At Hiroshima’s 70th Anniversary, Japan Again Mourns Dawn of Atomic Age

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I'm sorry Titian but perspective is something you have lost here. Your moral sensitivity has clouded your judgement of history.

You mean my "morals." Just morals. And they are shared by many of the people who fought in and planned strategy during the war. It wasn't history for them, it was the present.

None of what you say means anything.

Says you. It means quite a bit. We're talking about instantly incinerating 130,000 civilians here and sentencing another 100,000 to die painful deaths over the next few weeks and months from radiation poisoning and burns. And it's not just me saying it, it's military and civilian men who fought or planned out this war from beginning to end.

The PTB gathered OK what did the gather for? Did they gather to discuss possible surrender or how to combat or survive this new weapon? You're a good man but it takes hard ass men making hard ass decisions to fight a war and people with your sensitivity just can't be in that position. You're judging 1945 actions by 2015 standards. It doesn't work.

It's not my sensitivity, unless you think Eisenhower was some weak-willed sissy that couldn't make hardass decisions. Or MacArthur. Or the numerous other generals and war strategists who were making hardass decisions every day for 4 years in the war against the Axis powers. I'm not judging the past by the present. For you to read the things I've posted and use that as a comeback says that you don't actually read arguments and reply to them, you formulate arguments in your head before hand and plow through with them regardless of what's actually being discussed.

If you'll stop wearing yourself out punching the hell out of straw men, you might have the energy to formulate some responses to the debate that's actually going on.

[AUUSN 823]

Maybe all of this is just guilt over the fact we won the war. We should have negotiated like we did in Korea and Vietnam and every other war since. That worked out really well.. Some here would place the United States and Japan on the same moral ground? Had we fought itthe way they think we should have we likely never would have won. You can be humane and merciful after you have been victorious. While the fighting is going on you have to be hard and ruthless. We followed that formula for that war and it worked out quite well.

Worked out quite well? Put down the koolaid and pick up a book.

[AFTiger 282]

Nice cover. What does the inside say?

[cooltigger21 0]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

[AUUSN 823]

Nice cover. What does the inside say?

It's a 432 page book. Go read it.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

You can't justify a wrong with a wrong.

[Mikey 16,656]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

You can't justify a wrong with a wrong.

Ending the war in the quickest and most efficient way possible wasn't a wrong, it was a right. Correct move all the way, unless you like the idea of American POW's being tortured daily and Japanese civilians being starved and firebombed, literally numbering in the millions.

[homersapien 11,396]

What's funny to me is the emotional arguments that are being presented to oppose the idea of questioning the rational proposition that alternatives (to dropping the bomb on cities) were available.

I don't really question the decision that was made, but I am certainly willing to consider alternatives.

[quietfan 233]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

I don't think there was much vacillation and hand wringing among the leadership that decided to use the Bomb and I doubt we could have used the Bomb much earlier. The Trinity test at Alamagordo was July 16th and was not a weapon in deliverable form at that time. Work on a deliverable weapon (or weapons, since Trinity/Fat Man and Little Boy used two different technologies) continued and I imaging a thorough review of the Trinity test was part of that process. The key components and nuclear core for Little Boy were delivered by ship, the ill-fated Indianapolis, to Tinian on July 26th, and then had to be assembled. Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th. I just don't see a lot for room for hand wringing and delays caused by vacillation in that schedule--I think we proceeded about as rapidly as the technology allowed.

I don't think anyone in the chain of command making the decision has ever felt a need to apologize and I would not ask them to. Personally, I don't consider the atomic destruction of Japanese cities any more or less moral than the conventional fire bombings and don't think the U.S. needed or needs to apologize for going nuclear. But neither should anyone be browbeaten or have to apologize for asking if there were not other options.

"...you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did." I understand that is your belief and respect your right to it. But simply saying or believing it does not make it true. Isn't that pretty much the question this thread that has been debating for 26 pages now? Since that question is pure speculation and cannot be proved either way, I see know need to attack Titan (and his kind, presumably including me) or accuse them of something that is not even provable. There is really no way to know how quickly Japan might have surrendered without the use of the Bomb. Certainly their Cabinet was already discussing surrender, their cities were already being destroyed one by one with conventional bombs, and Stalin's entry had resulted in the rapid destruction of their armies on the Asian mainland leaving no defense against his further seizure of Japanese territory. I think it is overly simplistic to suggest that 2 atomic bombs alone made all the difference, but of course they were a factor in the Japanese thinking.

"...the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them." . Again, I respect your right to feel that way, I just disagree. I don't think the civilian women, children and elderly of Hiroshima, Tokyo, or any other destroyed city in Japan or Germany did anything to justify their immolation. Nor did the civilian population of London do anything to justify Hitler's targeting of civilians.

Yes, in war, military targets and military actions result in civilian casualties. Destroying an enemy's ability to make war is a legitimate strategic doctrine. But I don't blame all Japanese for the actions of their soldiers and/or government leaders. I don't blame all Germans for the atrocities of the Nazis, I don't blame all Muslims for 9/11 or the barbarity of ISIS or Al Queda, and I don't blame all white Americans for the massacre of Native Americans at Sand Creek and Wounded Knee or the Birmingham church bombing. I'm not even saying Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessarily wrong, just asking, like others, were they necessary period?

And as aujeff points out, one wrong never justifies a further wrong. Would the Cheyenne have been justified in slaughtering man, woman, and child in frontier towns simply because Chivington did it first at Black Kettle's camp of friendlies on Sand Creek? If we had chosen to beat, bayonet, torture, or starve our Japanese POW's, would that be justified on the grounds that "they did it first"? To my mind, repaying atrocity with atrocity makes me no better than the ones who committed the first atrocity.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

You can't justify a wrong with a wrong.

Ending the war in the quickest and most efficient way possible wasn't a wrong, it was a right. Correct move all the way, unless you like the idea of American POW's being tortured daily and Japanese civilians being starved and firebombed, literally numbering in the millions.

If that is what makes you sleep better at night. I'm just going to ignore your horrible argument that assumes morality = liking the idea of American POWs being tortured daily.

I didn't realize we had so many "the end justifies the means " people around here. I don't even have to ask what yalls position on guantanomo bay was. Not only that, I'm sure yall believe the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is just a myth as well.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

My "kind" were Eisenhower, MacArthur, Admiral William Leahy, Ralph Bard (Under Sec. of the Navy in WWII), Paul Nitze (Vice President, US Strategic Bombing Survey during WWII), Ellis Zacharias (Deputy Director, Office of Naval Intelligence - WWII), General Carl Spatz (in charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific) and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors) among others. And neither of us could hold the jock of any one of them when it comes to understanding what needs to be done in war and making the hardass decisions, particularly the first two.

Those civilians in those two cities did none of the things you think made them "deserving" of being incinerated.

[Mikey 16,656]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

You can't justify a wrong with a wrong.

Ending the war in the quickest and most efficient way possible wasn't a wrong, it was a right. Correct move all the way, unless you like the idea of American POW's being tortured daily and Japanese civilians being starved and firebombed, literally numbering in the millions.

If that is what makes you sleep better at night. I'm just going to ignore your horrible argument that assumes morality = liking the idea of American POWs being tortured daily.

I didn't realize we had so many "the end justifies the means " people around here. I don't even have to ask what yalls position on guantanomo bay was. Not only that, I'm sure yall believe the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is just a myth as well.

Bringing the war to a quick end justified using the weapons at our disposal. Failing to end the war, when we had the ability to end it, would have been the amoral course of action. Using the bombs to quickly end hostilities was the moral course. You cannot claim the moral high ground when what you suggest would have prolonged the misery of millions and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands more than died in the bombings.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

You can't justify a wrong with a wrong.

Ending the war in the quickest and most efficient way possible wasn't a wrong, it was a right. Correct move all the way, unless you like the idea of American POW's being tortured daily and Japanese civilians being starved and firebombed, literally numbering in the millions.

If that is what makes you sleep better at night. I'm just going to ignore your horrible argument that assumes morality = liking the idea of American POWs being tortured daily.

I didn't realize we had so many "the end justifies the means " people around here. I don't even have to ask what yalls position on guantanomo bay was. Not only that, I'm sure yall believe the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is just a myth as well.

Bringing the war to a quick end justified using the weapons at our disposal. Failing to end the war, when we had the ability to end it, would have been the amoral course of action. Using the bombs to quickly end hostilities was the moral course. You cannot claim the moral high ground when what you suggest would have prolonged the misery of millions and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands more than died in the bombings.

If some group of snipers from a homegrown anti-gov't militia that no one could seem to catch was taking out policemen by the scores across the country, and somehow discovering who they are, going to their homes and shooting their wife and kids would get them to stop, that doesn't make murdering their families the moral course of action. Not even if it prolongs the misery of law enforcement families and more police end up dying before you can catch them.

[Mikey 16,656]

False analogy.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

False analogy.

Elaborate.

[quietfan 233]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

You can't justify a wrong with a wrong.

Ending the war in the quickest and most efficient way possible wasn't a wrong, it was a right. Correct move all the way, unless you like the idea of American POW's being tortured daily and Japanese civilians being starved and firebombed, literally numbering in the millions.

If that is what makes you sleep better at night. I'm just going to ignore your horrible argument that assumes morality = liking the idea of American POWs being tortured daily.

I didn't realize we had so many "the end justifies the means " people around here. I don't even have to ask what yalls position on guantanomo bay was. Not only that, I'm sure yall believe the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is just a myth as well.

Bringing the war to a quick end justified using the weapons at our disposal. Failing to end the war, when we had the ability to end it, would have been the amoral course of action. Using the bombs to quickly end hostilities was the moral course. You cannot claim the moral high ground when what you suggest would have prolonged the misery of millions and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands more than died in the bombings.

Really two separate issues here:

Cooltiger says Japanese conduct in the war "more than justified anything we did to them", NOT "bringing the war to an end" justified the means. The behavior of some Japanese troops and leaders ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT justify the commission of war crimes on our part. Period.

Mikey shifts the topic to "ending the war more quickly" justified our actions. That might be a legitimate motive for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but begs the question(s) "Did the use of nuclear weapons hasten the end of the war or did other factors play an equally significant role in the surrender?" and/or "Was the use of the Bomb the ONLY way to bring about a quick end to the war, or could/would other tactics have led to an equally swift surrender?" Neither of those two questions can be answered for sure, indeed those are the questions that historians have asking since 1945 and have been argued for 27 pages of this thread. Simply saying or claiming "the Bombs ended the war and saved thousands/millions of lives" does not make it true. Those are questions about hypotheticals than can never be answered with certainty one way or another. Believing something does not make it true, and after 70 years of debate there is still no consensus on the necessity or justification for using the Bomb, nor is there ever likely to be.

[WarTim 3,456]

Truman was a dem....Be careful...

[alexava 6,973]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

You can't justify a wrong with a wrong.

Ending the war in the quickest and most efficient way possible wasn't a wrong, it was a right. Correct move all the way, unless you like the idea of American POW's being tortured daily and Japanese civilians being starved and firebombed, literally numbering in the millions.

If that is what makes you sleep better at night. I'm just going to ignore your horrible argument that assumes morality = liking the idea of American POWs being tortured daily.

I didn't realize we had so many "the end justifies the means " people around here. I don't even have to ask what yalls position on guantanomo bay was. Not only that, I'm sure yall believe the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is just a myth as well.

Bringing the war to a quick end justified using the weapons at our disposal. Failing to end the war, when we had the ability to end it, would have been the amoral course of action. Using the bombs to quickly end hostilities was the moral course. You cannot claim the moral high ground when what you suggest would have prolonged the misery of millions and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands more than died in the bombings.

If some group of snipers from a homegrown anti-gov't militia that no one could seem to catch was taking out policemen by the scores across the country, and somehow discovering who they are, going to their homes and shooting their wife and kids would get them to stop, that doesn't make murdering their families the moral course of action. Not even if it prolongs the misery of law enforcement families and more police end up dying before you can catch them.

That is what Jack Bauer would do. However i don't think it is a relevant analogy to this discussion.

[homersapien 11,396]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

You can't justify a wrong with a wrong.

Ending the war in the quickest and most efficient way possible wasn't a wrong, it was a right. Correct move all the way, unless you like the idea of American POW's being tortured daily and Japanese civilians being starved and firebombed, literally numbering in the millions.

If that is what makes you sleep better at night. I'm just going to ignore your horrible argument that assumes morality = liking the idea of American POWs being tortured daily.

I didn't realize we had so many "the end justifies the means " people around here. I don't even have to ask what yalls position on guantanomo bay was. Not only that, I'm sure yall believe the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is just a myth as well.

Bringing the war to a quick end justified using the weapons at our disposal. Failing to end the war, when we had the ability to end it, would have been the amoral course of action. Using the bombs to quickly end hostilities was the moral course. You cannot claim the moral high ground when what you suggest would have prolonged the misery of millions and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands more than died in the bombings.

If some group of snipers from a homegrown anti-gov't militia that no one could seem to catch was taking out policemen by the scores across the country, and somehow discovering who they are, going to their homes and shooting their wife and kids would get them to stop, that doesn't make murdering their families the moral course of action. Not even if it prolongs the misery of law enforcement families and more police end up dying before you can catch them.

That is what Jack Bauer would do. However i don't think it is a relevant analogy to this discussion.

Seems relevant to me.

But I can't believe this thread is still going on.

[alexava 6,973]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

You can't justify a wrong with a wrong.

Ending the war in the quickest and most efficient way possible wasn't a wrong, it was a right. Correct move all the way, unless you like the idea of American POW's being tortured daily and Japanese civilians being starved and firebombed, literally numbering in the millions.

If that is what makes you sleep better at night. I'm just going to ignore your horrible argument that assumes morality = liking the idea of American POWs being tortured daily.

I didn't realize we had so many "the end justifies the means " people around here. I don't even have to ask what yalls position on guantanomo bay was. Not only that, I'm sure yall believe the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is just a myth as well.

Bringing the war to a quick end justified using the weapons at our disposal. Failing to end the war, when we had the ability to end it, would have been the amoral course of action. Using the bombs to quickly end hostilities was the moral course. You cannot claim the moral high ground when what you suggest would have prolonged the misery of millions and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands more than died in the bombings.

If some group of snipers from a homegrown anti-gov't militia that no one could seem to catch was taking out policemen by the scores across the country, and somehow discovering who they are, going to their homes and shooting their wife and kids would get them to stop, that doesn't make murdering their families the moral course of action. Not even if it prolongs the misery of law enforcement families and more police end up dying before you can catch them.

That is what Jack Bauer would do. However i don't think it is a relevant analogy to this discussion.

Seems relevant to me.

But I can't believe this thread is still going on.

because murdering their families will not make them stop. Torturing them progressively worse everyday might. We agree on thread length.

[quietfan 233]

Truman was a dem....Be careful...

True, but irrelevant to the topic.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I have zero problem with how we won that war. In fact we could have won it faster if there had been a little less handwringing going on and vascilation. Sure you worry about the decision but you make it and own up to it and don't apologize for it. Titan you and your kind would have gotten a lot more people on both sides killed and caused the war to drag on longer than it did. The conduct by the Japanese more than justified anything we did to them.

You can't justify a wrong with a wrong.

Ending the war in the quickest and most efficient way possible wasn't a wrong, it was a right. Correct move all the way, unless you like the idea of American POW's being tortured daily and Japanese civilians being starved and firebombed, literally numbering in the millions.

If that is what makes you sleep better at night. I'm just going to ignore your horrible argument that assumes morality = liking the idea of American POWs being tortured daily.

I didn't realize we had so many "the end justifies the means " people around here. I don't even have to ask what yalls position on guantanomo bay was. Not only that, I'm sure yall believe the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine is just a myth as well.

Bringing the war to a quick end justified using the weapons at our disposal. Failing to end the war, when we had the ability to end it, would have been the amoral course of action. Using the bombs to quickly end hostilities was the moral course. You cannot claim the moral high ground when what you suggest would have prolonged the misery of millions and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands more than died in the bombings.

If some group of snipers from a homegrown anti-gov't militia that no one could seem to catch was taking out policemen by the scores across the country, and somehow discovering who they are, going to their homes and shooting their wife and kids would get them to stop, that doesn't make murdering their families the moral course of action. Not even if it prolongs the misery of law enforcement families and more police end up dying before you can catch them.

That is what Jack Bauer would do. However i don't think it is a relevant analogy to this discussion.

Seems relevant to me.

But I can't believe this thread is still going on.

because murdering their families will not make them stop. Torturing them progressively worse everyday might. We agree on thread length.

You don't know what will make them stop. You murder one family and then call on the others to turn themselves in or every three days you murder another family.

[AUloggerhead 2,244]

Just finished reading the book, "Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947" by D. M. Giangreco. I highly recommend reading it -- check your local library to see if they have a copy. It's a meticulously researched, fantastic (and non-emotional) look at the factual events leading up to the end of the war and the preparations being made of both sides. It's all too clear that without the sudden Japanese surrender, an even bigger catastrophe than the atomic bombings would have occurred had the invasion of Kyushu proceeded. The Japanese had amassed troops, weapons (including suicide naval & air types,) ammunition, food & fuel in prepared positions in caves & hills beyond the expected invasion sites on Kyushu, and were ordered to fight in place until annihilated -- i.e. Iwo Jima & Okinawa all over again except on a grander scale. I'm including just a few of the quotations from the book here:

"Victory was never in doubt. It's cost was ... What was in doubt, in all our minds, was whether there would be any of us left to dedicate our cemetery at the end, or whether the last Marine would die knocking out the last Japanese gun and gunner."

--MG Graves B. Erskine, commanding general, 3rd Marine Division

"It was evident to us that the [Japanese} army was still largely in control and they were preparing to fight to the bitter end just as they had done on all the island up to and including Okinawa where I think we had to kill 120,000 of them.

Therefore, it was the opinion of the Chiefs of Staff at the time that only a tremendous pressure on Japan itself had any hope of terminating the army dictation ... that nothing less than a terrific shock would produce a surrender that was carried throughout the Japanese interest from Burma, China, Indonesia, down in New Guinea where we had left them behind, and of course, further north.

Our great struggle there was to precipitate that general surrender so that we would not be involved with various hold-out commands in various parts of the Far East. Therefore, our own conclusion, that of the Chiefs of Staff, was that we had to invade Japan [or] bring this to a conclusion with shock action ... the atom bomb."

--George C. Marshall, in congressional testimony, 1951

[Mikey 16,656]

False analogy.

Elaborate.

I think you should have elaborated.

Lets say this group of murderers comes home every night to their compound, where their wives have a hot dinner ready for them, grow a victory garden to keep the compound well fed and the children spend their days hand-loading more ammunition. Every morning the wives kiss their guys goodbye and give them instructions, "see how much pain you can inflict toady! Heavenly rewards await you at day's end if you can bring another dozen severed ears to me." The little kids shout, "Shoot straight Daddy and kill a bunch of those straight-eyed, light skinned demons for me! And keep on sticking those you caught with the pitchfork, we love to hear them scream!"

Then the sheriff finds their place, kills three of the dozen men, tells the survivors they are surrounded and should give up. They fight on even harder, training the women and children in combat methods. So the sheriff drops a bomb, kills two entire families and tells them to give up. The best they will offer is for the sheriff and posse to go away and everybody forget it ever happened. After a second bomb and lies about having many more bombs, the survivors finally hang it up. That would be an accurate analogy. At some point, an irrational enemy has to be brought down by whatever means available.

[Mikey 16,656]

Just finished reading the book, "Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947" by D. M. Giangreco. I highly recommend reading it -- check your local library to see if they have a copy. It's a meticulously researched, fantastic (and non-emotional) look at the factual events leading up to the end of the war and the preparations being made of both sides. It's all too clear that without the sudden Japanese surrender, an even bigger catastrophe than the atomic bombings would have occurred had the invasion of Kyushu proceeded. The Japanese had amassed troops, weapons (including suicide naval & air types,) ammunition, food & fuel in prepared positions in caves & hills beyond the expected invasion sites on Kyushu, and were ordered to fight in place until annihilated -- i.e. Iwo Jima & Okinawa all over again except on a grander scale. I'm including just a few of the quotations from the book here:

"Victory was never in doubt. It's cost was ... What was in doubt, in all our minds, was whether there would be any of us left to dedicate our cemetery at the end, or whether the last Marine would die knocking out the last Japanese gun and gunner."

--MG Graves B. Erskine, commanding general, 3rd Marine Division

"It was evident to us that the [Japanese} army was still largely in control and they were preparing to fight to the bitter end just as they had done on all the island up to and including Okinawa where I think we had to kill 120,000 of them.

Therefore, it was the opinion of the Chiefs of Staff at the time that only a tremendous pressure on Japan itself had any hope of terminating the army dictation ... that nothing less than a terrific shock would produce a surrender that was carried throughout the Japanese interest from Burma, China, Indonesia, down in New Guinea where we had left them behind, and of course, further north.

Our great struggle there was to precipitate that general surrender so that we would not be involved with various hold-out commands in various parts of the Far East. Therefore, our own conclusion, that of the Chiefs of Staff, was that we had to invade Japan [or] bring this to a conclusion with shock action ... the atom bomb."

--George C. Marshall, in congressional testimony, 1951

Thanks for the heads up, Loggerhead. Will do.