (ten times as many as fought on Okinawa) were ready to “inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invades Japan.” Unlike the Germans in Northwest Europe, who were deceived about Normandy in June 1944, the Japanese correctly predicted the exact landing locations and the approximate date of the attack shortly before the United States decided what to do itself.27 [http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp](http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp) There was also the completely different enemy mentality. Even the common Japanese infantryman had it drilled into him that surrender was totally unacceptable, that death in battle was an honourable way to go - hence Banzai charges and kamikaze attacks. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2009, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/180 "2009-11-27T01:38:33Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Not the same at all. Once we actually got to Germany it was like Japan would have been ,a mop up operation. Once again your commanding knowledge of history is astounding. Nothing but [mopping up](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin). Indeed, I would like to surrender to your superior debating style of making things up, linking to sites that don’t actually support what you’ve written, ignoring evidence that your beliefs are wrong and repeating them as if they haven’t been refuted. However, unconditional surrender is unacceptable, so I will only do so if you agree to certain conditions: 1. Agree that you are wrong and; 2. Not post in Great Debates again and acknowledge that it belongs to those who would honestly debate. Should you not agree to these terms, then you are an inhuman monster who believes what the government tells you and revel in the slaughter of innocent [dogs, cats, rats, insects and worms](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11815704&postcount=65). Won’t anyone think of the worms? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803.md?page=10)