Skeptics watching Obama's Hiroshima visit for an apology

[Evie]

Looking for independent confirmation is good. Looking for it in a search of public sources on the internet, not so good. It's in recent scholarly-focused magazine centered on history you will find out how the historical community has received the theory (eg, whether they consider it unreliable quackery or a thorough and strong revision of former mistakes).

And in this case, my original statement was about both (hypothetical) invasion and (hypothetical) post-war occupation of Hokkaido. Since I'm the one who brought up that particular subtopic, I'd say I know the context of my remark better than anyone. Dachs then replied, in the same context, regarding the non-hypothetical invasion and occupation of Manchuria.

You, at some point, assumed the discussion was strictly about the combat deaths.

 

[red_elk]

Looking for independent confirmation is good. Looking for it in a search of public sources on the internet, not so good. It's in recent scholarly-focused magazine centered on history you will find out how the historical community has received the theory (eg, whether they consider it unreliable quackery or a thorough and strong revision of former mistakes).

Of course it's better to spend month in a library, read several books and dozens of articles on topic to find more reliable information on the subject. But unless you suggest that all online sources contain only outdated 20-30 years old information, first brief search often gives enough information to estimate credibility of source.

And in this case, my original statement was about both (hypothetical) invasion and (hypothetical) post-war occupation of Hokkaido. Since I'm the one who brought up that particular subtopic, I'd say I know the context of my remark better than anyone.

You certainly know the meaning of your remark better. As for the context of it, I wouldn't be so sure, because your remark was supposedly made in reply to my message.

To sum up my point, I think that the victims of invasion and people who died for various reasons during subsequent Allied occupation should not be mixed together.

 

[Evie]

Whereas in counterpoint: people who die as a result of an action (in this case: Soviet participation in the war) are people who died as a result of that action. Whether they died on the battlefields, in after-the-fact massacres, as collateral damage, or during the occupation from various deprivations or whatnot.

I suggest that online sources contain largely material written by enthusiasts (rather than scholars) who learned about the 20-30-50 years old version when they were younger and are not aware of recent scholarship in the field.

 

[red_elk]

Whereas in counterpoint: people who die as a result of an action (in this case: Soviet participation in the war) are people who died as a result of that action. Whether they died on the battlefields, in after-the-fact massacres, as collateral damage, or during the occupation from various deprivations or whatnot.

If their deaths were direct result of invasion (e.g. civilians were killed during bombing raid), I can agree. If not, we should look more carefully to the causes of their death.

If we take for example the deaths from various deprivations - I think we would have at least to compare death rates in the area before and after invasion and also take into account the general situation in the country, which just have suffered defeat in the major war and massive destruction. Allied occupational administration should certainly have some level of responsibility for every person who died after war due to cold or starvation, but this level can't be the same as if that person was directly killed in combat.

 

[Evie]

The point is not who is to blame, the point is how many died, and how many would have died.

 

[red_elk]

I understand that. Talking about the Soviet invasion and occupation of Manchuria, the point is to estimate how many additional deaths it inflicted.

 

[Vectors]

Crimes made by one side don't justify crimes of another. They can make these crimes more understandable in some cases (vengeance) but won't justify them completely. In WW2, Germany was aggressor to the USSR and killed several millions of Soviet POWs, but the cases when German POWs were killed in USSR, were still war crimes - though in some cases I can completely understand the reasons why it was done.

A-bombing of Japanese cities were not required to prevent deaths of American soldiers - there were other ways to end war. To name a few, bombing a military object instead, making a peace agreement without unconditional surrender, letting the Soviets to capture Hokkaido, etc. And if those thousands of Japanese civilians were killed in order to achieve political goal, scaring their population and government enough to make unconditional surrender, this was not only a war crime, but also falls under definition of state terrorism.

Hiroshima Castle was destroyed in the atomic bombing and it was the location of Central Command for South Japan, in case of an invasion that was going to be where Japan would have organised against a US invasion as such it was very much a high value military target.

 

[Daw]

Hiroshima Castle was destroyed in the atomic bombing and it was [...] very much a high value military target.

A-bomb was needed to destroy this?



Really?

Come on, it's not anything like Krak des Chevaliers.

 

[Akka]

Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[108] The city was defended by five batteries of 7-cm and 8-cm (2.8 and 3.1 inch) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. In total, over 40,000 military personnel were stationed in the city.[109]

Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military, but it also had large stockpiles of military supplies.[110] The city was also a communications center, a key port for shipping and an assembly area for troops.[75] It was also the second largest city in Japan after Kyoto that was still undamaged by air raids,[111] due to the fact that it lacked the aircraft manufacturing industry that was the XXI Bomber Command's priority target.

I think you deduce yourself if these 40000 guys, communication center, port and military stockpiles were all huddled in the castle or were a bit more spread out.

Anyway, this is completely missing the point. The entire point of making the bombs was to use them to cow the Axis into surrender, so if Japan refused to do it after being asked to, they WOULD be used. The only variable was the target, and the Americans at least targeted something that was actually military valuable.

 

[red_elk]

I wonder what was Roosevelt administration strategy for the end of the war. He requested USSR to enter the war, so he probably had something different in mind, than using A-bombs.