Comments by "milcoll73" (@thurin84) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
183
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
23
-
@csys690 "How many Purple Hearts were made in ww2?
1,506,000 Purple Heart
During World War II, 1,506,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured, many in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan. By the end of the war, even accounting for medals lost, stolen or wasted, nearly 500,000 remained."
18
-
18
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@iansneddon2956 to compare the firebombing destruction of a city with hundreds of bombers to the nuclear devastation (not to mention radiation [which yes, the japanese knew about, they had their own atomic research program]) is ridicules. thats like comparing a mortar barrage to being fired upon by a 420mm mortar. and yes the ruling military clique wanted to continue the war until they inflicted a bloodbath during an invasion. on any force that invaded american or russian. and because of their lack of amphibious capability it wouldve been much worse against the russians so they werent a significant immediate threat to the home islands. the bomb shocked enough of the leadership to force the peace issue, even in the face of an attempted coup by elements of the military.
and people like you tend to look back and compare the explosive power of the atomic bombs compared to conventional bombs and ignore the logistical difference of delivering a firebombing raid, the risk to manpower of hundreds of bombers vs 1, the significant psychological effect of leveling a city in an instant with a single bomb, and the radiological effects. and yes, speculation as to how many bombs the us had, or could have is irrelevant as the japanese did not know this. and what the japanese population thought was irrelevant. it was the thinking of the ruling militarty clique, the emperor and the rest of the government that were calling the shots that was important. and yes, as evidenced by the colonels coup, a portion of the ruling military clique did think they could inflict enough casualties on an invader to make them negotiate a peace favorable to japan (ie give up).
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iansneddon2956 and my point about the casualties was that they werent rel event to the military leaderships decision making process. however the destructiveness of a single bomb and the apparent ease of its delivery compared to a normal raid most certainly was. no longer was a nassive raid of hundreds of bombers required. now just one with appropriate decoys. its force multiplying was the heart of the issue. they couldnt create an "airtight" air defense and they knew it. and so did the usa. in other words the game was over. considering the number of b-29s lost you can hardly say "They had effectively no defense". was it on par with germanies? of course not. but it was there, and with their technological advances was improving all the time. but that is also not the point. what they did have a lot of were 1 shot suicide forces with which ti hit an invader, any invader with to make them bleed. the atomic bombs check mated this at a stroke. as i said before the game was over. no. multiplied that capability to the extent only 1 aircraft was needed in the place of hundreds. id call that a pretty effective force multiplier. and so they wouldve switched to the secondary targets, then tertiary, and so forth, and so forth. until japan was a blasted atomic wasteland. luckily some in japans leadership could envision this and chose to surrender despite the wishes of some of the ruling military clique. it was just the shock to the system needed for some. for all the high command knew, the usa had an insane number of bombs. why not? they had an insane number of everything else.
nope. i have made my point and been sticking to it constantly. what the japanese leadership, not just hirohito, thought possible is also a factor. the vital factor in fact. wtf are you talking about???? ive been talking about their perceptions and possible perceptions all along!!! just because you want to overlook them doesnt meant theyre not there dude. who ever said he wasnt?
sure it could be made. but it would be as idiotic as all the other revisionist crap. not when you account for the soviet dearth of amphibious capability rendering the immediate soviet threat to the home islands minimal at best. the only great threats to the home islands were an american invasion which the military clique desired greatly, and the atomic bombs that hirohito himself described as "most terrible".
no shit sherlock. so whose trying to get around it? as ive said all along dude. no, it was not getting "more and more influence". thats fantasy. the military ruling clique had an iron grip on governance. the ruling clique, some at least thought they could inflict enough casualties on the usa (or any invader) so as to bring them to the negotiating table. one can see where they could get this idea seeing the general war weariness setting in the usa, but it was still a fantasy and never going to happen. luckily some perceived this against the damage wrought by the bombs and saw further resistance was futile. it was the shock to the system by the bombs that did this. like a face full of cold water as it were.
"The use of the Nukes combined with Truman's threat to unleash devastation by air attack did a lot to deflate the wishful thinking about inflicting casualties." thank you for arguing my point for me dude. nice of you to see the error of your ways. "They did not have the same view of the Soviets or Stalin's ability to expend troops" but they did have a view of soviet amphibious weakness ergo its lack of immediate threat to the home islands. wouldve been defeated on the beaches as evidenced by their head banging into obstacle method of overcoming every other obstacle theyd encountered to date. less favorable the unconditional lol???? also FACT, they were no immediate threat to the home islands. THE BOMBS were.
why? you practicing to write a book here? or are you just naturally long winded?
you are wrong.
the usa did in fact something less then unconditional surrender as evidenced by hirohito remaining on the throne and, shale we say, less then energetic war crimes trials. but thats irelevent to the issue at hand. so STAY FOCUSED mr long winded book writer.
1 and 3 are the same thing and, as ive demonstrated, and you yourself acknowledged, 2 was no immediate threat to the home islands.
not just escalation. force multiplication. a stated intent completely negating japans ruling military cliques overarching strategy at the click of a pickle switch. kinda my point dude. while japan was rapidly turned into an atomic wasteland. the soviet threat was nothing compared to the bombs. they were in fact highly susceptible to the high commends invasion strategy. much, much more so then the americans. and this is what you propose was more influential then the bombs. a threat more in line with what the ruling military clique thought america was, more vulnerable to the war making capacity japan was engaging in. do you see the flaw in that thinking i hope? that a power that was particularly susceptible to japan was already planning, preparing for, and even hoping for, was more influential to their deciding to make peace then a sudden new terrible weapon that japan had no defense to and that that the usa seemingly could unleash with much less effort then theyd already been engaging in for months already? are you starting to see my point here? what they couldve wait and saw about was the soviets attempts at invasion. what they couldnt wait and see about was the reign of atomic destruction alreayd used on them and promised much more of. there didnt have to be a "massive nuclear devastation". just the continual rain of most terrible destruction promised and already delivered upon. atomic nudging? so youve reduced atomic destruction to nudging while amplifying some ephemeral soviet invasion that was in no way then possible to worse then the 2 atomic explosions to date? is that about the gist of it dude? atomic "nudging" vs big bad scary impossible (at that time) soviet invasion?
as ive said 1 and 3 are the same thing. not when theres nothing left to broker peace for. the same would hold true of a soviet invasion that wouldve been even more vulnerable to their strategy. even more so. not if the sacred 100 million were so much atomic dust blowing in the wind. ironic that you would bring up their defeating russia previously in defending the russian threat as the deciding factor in surrendering dont you think? deliciously ironic in fact. thanks dude! that made my day!!!! that one im sharing with friends lol.
as did the continued atomic bombings. meanwhile that american technology and industrial might is reducing everything in sight to an atomic wasteland.........
so and unconditional surrender is worse then an unconditional surrender lol?
meanwhile the very real effect of area after area turning into an atomic wasteland was happening apace........
as they could delay any surrender to the russians by defeating their invasion of the home islands just as they intended to do to the americans. meanwhile the whole atomic wasteland thing.........
which, apparently by your thinking, was worse then eventual unconditional surrender to the americans after everything had been turned into an atomic wasteland.....
so now whose going off on tangents with irrelevancies? clue; still all you dude. focus.
they were already in a long term war. they were planning for a long term war. they were hoping for a long term war.
no. the risk of becoming an atomic wasteland was now an option.
a destruction so terrible as never seen before. now seen up close and 1st hand by the japanese. and yet you waste 3 paragraphs on it dude lol.
especially now that the american were bombing them into an atomic wasteland and that it would probably be prudent to get them to stop.
1
-
@iansneddon2956 the onyl reason i am long winded is replying to your book excerpts. you like meandering and deflecting to other issues instead of focusing on the topic.
no i am disputing your argument that the soviets were the deciding factor for surrender by demonstrating they were not an immediate threat, and not the long term threat you imply as opposed to the immediate threat of the atomic bombs. the soviets were becoming more involved against the japanese, on the mainland and not at all on the home islands, ergo they werent much of an immediate threat and not much of a long tern threat to the home islands. the atomic bombs were. how many times and ways do you want me to repeat it? the surrender faction that had no power or say in the ruling of japan. it had an iron grip on power until the end of the war. they never lost enough favor to not be in control. and this is exactly the kind of irrelevant deflection i am talking about. we both know the "peace faction" was no calling the shots and the ruling military clique was. end of story. this may have changed had the war dragged on a lot longer but thats not what were discussing. blah, blah, blah, deflect, deflect, deflect. next deflection? "beaten". they essentially at americas mercy barring some other deciding factor, such as inflicting so many casualties on america in an invasion that america would accept a negotiated peace favorable to japan. and lo and behold, miracle of miracles, thats exactly the strategy they decided upon. imagine that. yes, the rain of destruction from the air promised and apparently delivered upon by the usa made continuing the war pointless. once again thanks for proving my point. maybe i should now just let you argue against yourself. then you could be doubly long winded. i like how you try to detract from the ruling military cliques power and control by calling them "the militant faction" instead of acknowledging that they controlled japan. cute. and intellectually dishonest. so basically your acknowledging suzukis reference to the soviets were the verbal ploy to influence the emperor and not much else that everyone knew them to be. got it. yes, evaporated like a paper hut in the nuclear fires of an atomic bomb. yes, they wouldve gotten to unconditional surrender eventually without the bombs after a bloody invasion costing up to a million american lives and several millions of japanese lives when the americans marched victoriously into tokyo. luckily the bombs obviated this. no, the slight threat the soviets might have represented to the home islands eventually was not more a deciding factor then the immediate threat of the rain of atomic bombs that had already started. i never said it was not part of the equation. im just saying it was no where near the deciding factor. not even close.
more like certain "historians" like being contrarian and make a name for themselves going against the stream making arguments based on conjecture and fantasy. yes new scholarship can be useful when it turns up new information, but building fantasies "taking it to the next logical 'conclusion'" are not. no. the fact that the atomic bombs were currently dropping on the home islands and that the soviets had no real amphibious forces ergo posing no immediate threat to the home islands now and certainly never more then the usa in that regard is. it doesnt take a rocket scientist to discern the bigger immediate threat. at least for most. no but you sure do invent a lot of tangents to deflect from a weak main premise. just sayin. i could care less if it goes away because its all fantasy lol. shocker.
and i will not be answering them individually.
who even implied resources were ever a problem? you do because it allows you to go off on another useless tangent to deflect from the issue. no. wrong. fighters were never withdrawn from opposing us air raids. stop making shit up. other aircraft was pulled back to the home islands and reserves were built up for suicides attacks, but opposition to air raids was never "withdrawn". that is a lie. i like how you stroke your ego by endlessly relating simple facts about ww2 like your dispensing some great unknown wisdom lol. its quite amusing. yes, just as they wouldve been dropping atomic bombs with impunity. and the japanese high commend knew it.
of course you do, because you have to (vainly) try and diminish their threat to support your position and deflect off on a tangent. and, go. no i and not, im simply pointing out what the usa coudlve done with their bombing campaign had japan not surrendered. no, radiation sickness was not well known, the information being confined to a rather small set of scientists studing in the field. beyond that it was almost unknown. perhaps "radioactive wasteland" was not the best choice of wording but you can not dismiss the cumulative effect of repeated atomic bombs. and not all bomb targets wouldve gotten off as "lucky" as the 1st 2 as far as lingering radioactivity. plus you discount continued us research producing bigger and 'better' bombs. regardless, had america had to opportunity to continue as is, japan wouldve been rendered a wasteland by atomic bombs. yeah, because its not like they could mount another raid to finsih the job later...OH WAIT! yeah, because theres now way, with the pressure of a continuing war, the usa could sped up and technologically improved the program like they did with pretty every other thing they produced during the war.....ALSO OH WAIT! and of course theres no way truman wouldve continued to back up the threat he, himself had personally made had japan not chosen to surrender......OH WAIT AGAIN!!!! but not as horrified as the loss of american life had we had to invade and the effects of such would have on his reelection chances. which is exactly what i was referring to. glad i didnt need to spell that out in monosyllabic words for you. sure, but much more wouldve settled on japan itself and its surrounding bodies of water.
which give the amount of a force multiplier is more then enough to support my position. 1 bomb dropped by 1 bomber to destroy a city vs 10s of thousands of bombs dropped by hundreds of bombers. the radioactive issues wouldve been a longer term effect japan wouldve been educated 1st hand about. the keloid lesions and skin melting of the victims dying in agony did not take years to become apparent.
1
-
@iansneddon2956 in psychology this is known as "projecting". no, pointing out that the soviets werent an immediate threat nor likely to pose much of a future threat without additions to their amphibious capabilities directly refutes your assertion as to their importance in the decision to surrender. directly. youre the one going of in 20 different directions to deflect from the issue. all you my long winded friend.
yes, japan surrendered beause they were defeated by the us, and the capstone of that defeat was the dropping if the 2 atomic bombs and the threat and implications there of.
youre argument. at least your original argument before you polluted it with dilutions, deflections, and strawmen, was that the soviet intervention was the reason japan decided to surrender not the atomic bombs. this is wrong. this is revisionist fantasy to elevate the dropping of the bombs to a war crime. this is bullshit.
the importance of the soviet role was not paramount. the role of being bombed back to the stone age by atomic bombs was. the idea that any chimeric threat the soviets posed was more instrumental in the decision then the very real and immediate threats posed by atomic bombing is poppycock. pure nonsense. yes, because they were getting atomic bombs dropped on them with the threat of a rain of more "such as never been seen before". and i have stated that such an assertion is wrong. the decision being made when it was was due primarily to the atomic bombs, not any soviet threat.
it is no strawman as directly refutes your assertion about the soviet threat has no basis in actual fact. yes, the soviets certainly eventually wouldve posed a threat, but not at the time the decision was made to the home islands. and any soviet threat of invasion certainly wouldve posed no more threat then the american invasion for which the ruling military clique was waiting oh so eagerly. because you know you are wrong. i have demonstrated why your assertion couldnt be correct with the facts as they existed despite your many deflections and diversions. you act as if suzuki was the only making decision and the most important one make the decision. poppycock.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1