Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cepu.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!ios!oliveb!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!bmcg!cepu!scw From: scw@cepu.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: TO Tom Hill: Message-ID: <387@cepu.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 11:29:14 EDT Article-I.D.: cepu.387 Posted: Tue Oct 16 11:29:14 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Oct-84 06:17:40 EDT References: <270@mhuxt.UUCP> <858@ihuxx.UUCP> <1166@pyuxn.UUCP> <276@mhuxt.UUCP> <271@digi-g.UUCP> <242@scc-bee.UUCP> <296@digi-g.UUCP> <385Tue, 16-Oct-84 08:29:14 PDT Reply-To: scw@cepu.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods) Organization: VA Wadsworth Med. Center; LA CA Lines: 122 Summary: This is a replacment for <385@cepu.UUCP>. In the following article <242> is Tom Hill@scc-bee <296> is Amir (296@digi-g) <271> is Amir(271@digi-g) and <2785> is <2785@allegra> (I think) <385> is my old cancled article. In article <296@digi-g.UUCP> && <272@digi-g.UUCP> amir@digi-g.UUCP writes: >In article <> thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) writes: <242> <242>Amir, <242> About my ignorance on the bombing during WWII? I still feel that <242>you have neglected to read the articles that were posted after your <242>article came over the net. If you had read them (and mine, for that <242>matter) you might understand that several of us believe the bombing of <242>the two Japanese cities [...]Tom Hill <296>It seems that you have neglected to read others and mine. I mentioned <296>it once and I will mention it again. <296>I said that 450,000 people dying because of one bomb, is not my idea of <296>saving lives. The point has [...], that is the final word or <296>situations in the world change so much every day that there is no way <296>one can say I never surrender. <2875>Now, compare those numbers to the number of Japanese killed by the two <2875>American bombs: 80,000 in Hiroshima, 40,000 in Nagasaki (Encyclopedia <2875>Britannica). Lets call it 150,000, and throw in another 300,000 for those <2875>killed by radiation exposure, etc. That gives us a figure of 450,000 dead, <2875>whereas the highest figure I recall seeing in print for the total killed is <2875>400,000. That's comparable to the losses for Operation Olympic. <272>Lets throw in another 300,000 lives in for radiation. (As long as <272>those lives I so [.....] about that many dead. You are telling me that <272>that war would have lasted longer than Viet-Nam. And that is not to <272>mention the problems that the people of Hiroshima are still suffering <272>from that bomb both economically and phisically. Insert: Do you really Think that Vietnam was a high intensity, continious battle? Sorry but no it wasn't. I am a combat veteran (Marines, infantry) and I have talked at some length with combat infantrymen from WW I, WW II, and Korea. As a reasonable statment the intensity of the wars rate as follow: WWI, WWII (Pacific Theater), WWII (European Theater), Korea, Vietnam (Durring Tet 68 [about a 2 month streach), WWII (CBI Theater), and lastly Vietnam (Normal contitions). All you have to do is to look at the ratio of Deaths to total troops engaged times time engaged (Vietnam a total of 925000 men (1 year tour of duty), total dead 50,0000 = .05 deaths/man-year; Okinawa 112,000 men over 3 months 7613 dead =.27 deaths/man-year.) What we're telling you is that the war would have dragged on into (probably) 1947, total casualties would have been at LEAST 10,000,000, mostly women and children. Where do you get the idea that Hiroshima/Nagasaki are still suffering economically from the Bomb? <385>It doesn't matter how you die, dead is dead. Constantly Japanese dead <385>where on the close order of 10 times total Allied casualities (in <385>particular total Japanese dead for the Okinawa campagin were 450,000 <385>dead, total Allied [...]they could have, they were conserving strength <385>for the defense of the 'Homeland'. Sorry 'bout that. The figuers looked a little suspect so when I got home I checked them out, it turns out that I was using casualty ratios from Guadacanal (where The Japanese attempted to use mass charges) and applying them to Okinawa (where they used defense in depth). The correct figuers are: 127,500 Japanese Troops (Basicly the entire garrison) and 42,000 Civilians, Total Allied ground troops killed/missing 7613 wounded 31807 (+26,221 Neuropsychiatric , "non battle" casualties) [With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa; E.B. Sledge Ph.D.;Presido Press 1981, Bantam 1983]. These make the casualty ratio 4.25 to 1 implying 425,000 Japanese dead. Unfortunatly it makes no account for the fact that everyone in Japan, men, women and children were being prepaired to fight, and sacrifice their lives if necessary to kill even 1 Americian. Estimates for operation Olympic (which was approved June 18,1945) were 31,000 dead. In addition they expected that the Navy would loose 90 ships with an additional 900 damaged and 21,000 sailors killed. These estimates are disputed by James and William Belote in: \Typhoon of Steel: the Battle for Okinawa/; Harper& Row 1970, Bantam 1983; As JCS estimates of 7 Japanese divisions and 2-3 Mixed Brigades were wrong, (11 divisions, 3 Brigades and 3 Tank Brigades) <296>Secondly there was already internal resistance to the war by the people, as is <296>the case of any war that takes too long and costs alot of lives and money. Bullshit, the military clique was totally in control. And they were quite willing to fight to the last man, woman and child in Japan. <296>There is noway that the Emperor of Japan could have stuck to his promise <296>of never surrendering, if not pressured from outside sources, he would <296>have been forced by the internal forces to do so. It wasn't the Emperor, it was the Militarists (in particular the Army high command). And in any case they seemed do be doing a good job of holding on. <296>The history is full of people who said 'never' and ended up doing 'it'. <296>The president of Viet Nam said 'never' to the Viet Congs and look at it now. That's Viet-Cong (There is no 'plural' form of nouns in Vietnamese). Yes, look at it now, after we sold them down the river for a few 1E6 $ worth of ammo/supplies. <296>The president of Korea said 'never' to the communists and look at it now. Yes, look at it (them actually) now, compare and contrast North and South Korea. <296>Your good old Ronnie said 'never' to cut backs as he is saying now, but <296>look at his cutbacks now. Beg pardon, what does this have to do with the subject under discussion? <296>To sum it all up, I say that the conventional war which would have <296>ended the war very soon, would have costed much less lives than mass <296>murder that happened. Sorry, but in this case you're wrong, the Japanese were quite willing to and capeable of fighting on to the bitter end. If you don't believe that just look at what happened in Germany in the last months of the war, everyone there (well almost everyone) KNEW that they had lost, that there was NO WAY in Hell to win, but they kept on fighting. Do you think that the Japanese (with their additional espirit of Bushido) would have done no less? -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcrdcf}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"