[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Deepblue
OT

Does anyone else find it sad that in schools these days kids are taught about the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (without bg info to explain why such an action in all probability saved more lives) and yet ignore things like the Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor, and more?

I do remember briefly going over Pearl Harbor and the bombings, but we stuck to Europe for the most part, and even that was brief. We never went over the Rape of Nanjing; I never heard of the Battle of Okinawa, just a couple major battles in the Pacific, Iwo Jima and the costs of island hopping. I think AP got up to present day by the end of your requirement, and honors finished with Vietnam. I guess they don't care about you unless you're in AP or at least honors, those in college prep are expendable, garbage.  Most of what I've learned has been through the History Channel, PBS, museums, my copy of Medal of Honor: Pacific Assualt that has the bonus history material, and discussions such as these.

Self education is very important. I really should get a book.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Deepblue
OT

Does anyone else find it sad that in schools these days kids are taught about the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (without bg info to explain why such an action in all probability saved more lives) and yet ignore things like the Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor, and more?

Not really.  WW2 is a big subject to teach, and within a general history class (i.e. not a specialised subject like military history, or uni grade) it's possibly inefficient to teach about the entire history of WW2 because it would take time from other subjects.

i.e (offhand) my 3 years (Standard grade & Higher) doing history covered (this is in the UK, bytheway) Appeasement prior to WW2, World War 1, the industrial revolution, the democratisation of the UK (i.e. reforms from the 1800s up to full democracy and universal sufferage), and some other topics on top (I think the growth of Communism in russia and the Russian civil war was one of these).  The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be seen as a cultural watershed (i.e. which changed the world), whereas other battles might not have had that same lasting impact.

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by aldo_14
i.e (offhand) my 3 years (Standard grade & Higher) doing history covered (this is in the UK, bytheway) Appeasement prior to WW2, World War 1, the industrial revolution, the democratisation of the UK (i.e. reforms from the 1800s up to full democracy and universal sufferage), and some other topics on top (I think the growth of Communism in russia and the Russian civil war was one of these).  The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be seen as a cultural watershed (i.e. which changed the world), whereas other battles might not have had that same lasting impact.

That sounds pretty consistant with what I can remember. I remember having some "specific" years though. One year we did about The Romans, then the Industrial Revolution, then WW1(at the time I was pretty disapointed when I didn't do WW2 like the other class in our year). I don't recall much ColdWar/Russia stuff though.

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by aldo_14
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be seen as a cultural watershed (i.e. which changed the world), whereas other battles might not have had that same lasting impact.

Exactly so - which is why Japan is the only country to day which lives in a "Post-Apocalyptic" setting.

You can be sure it influenced their society and culture in many different ways, than possibly any regular war any of the other countries had.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by BlackDove


Exactly so - which is why Japan is the only country to day which lives in a "Post-Apocalyptic" setting.

You can be sure it influenced their society and culture in many different ways, than possibly any regular war any of the other countries had.

Albeit it probably has to be held within the context that the US occupation also totally reformed the Japanese systems of government, education, etc; it's possible impossible to judge the exact effect of the bombings (or indeed the war itself) on a societal reason because of that.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by BlackDove


Exactly so - which is why Japan is the only country to day which lives in a "Post-Apocalyptic" setting.

You can be sure it influenced their society and culture in many different ways, than possibly any regular war any of the other countries had.

I would hardly call two cities, no matter how they were specifically destroyed, an apocalypse.

If you're referring to the damage done by the war in general, then I'd say at the very least Germany would also fit into that description, as would, to a somewhat lesser extent, the UK.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Black Wolf


I would hardly call two cities, no matter how they were specifically destroyed, an apocalypse.

If you're referring to the damage done by the war in general, then I'd say at the very least Germany would also fit into that description, as would, to a somewhat lesser extent, the UK.

Possibly Germany in particular had less of a societal 'shame' in surrender, particularly to barbarians.  Japan had also not been beaten in a war only 20-odd years earlier as Germany, and AFAIK the military leadership fostered a culture of xenophobia and invincibility. Not even the Germans had a suicide before surrender culture drilled into them AFAIK.

On the other hand, IMO Germany itself went through a pretty major societal change as a result of occupation and division.

[TrashMan]

That (intention or chain of command responsibility) is a matter of current legal dispute. Evidence is that there was some form of intentional, systematic destruction of Serbian held property. I would say it's not any better (morally) to destroy houses because they were lived in by a different ethnicity, than it is to attack an enemy nation. Certainly bombing during WW2 had the pretext of destruction infrastructure of enemy nations; what pretext can destroying houses in your own country have beyond deliberate expulsion?

I'm aware of some accusations, but no real proof of that being ordered from high up.

I have to say that it's funy isn't it.. you can ask such question (was their crimes ordered from high up) in any war.
Were US soldiers ordered to bburin villages and kill poepl in vietnam? Waht about russian in Cecenia? Or Isreali in their attacks against palestinian terrorists?

but such accusation will never be launched against such powerfull nations, while msall ones get pummled.
the thing about accusation is that you don't have to prove you're right about accusing someone - teh damage to the accused is allready done.
Like I said, HAAG is a piece of ****. Remeber this part?

Now Carla Del Ponte even accused Croatia of hiding gotovian (and stil constantly does) and demend profo of the opposite!! She demans profo that he is NOT in Croatia? This is redicolous! the only way to prove it would be to find him in another country. It is HAAG that should find evidence of him being in CRO before accusing.

anyway, about the Japan thing.
If I were Trumman, what I would have done:
- Ordered all troops to sstand down and hold position.
- make a official statment that US troops are currently holding a one-sided cease-fire, and would cal Japan to ddo the same
- annaounce that I would fly to Tokio to talk to their leaders (regardless of the risk)
- bring with me tapes of hte A-bomb testing

Now, no nation wants to surrender, since it means massive war reparations and in general, very bad things for your country. Allso, generals lead by their sense of honour wouldn't want to surrender.
So I would offer them an honorable and easy way out.
Signing of a peace (non-aggreasion) treay (with no conditions except the release of prisoners of war). I wouldn't ask anything else from them.
This is different from surrender, but it' allso less destructive for both sides.

If they refuse, THEN I would bomb somewhere and repeat the warrnng.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan


I'm aware of some accusations, but no real proof of that being ordered from high up.

I have to say that it's funy isn't it.. you can ask such question (was their crimes ordered from high up) in any war.
Were US soldiers ordered to bburin villages and kill poepl in vietnam? Waht about russian in Cecenia? Or Isreali in their attacks against palestinian terrorists?

but such accusation will never be launched against such powerfull nations, while msall ones get pummled.

Those allegations have indeed been made.  Especially vis-a-vis the Russians in Chechnya.

The lack of prosecution may be unfair (and I agree upon that), but the way to deal with that unfairness is not to simply ignore all war crimes.

The issue of proof is one for the courts to decide.  I simply pointed out that war crimes had occurred, and there was an allegation they were planned.

Originally posted by TrashMan

the thing about accusation is that you don't have to prove you're right about accusing someone - teh damage to the accused is allready done.
Like I said, HAAG is a piece of ****. Remeber this part?[/b

Yes, the part where you deny the legitimacy of any organization which dares to differ from your opinion.  I'm well familiar with that attitude.

Originally posted by TrashMan
anyway, about the Japan thing.
If I were Trumman, what I would have done:
- Ordered all troops to sstand down and hold position.
- make a official statment that US troops are currently holding a one-sided cease-fire, and would cal Japan to ddo the same
- annaounce that I would fly to Tokio to talk to their leaders (regardless of the risk)
- bring with me tapes of hte A-bomb testing

And what if Japanese troops decided to use the opportunity to attack in the territory they still held?  Or simply to reinforce and resupply their defensive positions?

 I mean, this is a military leadership that didn't want to surrender after 2 atomic bombings, they certainly would not see it as anything other than a golden opportunity to attack (say, Okinawa; part of the Kyushu defense plan was actually to land paratroopers there as a diversionary counter-attack anyways).

(and they'd almost certainly take Truman prisoner or kill him; what a perfect bargaining chip to have - the head of the US in their hands).  

Tapes of atomic bombing might not be all that reliable as (even in 1945) it would probably be possible to fake these things for effect.  The Japanese would be more likely to doubt it - what sort of enemy would show a weapon yet not use it in a war?

There's also the issue of handing over classified intelligence (in the existence of the a-bomb) to an enemy nation, particularly one with a nuclear program (underfunded, but when you know it's possible...).

All of which is a moot point when it's blatantly obvious you can't fly your commander in chief straight to the enemys HQ with nothing but a smile.  Assuming his plane wasn't shot down on sight by Japanese AAAf, or upon landing, of course.

Didn't I ask for a feasible alternative?  i.e. one with a chance of working?  This is amounting to a de-facto surrender by the US.

Originally posted by TrashMan
Now, no nation wants to surrender, since it means massive war reparations and in general, very bad things for your country. Allso, generals lead by their sense of honour wouldn't want to surrender.
So I would offer them an honorable and easy way out.
Signing of a peace (non-aggreasion) treay (with no conditions except the release of prisoners of war). I wouldn't ask anything else from them.
This is different from surrender, but it' allso less destructive for both sides.

If they refuse, THEN I would bomb somewhere and repeat the warrnng.

And if they don't listen?  Say it takes 1 month to do all this (at the rate of what, 10,000 dying per week?), and you drop the bomb.  what if they don't surrender then?

Now, you propose a treaty that leaves the same (quasi-facist) military commanders in power (the same ones that committed suicide rather than surrender, after all), and which assumes they won't decide to continue their ways  Presumably Japan also get to keep their territory in China, Korea, etc too?

And let's not forget the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, where the peace treaty (Treaty of Portsmouth) gave them extensive land gains, leasing rights to a key naval base, and the later ability to annex Korea with nary a peep (by making it part of Japans sphere of influence).  And yet the terms of that treaty were still greeted with riots in Japan, and the burning down of the only newspaper supporting the peace treaty.  The 'condescending attitude' of the western powers (the Treaty was brokered by Roosevelt) is what helped lead to Japanese xenophobia - they'd probably be insulted by an incredibly soft treaty in exchange for countless atrocities and waging war against the Pacific.

In July 29 1905, Japan signed an agreement with the US not to get involved in the Phillipines - in 1941 they invaded them.  

When the Japanese invaded Manchuria (a region in China) in 1932, the League of Nations (roughly equivalent to the UN) ordered them to leave.  Instead, the Japanese ignored them and left the League.

That's not a track record I'd trust, myself.  I guess if Hitler had promised never to invade another nation (er, that is ignoring all the promises he signed in the 1930s before he did, of course), you'd have been happy to end the war there?

This is, after all, a Japanese culture - fostered by a military (effective) dictatorship - that had been taught that all westerners were barbarians, that their emperor was a god, and that they had a duty to wage a 'holy war' against the Soviet Union and China.  The very same people left in power (probably strengthed by 'fending off the barbarian Americans' as the propaganda would put it), no actual measures taken to prevent rearmament... sure, no possible threat could arise from them atall.

(all of which is a mooot point, probably, as the Soviets would doubtless have invaded Japan even if the US had pulled out)

[TrashMan]

Yes, the part where you deny the legitimacy of any organization which dares to differ from your opinion. I'm well familiar with that attitude.

What a load of bull****. It seems to me the only one with that attitude here is you.

I've given you clear examples of how HAAG isn't treating Cro farely. How can anyone ask such a illogical and impossible thing? Or ask yoursef, why does she coonstatnly attakc CRO in every media, caliming that we do not wish to cooperate simply becosue we can't track Gotovins.. 1 general who even isn't in CRO.
Or how about dissmisall of some evidence or accepting it after several years only?

--

As for hte A-bomb thing:

What the hell could the Japanese do in 1 day against superior US firepower? You forget the Japan was under siege.

And doing the right (good) thing often requires sacrifice. Yes, I would try to negotiate piece even at the cost of my life. and I doubt even tha japanses were that dumb - that would bring the full wrath ofteh US against them - not a single city would be left standing. Not to mention the code of honor of the Japanese.

And you forget, I newver said SURRENDER. I would sacrifice war reparations for immediate piece. Why wouldn't Japan accept that?
It's an honorable way out of the war and very mild vcompared to what a real surrender would do to them.

And Japan would be warned of the chiefs cammon and reprocussions of an attack.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan

What a load of bull****. It seems to me the only one with that attitude here is you.

I've given you clear examples of how HAAG isn't treating Cro farely. How can anyone ask such a illogical and impossible thing? Or ask yoursef, why does she coonstatnly attakc CRO in every media, caliming that we do not wish to cooperate simply becosue we can't track Gotovins.. 1 general who even isn't in CRO.
Or how about dissmisall of some evidence or accepting it after several years only?

--

You see, you're doing it again.

Hmm.  You seem a bit uptight about this.

I would guess if the Hague was 'attacking' Croatia in the media, it would be for not handing over a suspected war criminal who was believed to still be within the country.  Given that the Hague will have access to various intelligence from UN member nations, it's not entirely unfair to suggest they might have some evidence for this belief.

Originally posted by TrashMan

As for hte A-bomb thing:

What the hell could the Japanese do in 1 day against superior US firepower? You forget the Japan was under siege.

Well, surely you're not giving the Japanese 1 day to surrender?  I mean, after all it took them over a week to surrender after the somewhat significant impetus of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

Also, the point being that the US could not have known the stage of the Japanese atomic program, nor made the assumption that they wouldn't either a) somehow survive long enough to build one or b) build one during this purported 'peace' period.  Generally speaking, if you show an enemy or even ally a weapon, they'll want one at some point.  Post-ceasefire, you'd have a Japan led by the same militaristic leaders, with the same expansionist ambitions and belief in manifest destiny to 'Japanify' Asia, except now who knew they could build a superweapon (especially as the US couldn't prove the A-bomb existed with simply video; they'd have to give a degree of information for Japan to prove to themselfs such a thing could exist)

Not to mention the military value of surprise.  The US only had 2 deployable weapons, had the Japanese evacuated the cities or shifted around enough of their logistics (plus of course strengthened AAF to attack even single aircraft), they could have absorbed enough of the impact to continue fighting.  Plus the scientists couldn't be 100% sure the bomb would work when dropped; even the technician who armed the bomb on the Enola Gay admitted he didn't really expect it to go off.

Remember that the Japanese were holding back their remaining aircraft in anticipation of an invasion, too; if they knew of an a-bomb, they'd probably have put those into play.  In that case, it's possible the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks could have failed, as both were performed by single bombers.

Japan wasn't completely under seige, anyways.  The US had already concluded it was logistically impossible to completely blockade the Pacific during the planning process for Operation Downfall; some of the troops moved to Japan in preperation for that invasion actually came from the frontlines in China.

Originally posted by TrashMan
And doing the right (good) thing often requires sacrifice. Yes, I would try to negotiate piece even at the cost of my life. and I doubt even tha japanses were that dumb - that would bring the full wrath ofteh US against them - not a single city would be left standing. Not to mention the code of honor of the Japanese.

The Japanese code of honour?  What, the same one that allowed them to enslave hundreds of thousands as POWs across the Pacific, that saw women taken off to be sex slaves for occupying troops, experimentation of biological weapons upon civillians by unit 731, the murder of injured Australian POWs in Parit Sulong (150 men who were tied up with wire, machine gunned, set on fire and then ran over repeatedly by trucks), the Baatan death march (70,000 emaciated POWs forced to mark 100km, with stragglers being executed and the rest denied food or water for days on end), the murder of 22 nurses in the Banka Island massacre, and the rape of Nanking (20 -up to 80,000 chinese women from 7 to elderly aged were raped, forced incest with boys forced to rape their mothers, and the murder of thousands of civillians considered of fighting age)?

Yes, I'm sure you'd want to trust their honour.

Do you really thing the Japanese would trust the word of the US?  That they'd believe an enemy who was so desperate to end the war as to send their supreme commander would still have the ability to even inflict that much damage?   If you want to force the enemy to surrender, the last thing you do is show that sort weakness and desperation.

Hell, even with Truman personally flying in (through some miracle of stupidity and AAF incompetence, i presume), it doesn't mean the Japanese would have surrendered anyways - after all, the military controlling the country didn't want to surrent post Nagasaki, and the only reason they did was that the Emperor ordered them to (having seen the inevitable destruction of the country and realised it was worth the risk of a coup as he'd otherwise lose power anyways).

Not to mention the full wrath of the US was already upon them.

Originally posted by TrashMan
And you forget, I newver said SURRENDER. I would sacrifice war reparations for immediate piece. Why wouldn't Japan accept that?
It's an honorable way out of the war and very mild vcompared to what a real surrender would do to them.

They might accept it, in order to preserve their powerbase (i.e. keep the militarists with a long history of imperialism in power) and then rebuild for future expansion.  Hence why such a surrender would never be offered by the US.

Of course, on the other hand, 1000 officers tried to storm the palace and kill the emperor after accepting surrender under threat of the entire country being flattened by nuclear weapons, as it was so unacceptable.  Perhaps had there not been a somewhat visible demonstration that they would not only not win the war, but not even be able to kill the enemy on the beaches as expected, there would have been more support for such a coup?

That's completely ignoring the domestic political unacceptability (within the US) of such an offer, of course.  (Or the fact the Russians simply wouldn't care and probably attack anyways).

Originally posted by TrashMan

And Japan would be warned of the chiefs cammon and reprocussions of an attack.

 Presumably you'd threaten to nuke them?

I'm sure threatening them with a bomb that can destroy a city and be carried by a single plane will be a great incentive for them to ignore a single plane flying over their capital.

Or would you say 'don't shoot our plane or we'll keep bombing you'?  i'm sure that'd sound so convincing to the Japanese military.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Signing of a peace (non-aggreasion) treay (with no conditions except the release of prisoners of war). I wouldn't ask anything else from them.

Cause that worked out so well for Neville Chamberlain that the Americans would think it definately worth trying

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14
You see, you're doing it again.

Hmm.  You seem a bit uptight about this.

I would guess if the Hague was 'attacking' Croatia in the media, it would be for not handing over a suspected war criminal who was believed to still be within the country.  Given that the Hague will have access to various intelligence from UN member nations, it's not entirely unfair to suggest they might have some evidence for this belief.

And those sources are, as Carla once said on a press conference, some croatian newspapers. What she didn't mention is that it was two worst TABLOIDS that in the samme issue allso wrote that Britney Spears is having tripplets, that Jack Nicholson has bought a croatian island and that Michael Jackson has been using some prototype drungs and that's why he's in such aa  bad shape...

Besides, assuming he is in Cro. then she should prove it insted of flinging accusations. And again and again you are avoiding the issue of her asking our governmet to prove he is not in croatia!!!

Post-ceasefire, you'd have a Japan led by the same militaristic leaders, with the same expansionist ambitions and belief in manifest destiny to 'Japanify' Asia, except now who knew they could build a superweapon (especially as the US couldn't prove the A-bomb existed with simply video; they'd have to give a degree of information for Japan to prove to themselfs such a thing could exist)

Not to mention the military value of surprise.  The US only had 2 deployable weapons, had the Japanese evacuated the cities or shifted around enough of their logistics (plus of course strengthened AAF to attack even single aircraft), they could have absorbed enough of the impact to continue fighting.  Plus the scientists couldn't be 100% sure the bomb would work when dropped; even the technician who armed the bomb on the Enola Gay admitted he didn't really expect it to go off.

Well, maby showing them the A-bomb would be a bad move, but one fact still remains. Japan is an island power with no naval power left. The USA whad the mightiest navy the world has ever seen.
In order for Japan to continue it's expansion it needed naval power. It's forces in China needed supplies and relief. And not to mention the russians were coming from that direction - and tehy beace a military powerhouse by that time.

As long as USA was watching them, they couldn't do nothing. One of the reasons they went in to war is oil. And they had no source left after the usa and russias push. And you can't build a working navy without oil..

Do you really thing the Japanese would trust the word of the US?  That they'd believe an enemy who was so desperate to end the war as to send their supreme commander would still have the ability to even inflict that much damage?   If you want to force the enemy to surrender, the last thing you do is show that sort weakness and desperation.

Desparate or self-confident? It might have the opposite effect.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by TrashMan


And those sources are, as Carla once said on a press conference, some croatian newspapers. What she didn't mention is that it was two worst TABLOIDS that in the samme issue allso wrote that Britney Spears is having tripplets, that Jack Nicholson has bought a croatian island and that Michael Jackson has been using some prototype drungs and that's why he's in such aa  bad shape...

Besides, assuming he is in Cro. then she should prove it insted of flinging accusations. And again and again you are avoiding the issue of her asking our governmet to prove he is not in croatia!!!


Well, maby showing them the A-bomb would be a bad move, but one fact still remains. Japan is an island power with no naval power left. The USA whad the mightiest navy the world has ever seen.
In order for Japan to continue it's expansion it needed naval power. It's forces in China needed supplies and relief. And not to mention the russians were coming from that direction - and tehy beace a military powerhouse by that time.

As long as USA was watching them, they couldn't do nothing. One of the reasons they went in to war is oil. And they had no source left after the usa and russias push. And you can't build a working navy without oil..




Desparate or self-confident? It might have the opposite effect.

Questions:

How are American celebraites related to the topic of WWII that have been discussed in the last week or so?

What is the point you're trying to make from the 'myth' of Japan Navy and oil?

I think you're pretty far off from the original discussion.

[StratComm]

There are now two threads: the topic shown in the thread name, and TrashMan's inappropriate use of (and subsequent tangent on) the Serb-Croat war.  Trashman really has no argument besides "Because I say so" on either.  This just keeps going because, well, I'm not really sure why.  We can't let "I say so" win, I guess, on moral grounds.  

EDIT: sorry, I just can't resist this.

Originally posted by TrashMan
And you forget, I newver said SURRENDER. I would sacrifice war reparations for immediate piece. Why wouldn't Japan accept that?
It's an honorable way out of the war and very mild vcompared to what a real surrender would do to them.

Ok, so history lesson time.  How were the costs on Japan for surrender higher than those of prolonging the war under siege?  Well, they weren't.  Truman pressured the allies to not only forgive Japan of the costs of the war (as in, no reparations) but even went out of his way to see that Japan and Germany recieved money and support to rebuild.  The whole point was not to make them pay for a catastrophic war that they caused, it was to see that such a war would never happen again.  Now fair enough, we're looking at what the leadership of those nations would have anticipated at the time, or we should be.  But then, if you're going to apply that to the other options, we have to apply it to the option that was utilized (A-bomb).  You can't get around that.  And yet you make hypothetical suggestions that aren't really backed up by the historical record, while ignoring the facts and the situations that led to the decision that WAS made.  I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  If anyone else here cares to digress and take your stance, please let them speak.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan


And those sources are, as Carla once said on a press conference, some croatian newspapers. What she didn't mention is that it was two worst TABLOIDS that in the samme issue allso wrote that Britney Spears is having tripplets, that Jack Nicholson has bought a croatian island and that Michael Jackson has been using some prototype drungs and that's why he's in such aa  bad shape...

Besides, assuming he is in Cro. then she should prove it insted of flinging accusations. And again and again you are avoiding the issue of her asking our governmet to prove he is not in croatia!!!

I said intelligence sources, not newspapers.  That would be the intelligence services and diplomatic contacts of member nations of the UN.

For example, in one briefing Del Ponte cited General Philippe Rondot of French intelligence as being involved in trying to track down Gotovina.  As you probably know, Gotovina served in the French Foreign Legion and has a (as yet unused) French passport.  There's also rumours of an MI6 operation named 'Cash' which attemped to track Gotovina within Croatia by pentrating his support network.

If Gotovina is a wanted war criminal and not in Croatia, why would the ICTY be so concerned over it?  Your best reason for that appears to be allegations of bias and a persecution complex.

Originally posted by TrashMan


Well, maby showing them the A-bomb would be a bad move, but one fact still remains. Japan is an island power with no naval power left. The USA whad the mightiest navy the world has ever seen.
In order for Japan to continue it's expansion it needed naval power. It's forces in China needed supplies and relief. And not to mention the russians were coming from that direction - and tehy beace a military powerhouse by that time.

As long as USA was watching them, they couldn't do nothing. One of the reasons they went in to war is oil. And they had no source left after the usa and russias push. And you can't build a working navy without oil..

What makes you think the US had the military and logistical power to continue an indefinite blockade?  After all, they couldn't even establish a complete blockade ('ring of steel') round Japan.

Not to mention the threat of the Soviets annexing China and even pushing further into europe; tieing up that many troops would be risking giving Russia the opportunity to expand.  Hell, it's arguable that Yalta was in many ways a concession to Stalin because the US was shippping many of its troops off to the Pacific to fight - who can predict what would happen if Stalin knew those troops would be tied up for a long time and without the threat of the a-bomb on the table?  It's certainly a big risk to take.

And if you decide it's fine to pull out and let the Russians continue fighting, how is that 'better'?  We're still looking at millions dieing when the Russians inevitably push onto Japan, so how is that better than what transpired? (not only is that worse in terms of death and damage, it's worse in terms of geopolitics; Russia would probably become the most powerful nation on earth, and I'm not sure I'd want Stalin in that position)

Also, how are you going to deny Japan oil and materials that could be used to rearm without preventing the country from rebuilding?  I mean, if you honestly believe this would lead to a lasting peace and tame the previously ultra-imperialist government, Japan would need to rebuild its infrastructure and indeed build ships to bring in food and soforth (to counter the effects of Operation Stavation).  Or are you suggesting it be kept in a feudal level of technology?

Not to mention the possibility of a Chinese attack upon Japan (for revenge, for example); what would the US position be in that eventuality, having denied Japan the ability to defend itself?

Originally posted by TrashMan

Desparate or self-confident? It might have the opposite effect.

Self confident would mean they wouldn't feel the need to send a figurehead or sue for peace on terms which amounted to appeasement (a policy which failed to stop the war starting just 6 years ago...)

Either way it's a ****ing huge assumption and even larger tactical risk - how long do you think the Japanese would take to realise the President of the US might know a thing or two about the tactics to be used against Japan? (if you've been planning a major invasion that would cost hundreds of thousands of your own troops, you'd kind of need to inform the president why and what you're planning to get his consent)