# The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan



## gipper

Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of. 

Great column on the subject.  

*The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
By Alan Mosley 
Mises.org

January 2, 2019

Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.

Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.

As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


----------



## regent

The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.


----------



## BlackFlag

It was a war we didn't start, we developed a means to end it, and we ended it.  Should we all find ourselves in a similar predicament in WW3, we'll dream of a similar means of ending the war.


----------



## Stratford57

Thank you, gipper .


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.


Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information. 

Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.


The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
What utter BS


----------



## DGS49

You and the quoted writer are both morons.

Plan B was massive conventional bombing and a land invasion, in which many hundreds of thousands of Japanese and tens of thousands of Americans would have perished.

The Bomb(s) was the more humanitarian approach. People who always look to make America look bad are stupid swine.


----------



## JustAnotherNut

Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless. 



I just don't think anyone expected such destruction


----------



## regent

JustAnotherNut said:


> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction



If a nation destroys an enemy's naval base for starters what destruction would be appropriate? Maybe if the Japanese cut off the heads of our fliers the destruction would have seemed more appropriate? What do you think?


----------



## Unkotare

DGS49 said:


> ....
> 
> The Bomb(s) was the more humanitarian approach. .....



That is disingenuous BS meant to bury any guilty feelings that might come with a clear, sober evaluation of history. It is most certainly NOT "anti-American" to look at history directly and objectively, and anyone who cannot do so due to emotion is no historian.


----------



## deanrd

regent said:


> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.


It's estimated that the invasion, optimistically, would have cost the lives of a millions American soldiers.  Not to mention the number of Japanese that would have died.

Compared to that, the price wasn't that steep at all.

Remember, at the time, the Japanese believed their emperor was descended from God.  They were protecting the descendent of GOD!  How many would have thrown their lives away believing that nonsense?


----------



## Unkotare

deanrd said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> It's estimated that the invasion, optimistically, would have cost the lives of a millions American soldiers.  .....
Click to expand...



Millions, huh? Just how stupid are you?


----------



## K9Buck

Well. cities such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did have military value and they also produced many soldiers and equipment to be used in the war.  I don't believe it was immoral to bomb them.  

Japan was on its knees mostly because the U.S. had a naval blockade that prevented the Japanese from importing food, oil, etc.  The Soviets had nothing to do with that blockade just like the Soviets had nothing to do with defeating the imperial navy and successfully taking islands that brought U.S. bombers to Japan's doorstep.  Japanese leadership had no illusions that, somehow, they would be able to hold onto their Asian conquests.  So, no, the Soviet entry into the war isn't what compelled Japan to surrender.  Additionally, the Soviet conquest of Manchuria and Korea was immaterial to saving Japan from total catastrophe. 

Thank GOD the Japanese emperor had enough sense, power and, perhaps, enough will to try and survive.  Otherwise, it would have been necessary to burn every inch of Japan to the ground.  No doubt, MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Japanese would have starved to death and died of disease, in addition to the millions that would have died fighting the U.S.


----------



## Vandalshandle

...more revisionist history by people who never lived it, or probably did not even know anyone who did...


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
Click to expand...


Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> ...more revisionist history by people who never lived it, or probably did not even know anyone who did...




Unless you’re almost 100 years old, you can tuck that back up from where you got it.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
Click to expand...



That’s not what he said.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...more revisionist history by people who never lived it, or probably did not even know anyone who did...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you’re almost 100 years old, you can tuck that back up from where you got it.
Click to expand...


I was alive when the bombs were dropped. More importantly, so was my step father who was at Okinawa, waiting to be sent to Japan proper to die in the invasion. I have absolutely no problem with him being shipped home, instead.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what he said.
Click to expand...


Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...more revisionist history by people who never lived it, or probably did not even know anyone who did...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you’re almost 100 years old, you can tuck that back up from where you got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was alive when the bombs were dropped. ...
Click to expand...



Uh-huh, and how old were you?


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.
Click to expand...



According to his own account, he did know.


----------



## Vandalshandle

BTW, Curtis Lemay killed more Japanese civilians with incendiary raids than were killed by atomic bombs. That is a historical fact that anyone can google.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
Click to expand...


False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> ...incendiary raids than were killed by atomic bombs. That is a historical fact that anyone can google.



What makes you think everyone needs to Google common knowledge?


----------



## fncceo

It's a fact than conventional bombing killed many times more people in Japan than the nuclear bombs.

However,  conventional bombing didn't have the correct amount of shock value to force a Japanese surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.
Click to expand...



That’s not what HE said.


----------



## Moonglow

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
Click to expand...

Almost as low as a country that pulls a surprise attack without a state of war.


----------



## Markle

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
Click to expand...


Stalin knew about the bombs.


----------



## K9Buck

Markle said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin knew about the bombs.
Click to expand...


Thanks to American liberals.


----------



## deanrd

Unkotare said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> It's estimated that the invasion, optimistically, would have cost the lives of a millions American soldiers.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Millions, huh? Just how stupid are you?
Click to expand...

Clearly I said a million.  The "s" was obviously  an unnoticed mistake.

The lives of a million American soldiers.  "a" is singular.

If I meant millions, it would have read, the lives of millions of American soldiers.

So it's OK.  You can calm down now. Unclench your panties.  The time for a wad has passed.


----------



## deanrd

Markle said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin knew about the bombs.
Click to expand...

Well, at least she didn't call the Russian Ambassador into the Oval Office and hand over classified material.  

You would have to be really stupid or a traitor to do that.


----------



## gipper

Moonglow said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost as low as a country that pulls a surprise attack without a state of war.
Click to expand...

This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American.  Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin knew about the bombs.
Click to expand...

Thanks to his stooge in the White House, who made sure to fill his administration with Soviet spies.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American. Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.



You get how war works, right?  I mean, you did go to school?  You were given a history book?  You browsed through the pictures?


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American. Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get how war works, right?  I mean, you did go to school?  You were given a history book?  You browsed through the pictures?
Click to expand...

I get how many Americans believe mass mudering civilians is fine and dandy, because it’s war. Total war is something Americans have been trained to accept.  Sadly.  

Japan would have surrendered in 1944, had Stalin’s Stooge not imposed unconstitutional surrender terms.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American. Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get how war works, right?  I mean, you did go to school?  You were given a history book?  You browsed through the pictures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get how many Americans believe mass mudering civilians is fine and dandy, because it’s war. Total war is something Americans have been trained to accept.  Sadly.
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, had Stalin’s Stooge not imposed unconstitutional surrender terms.
Click to expand...


Is it nice where you live?  Do you get out much?


----------



## gipper

JustAnotherNut said:


> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction


By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American. Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get how war works, right?  I mean, you did go to school?  You were given a history book?  You browsed through the pictures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get how many Americans believe mass mudering civilians is fine and dandy, because it’s war. Total war is something Americans have been trained to accept.  Sadly.
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, had Stalin’s Stooge not imposed unconstitutional surrender terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it nice where you live?  Do you get out much?
Click to expand...

Go away if you are going to be stupid.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American. Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get how war works, right?  I mean, you did go to school?  You were given a history book?  You browsed through the pictures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get how many Americans believe mass mudering civilians is fine and dandy, because it’s war. Total war is something Americans have been trained to accept.  Sadly.
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, had Stalin’s Stooge not imposed unconstitutional surrender terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it nice where you live?  Do you get out much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go away if you are going to be stupid.
Click to expand...


You started it with your comic book version of history.


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American. Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get how war works, right?  I mean, you did go to school?  You were given a history book?  You browsed through the pictures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get how many Americans believe mass mudering civilians is fine and dandy, because it’s war. Total war is something Americans have been trained to accept.  Sadly.
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, had Stalin’s Stooge not imposed unconstitutional surrender terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it nice where you live?  Do you get out much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go away if you are going to be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started it with your comic book version of history.
Click to expand...

Just goes to show the power the State has in indoctrinating it’s citizens.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.



Actually, it was just another weapon in war that had seen so many of them built and used.  

Most of this Angst after the war came when both the US and USSR built enough bombs to end civilization, and then we got all worked up about it.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get how war works, right?  I mean, you did go to school?  You were given a history book?  You browsed through the pictures?
> 
> 
> 
> I get how many Americans believe mass mudering civilians is fine and dandy, because it’s war. Total war is something Americans have been trained to accept.  Sadly.
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, had Stalin’s Stooge not imposed unconstitutional surrender terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it nice where you live?  Do you get out much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go away if you are going to be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started it with your comic book version of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just goes to show the power the State has in indoctrinating it’s citizens.
Click to expand...


Saying the opposite of what everyone else knows isn't wisdom, it's being a contrarian for its own sake.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs. Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.



I knew a lot of WWII vets who served in the Pacific, who were damned happy Truman dropped those bombs, after fighting the Japanese in Islands across the pacific, they could only imagine what invading their home would be like. 

Now, I do think dropping the bombs was wrong, that Japan was already on the verge of surrender... but it's easy to second guess people 70 years later.  

70 million people had already died in that war.  It would have been criminal NOT to try to end the war after you spent billions on a wonder weapon.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was just another weapon in war that had seen so many of them built and used.
> 
> Most of this Angst after the war came when both the US and USSR built enough bombs to end civilization, and then we got all worked up about it.
Click to expand...

BS. Immediately after Truman committed his war crime, a crime very much like the crimes committed but Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, there was questioning and criticism in the US press.


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
Click to expand...

you just fked up big time
Tokyo bombed --*100,000 deaths*
we bombed the crap out of their cities-we were running out of targets and bombs
they were NOT surrendering
after the Abombs, they still did not want to surrender --the vote was tied 3 -3
....AFTER the Emperor broke the tie, there were many Japanese that did NOT want to surrender...they DIED trying to stop the surrender
you obviously have no knowledge on the subject


> he defied die-hard generals who contended that Japan should continue to fight even though that could end only in national destruction.





> On July 26, 1945, the United States, Britain and China signed the Potsdam Declaration calling for the ''unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces,'' a wording that deliberately left undefined the status of the emperor and the civil government of the defeated country. With a final show of bravado, the Japanese Cabinet *rejected* the demand





> on Aug. 10 to consider Japan's next step.
> 
> There were still die-hards in the Cabinet, representing the military, who insisted on continuing the hopeless struggle


etc etc
A Leader Who Took Japan to War, to Surrender, and Finally to Peace


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Just goes to show the power the State has in indoctrinating it’s citizens.



Um, no, you see in a totalitarian state, people who question the official version of history usually find themselves in a gulag.  

The fact that we can still debate a hard decision someone else had to make demonstrates our freedom.


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was just another weapon in war that had seen so many of them built and used.
> 
> Most of this Angst after the war came when both the US and USSR built enough bombs to end civilization, and then we got all worked up about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. Immediately after Truman committed his war crime, a crime very much like the crimes committed but Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, there was questioning and criticism in the US press.
Click to expand...


pure crap


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs. Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a lot of WWII vets who served in the Pacific, who were damned happy Truman dropped those bombs, after fighting the Japanese in Islands across the pacific, they could only imagine what invading their home would be like.
> 
> Now, I do think dropping the bombs was wrong, that Japan was already on the verge of surrender... but it's easy to second guess people 70 years later.
> 
> 70 million people had already died in that war.  It would have been criminal NOT to try to end the war after you spent billions on a wonder weapon.
Click to expand...

Japan would have surrendered in 1944, thus saving the lives of thousands of Americans and Japanese, but for FDR’s foolish unconditional surrender terms. 

We didn’t need to occupy Japan, but that is what they did.


----------



## fncceo

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was just another weapon in war that had seen so many of them built and used.
> 
> Most of this Angst after the war came when both the US and USSR built enough bombs to end civilization, and then we got all worked up about it.
Click to expand...


I've said this before.  The Japanese Empire was the most fanatical enemy the US has ever faced.  They make ISIS look like Care Bears.  In just over three years, Japan threw 5,000 suicide attacks at Allied forces.  They engaged in chemical and biological warfare.  They executed Allied prisoners of war and starved thousands more to death. 

The application to two, rather small, nuclear devices, killing 170,000 persons, quickly changed Japan from a fanatical, fascist state to pacifist capitalists.

As weapons of war go, this has to be one of the most efficient ever created and quite effective when used on a small scale.


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs. Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew a lot of WWII vets who served in the Pacific, who were damned happy Truman dropped those bombs, after fighting the Japanese in Islands across the pacific, they could only imagine what invading their home would be like.
> 
> Now, I do think dropping the bombs was wrong, that Japan was already on the verge of surrender... but it's easy to second guess people 70 years later.
> 
> 70 million people had already died in that war.  It would have been criminal NOT to try to end the war after you spent billions on a wonder weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, thus saving the lives of thousands of Americans and Japanese, but for FDR’s foolish unconditional surrender terms.
> 
> We didn’t need to occupy Japan, but that is what they did.
Click to expand...

also you have no knowledge of military history
we did not occupy Germany in 1918--then we got WW2
the Arab-Israeli wars went on for decades-there was no total victory
Saddam started 2 wars
if you want to stop countries and change them, you have to TOTALLY defeat them
etc etc etc


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was just another weapon in war that had seen so many of them built and used.
> 
> Most of this Angst after the war came when both the US and USSR built enough bombs to end civilization, and then we got all worked up about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said this before.  The Japanese Empire was the most fanatical enemy the US has ever faced.  They make ISIS look like Care Bears.  In just over three years, Japan threw 5,000 suicide attacks at Allied forces.  They engaged in chemical and biological warfare.  They executed Allied prisoners of war and starved thousands more to death.
> 
> The application to two, rather small, nuclear devices, killing 170,000 persons, quickly changed Japan from a fanatical, fascist state to pacifist capitalists.
> 
> As weapons of war go, this has to be one of the most efficient ever created and quite effective when used on a small scale.
Click to expand...

Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?  

Think before posting.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, thus saving the lives of thousands of Americans and Japanese, but for FDR’s foolish unconditional surrender terms.
> 
> We didn’t need to occupy Japan, but that is what they did.



Okay, let's look at that.  

We didn't need to occupy Japan?  Did you forget what happened when we didn't occupy Germany after WWI? Almost as soon as they got a full meal in their bellies for the first time in four years, Germans started talking about how the Politicians stabbed the Army in the back, and Hitler rode that lie all the way into Chancellery. 

(Again, getting harder to rip on Germans after we "elected" Trump though.) 

Anything less than Unconditional Surrender would have been a Japanese victory.  They'd have been allowed to keep some of their ill-gotten gains and we'd be dealing with them again a few years later.


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American. Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get how war works, right?  I mean, you did go to school?  You were given a history book?  You browsed through the pictures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get how many Americans believe mass mudering civilians is fine and dandy, because it’s war. Total war is something Americans have been trained to accept.  Sadly.
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, had Stalin’s Stooge not imposed unconstitutional surrender terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it nice where you live?  Do you get out much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go away if you are going to be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You started it with your comic book version of history.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m the only one who thinks as I do. LOL.  

Please read....
*Harry Truman’s Atomic Bombs*




*The War Criminal Harry Truman*




*The Real Reason Truman Dropped the Atom Bomb*




*The Hiroshima Myth*




*The 70th Anniversary of the Bombing of Nagasaki*




*Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*




*Hiroshima Was a Military Base*




*Rethinking Hiroshima and Nagasaki*



*Whitewashing Hiroshima: The Uncritical Glorification of American Militarism*




*The Hiroshima Myth*




*The Hiroshima Bombing*




*Why It’s Time for Us to Confront Hiroshima*



*Dropping the Bomb*




*The Day Hiroshima Died*




*Hiroshima-Nagasaki*




*Lies My History Teacher Told Me*




*The War Crime Called Hiroshima*




*The Devil Truman*




*Worse Than Hiroshima and Nagasaki*




*Whitewashing Hiroshima*




*Hoover and the Bomb*




*War Criminal-in-Chief*




*Not Everyone Wanted To Bomb Hiroshima*



*Nuko-Murder at Hiroshima and Nagasaki*




*The Cannibals of War*




*MacArthur’s Last Stand*




*Smart Politicians, Stupid Decisions*




*What’s Worse?*




*The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan (It Was Not To End the War or Save Lives)*



*Truman Haunts Us*



*America’s Asian Empire*




*The Satanic Nature of the Atomic Bombings*




*Slow Boats and Atom Bombs*




*What Thrives and What Dies During War*




*The Real Dr. Strangelove*




*The Merciful Ending*




*Skeptical About Big Government*




*Race Hatred and Mass Murder*




*Another September 11th: Stimson, the Bomb, Bush and Iran*



*The Shedding of Innocent Blood*



*Why America Should Apologize*



*The Atomic Murder of Nagasaki*




*The Bombing of Nagasaki*




*World War Two: The Good War?*




*Why Hiroshima Day Events Matter*



*When in Doubt*




*Why the Left Opposes Foreign Intervention*




*Christians and War*




*Hiroshima Day: America Has Been Asleep at the Wheel for 64 Years*


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, thus saving the lives of thousands of Americans and Japanese, but for FDR’s foolish unconditional surrender terms.
> 
> We didn’t need to occupy Japan, but that is what they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's look at that.
> 
> We didn't need to occupy Japan?  Did you forget what happened when we didn't occupy Germany after WWI? Almost as soon as they got a full meal in their bellies for the first time in four years, Germans started talking about how the Politicians stabbed the Army in the back, and Hitler rode that lie all the way into Chancellery.
> 
> (Again, getting harder to rip on Germans after we "elected" Trump though.)
> 
> Anything less than Unconditional Surrender would have been a Japanese victory.  They'd have been allowed to keep some of their ill-gotten gains and we'd be dealing with them again a few years later.
Click to expand...

Yes empires do like to conquer.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?



Ask the people of Nanjing.






Oh, that's right.  You can't.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Yes empires do like to conquer.



Yes, they do... Good thing we broke the Japanese of that habit, isn't it.  

We beat Germany and Japan, and they've been model world citizens every since.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes empires do like to conquer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they do... Good thing we broke the Japanese of that habit, isn't it.
> 
> We beat Germany and Japan, and they've been model world citizens every since.
Click to expand...

Yes our government was no better than theirs, when it came to mass murder of civilians. Empires always do the same things.


----------



## gipper

L


fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the people of Nanjing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's right.  You can't.
Click to expand...

Please explain how that is different from US bombings of Japanese civilians.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> L
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the people of Nanjing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's right.  You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain how that is different from US bombings of Japanese civilians.
Click to expand...


Well, for starters, China never declared war on Japan.


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> L
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the people of Nanjing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's right.  You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain how that is different from US bombings of Japanese civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, for starters, China never declared war on Japan.
Click to expand...

Oh, so declaring war means it’s open season on defenseless civilians.? 

Damn.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Yes our government was no better than theirs, when it came to mass murder of civilians. Empires always do the same things.



Again, go sleep it off...


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> L
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the people of Nanjing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's right.  You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain how that is different from US bombings of Japanese civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, for starters, China never declared war on Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so declaring war means it’s open season on defenseless civilians.?
> 
> Damn.
Click to expand...


Declaring war make you the belligerent, having war declared on you makes you a defender.

For another thing, Japan  didn't just bomb they residents of Nanjing.  They sent thousands of soldiers into the city.  The slaughtered men, women, and children by hand.  They committed so many rapes that the gene pool of Eastern China was invariably changed.  Chinese officials put the death toll as high as 300,000 after the city was already taken.

Japanese papers of the time reported officers competing with each other to be the first to execute 100 persons with a sword.  Japanese soldiers took photos of bodies desecrated by their own soldiers.

Until today, the Japanese government denies the massacre of Nanjing.  Instead they claim that only Chinese militants were killed.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes our government was no better than theirs, when it came to mass murder of civilians. Empires always do the same things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, go sleep it off...
Click to expand...

If only sleep could alleviate you of your utterly prodigious ignorance.


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> L
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the people of Nanjing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's right.  You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain how that is different from US bombings of Japanese civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, for starters, China never declared war on Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so declaring war means it’s open season on defenseless civilians.?
> 
> Damn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Declaring war make you the belligerent, having war declared on you makes you a defender.
> 
> For another thing, Japan  didn't just bomb they residents of Nanjing.  They sent thousands of soldiers into the city.  The slaughtered men, women, and children by hand.  They committed so many rapes that the gene pool of Eastern China was invariably changed.  Chinese officials put the death toll as high as 300,000 after the city was already taken.
> 
> Japanese papers of the time reported officers competing with each other to be the first to execute 100 persons with a sword.  Japanese soldiers took photos of bodies desecrated by their own soldiers.
> 
> Until today, the Japanese government denies the massacre of Nanjing.  Instead they claim that only Chinese militants were killed.
Click to expand...

Again, try to explain how this is different from mass murdering tens of thousands of defenseless civilians, by aerial bombardment?


----------



## Moonglow

gipper said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost as low as a country that pulls a surprise attack without a state of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American.  Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
Click to expand...

Why what with the caps it looks like you are serious..You can always travel time and change the Earth before the war.


----------



## Unkotare

deanrd said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> It's estimated that the invasion, optimistically, would have cost the lives of a millions American soldiers.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Millions, huh? Just how stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I said a million.  The "s" was obviously  an unnoticed mistake.
> 
> The lives of a million American soldiers.  "a" is singular.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



An absurd figure at that.


----------



## gipper

Moonglow said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost as low as a country that pulls a surprise attack without a state of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American.  Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why what with the caps it looks like you are serious..You can always travel time and change the Earth before the war.
Click to expand...

Yeah cause Truman didn’t know those two bombs would murder so many defenseless women and children. I mean really the fog of war prevented him from seeing this. War is Hell after all.


----------



## Moonglow

gipper said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost as low as a country that pulls a surprise attack without a state of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American.  Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why what with the caps it looks like you are serious..You can always travel time and change the Earth before the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah cause Truman didn’t know those two bombs would murder so many defenseless women and children. I mean really the fog of war prevented him from seeing this. War is Hell after all.
Click to expand...

Can't have total war without killing a few civilians..


----------



## K9Buck

K9Buck said:


> Well. cities such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did have military value and they also produced many soldiers and equipment to be used in the war.  I don't believe it was immoral to bomb them.
> 
> Japan was on its knees mostly because the U.S. had a naval blockade that prevented the Japanese from importing food, oil, etc.  The Soviets had nothing to do with that blockade just like the Soviets had nothing to do with defeating the imperial navy and successfully taking islands that brought U.S. bombers to Japan's doorstep.  Japanese leadership had no illusions that, somehow, they would be able to hold onto their Asian conquests.  So, no, the Soviet entry into the war isn't what compelled Japan to surrender.  Additionally, the Soviet conquest of Manchuria and Korea was immaterial to saving Japan from total catastrophe.
> 
> Thank GOD the Japanese emperor had enough sense, power and, perhaps, enough will to try and survive.  Otherwise, it would have been necessary to burn every inch of Japan to the ground.  No doubt, MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Japanese would have starved to death and died of disease, in addition to the millions that would have died fighting the U.S.



Hey gipper Why is my post funny?  What did I get wrong?


----------



## sparky

Vandalshandle said:


> ...more revisionist history by people who never lived it, or probably did not even know anyone who did...



IIRC, they_ declassify _certian docs after 1/2 century......

I'm fairly sure there's an OSS (CIA @ the time) doc out there on this

~S~


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost as low as a country that pulls a surprise attack without a state of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American.  Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
Click to expand...


You are naive if you don't believe that a majority of civilians living and working in Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't working on the Japanese war effort.  And while we're at it, the Japanese were guilty of mass murder on an industrial scale, not to mention all sorts of horrific war crimes, such as intentionally infecting American prisoners with deadly diseases.  

What the U.S. and MacArthur did in Japan after the second world war is nothing short of a miracle.  They wrote a new constitution for the country, gave women the right to vote, and helped turn them into a Democratic, economic juggernaut who hasn't been at war with anybody since.  You should be praising what the U.S. did.


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.



That's not true at all.  The Japanese were still armed to the teeth.  An invasion would have resulted in MILLIONS dying from battle, starvation and disease.


----------



## gipper

K9Buck said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well. cities such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did have military value and they also produced many soldiers and equipment to be used in the war.  I don't believe it was immoral to bomb them.
> 
> Japan was on its knees mostly because the U.S. had a naval blockade that prevented the Japanese from importing food, oil, etc.  The Soviets had nothing to do with that blockade just like the Soviets had nothing to do with defeating the imperial navy and successfully taking islands that brought U.S. bombers to Japan's doorstep.  Japanese leadership had no illusions that, somehow, they would be able to hold onto their Asian conquests.  So, no, the Soviet entry into the war isn't what compelled Japan to surrender.  Additionally, the Soviet conquest of Manchuria and Korea was immaterial to saving Japan from total catastrophe.
> 
> Thank GOD the Japanese emperor had enough sense, power and, perhaps, enough will to try and survive.  Otherwise, it would have been necessary to burn every inch of Japan to the ground.  No doubt, MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Japanese would have starved to death and died of disease, in addition to the millions that would have died fighting the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey gipper Why is my post funny?  What did I get wrong?
Click to expand...

Because Japan was more than willing to surrender many months before Truman committed his war crime.  All they asked was that the Emperor not be hung. Truman’s response was fuck you and die.  Then, after he mass murdered thousands of defenseless women and children, he said the Emperor is safe.

There was no need to occupy Japan.


----------



## gipper

K9Buck said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true at all.  The Japanese were still armed to the teeth.  An invasion would have resulted in MILLIONS dying from battle, starvation and disease.
Click to expand...

If you know nothing, why post?


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, thus saving the lives of thousands of Americans and Japanese, but for FDR’s foolish unconditional surrender terms.
> We didn’t need to occupy Japan, but that is what they did.



I doubt they would have surrendered.  Hell, some of Japan's top military leadership didn't want to surrender even after two atom bombs were dropped.  Had we worked out a deal with Japan, they would have remained a feudal state with their emperor "God" and the military still in place running the country.  We needed unconditional surrender in order to change the power structure and the culture of Japan so that we weren't in another major war with them 20 years down the line.


----------



## gipper

K9Buck said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost as low as a country that pulls a surprise attack without a state of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American.  Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are naive if you don't believe that a majority of civilians living and working in Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't working on the Japanese war effort.  And while we're at it, the Japanese were guilty of mass murder on an industrial scale, not to mention all sorts of horrific war crimes, such as intentionally infecting American prisoners with deadly diseases.
> 
> What the U.S. and MacArthur did in Japan after the second world war is nothing short of a miracle.  They wrote a new constitution for the country, gave women the right to vote, and helped turn them into a Democratic, economic juggernaut who hasn't been at war with anybody since.  You should be praising what the U.S. did.
Click to expand...

So the millions of Americans working for the war effort are no different than front line soldiers, and it is justified to mass murder them. 

Think man. Do not emote. Try to overcome your statist indoctrination.


----------



## gipper

K9Buck said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, thus saving the lives of thousands of Americans and Japanese, but for FDR’s foolish unconditional surrender terms.
> We didn’t need to occupy Japan, but that is what they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt they would have surrendered.  Hell, some of Japan's top military leadership didn't want to surrender even after two atom bombs were dropped.  Had we worked out a deal with Japan, they would have remained a feudal state with their emperor "God" and the military still in place running the country.  We needed unconditional surrender in order to change the power structure and the culture of Japan so that we weren't in another major war with them 20 years down the line.
Click to expand...

You clearly are not informed. The Japanese tried several times to surrender. FDR then Truman ignored their requests. The Japanese never thought the US would hold to their tyrannical unconditional surrender requirement, which at the time, was wholly unprecedented.


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> Because Japan was more than willing to surrender many months before Truman committed his war crime.  All they asked was that the Emperor not be hung. Truman’s response was fuck you and die.  Then, after he mass murdered thousands of defenseless women and children, he said the Emperor is safe.  There was no need to occupy Japan.



It's arguable that the defeat of Japan by the U.S., and America's transformation of Japan into what it is today, might be America's greatest accomplishment of the 20th century.  

Upon beginning the occupation of Japan, MacArthur was justifiably quite nervous at the prospect of a guerrilla insurgency taking place in Japan, which he estimated would have required 1 million men to battle.  MacArthur took drastic measures to win over the people of Japan.  Douglas MacArthur was, quite possibly, the greatest thing to ever happen to Japan.


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> You clearly are not informed.



Coincidentally, I just finished reading this book.  I suggest you read it and reconsider your positions.


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> The Japanese tried several times to surrender. FDR then Truman ignored their requests. The Japanese never thought the US would hold to their tyrannical unconditional surrender requirement, which at the time, was wholly unprecedented.



I don't pretend to be the repository of all human knowledge.  I don't doubt that the Japanese tried to arrange a truce that would have entailed no occupation and Japanese leadership remaining in power, something the allies adamantly opposed just like the allies agreed not to make a separate peace with the Nazis in Europe.


----------



## gipper

K9Buck said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese tried several times to surrender. FDR then Truman ignored their requests. The Japanese never thought the US would hold to their tyrannical unconditional surrender requirement, which at the time, was wholly unprecedented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to be the repository of all human knowledge.  I don't doubt that the Japanese tried to arrange a truce that would have entailed no occupation and Japanese leadership remaining in power, something the allies adamantly opposed just like the allies agreed not to make a separate peace with the Nazis in Europe.
Click to expand...

No need to occupy either nation.

The Japanese only asked that their Emperor be protected. They were willing to accept occupation.


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> So the millions of Americans working for the war effort are no different than front line soldiers, and it is justified to mass murder them.  Think man. Do not emote. Try to overcome your statist indoctrination.



Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that a nation's war effort is impossible without the support of its civilian infrastructure.  In any society that is engaged in total, all-out war, women are very much serving the war effort.  What makes you believe that they don't?  And boys grow up to be men and then are indoctrinated into the military.  Yes, bombing civilian populations into oblivion is a part of total war and I believe it is a necessary in order to defeat horrifically evil nations such as Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> The Japanese only asked that their Emperor be protected. They were willing to have accept occupation.



Ok, so let's talk about it.  But first, do you have a citation that details your statement?


----------



## gipper

K9Buck said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly are not informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, I just finished reading this book.  I suggest you read it and reconsider your positions.
Click to expand...

I will not read it. I too thought like you, thanks to a statist education.  Then I started reading extensively on the subject, and know well now. 

I ask you to read just these two columns. 

Harry Truman’s Atomic Bombs - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

The Hiroshima Myth - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


----------



## gipper

K9Buck said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the millions of Americans working for the war effort are no different than front line soldiers, and it is justified to mass murder them.  Think man. Do not emote. Try to overcome your statist indoctrination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that a nation's war effort is impossible without the support of its civilian infrastructure.  In any society that is engaged in total, all-out war, women are very much serving the war effort.  What makes you believe that they don't?  And boys grow up to be men and then are indoctrinated into the military.  Yes, bombing civilian populations into oblivion is a part of total war and I believe it is a necessary in order to defeat horrifically evil nations such as Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.
Click to expand...

So you think total war is justified. I don’t.


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> I will not read it. I too thought like you, thanks to a statist education.  Then I started reading extensively on the subject, and know well now.  I ask you to read just these two columns.
> Harry Truman’s Atomic Bombs - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> The Hiroshima Myth - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com



I'll check them out and get back with you later.  Have a good day.


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the people of Nanjing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's right.  You can't.
Click to expand...



So, the US used atomic weapons against civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of China? Why didn’t Truman say so?


----------



## Vandalshandle

If Truman had not dropped the bombs, Congress would have impeached him as soon as they found out about it. As it was, they blamed Truman for China going communist, which was why he did not run in 1952. Our country was broke, and living on credit in 1945. The population was war weary. The Soviets had every intention of beating us to Tokyo and making Japan another Soviet satellite state. The USA saved Japan from becoming another N. Korea.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> If Truman had not dropped the bombs, Congress would have impeached him as soon as they found out about it. As it was, they blamed Truman for China going communist, which was why he did not run in 1952. Our country was broke, and living on credit in 1945. The population was war weary. The Soviets had every intention of beating us to Tokyo and making Japan another Soviet satellite state. The USA saved Japan from becoming another N. Korea.


Yeah they saved Japan by murdering thousands of innocent Japanese women and children. Good job.


----------



## HenryBHough

Harry S Truman.

The LAST president to understand that wars are for winning.

So much so that he could not be a member of today's Democrat party.


----------



## regent

HenryBHough said:


> Harry S Truman.
> 
> The LAST president to understand that wars are for winning.
> 
> So much so that he could not be a member of today's Democrat party.










































HenryBHough said:


> Harry S Truman.
> 
> The LAST president to understand that wars are for winning.
> 
> So much so that he could not be a member of today's Democrat party.





T


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Truman had not dropped the bombs, Congress would have impeached him as soon as they found out about it. As it was, they blamed Truman for China going communist, which was why he did not run in 1952. Our country was broke, and living on credit in 1945. The population was war weary. The Soviets had every intention of beating us to Tokyo and making Japan another Soviet satellite state. The USA saved Japan from becoming another N. Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah they saved Japan by murdering thousands of innocent Japanese women and children. Good job.
Click to expand...


Worked for me and my family...., although "murder" is a legal term that does not apply to killing the enemy in a declared war. We did ask them to surrender or face utter destruction, but they did not even bother to answer. I guess that we should have added the word, "Pease".


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was just another weapon in war that had seen so many of them built and used.
> 
> Most of this Angst after the war came when both the US and USSR built enough bombs to end civilization, and then we got all worked up about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said this before.  The Japanese Empire was the most fanatical enemy the US has ever faced.  They make ISIS look like Care Bears.  In just over three years, Japan threw 5,000 suicide attacks at Allied forces.  They engaged in chemical and biological warfare.  They executed Allied prisoners of war and starved thousands more to death.
> 
> The application to two, rather small, nuclear devices, killing 170,000 persons, quickly changed Japan from a fanatical, fascist state to pacifist capitalists.
> 
> As weapons of war go, this has to be one of the most efficient ever created and quite effective when used on a small scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?
> 
> Think before posting.
Click to expand...

learn some history before making yourself look stupid


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was just another weapon in war that had seen so many of them built and used.
> 
> Most of this Angst after the war came when both the US and USSR built enough bombs to end civilization, and then we got all worked up about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said this before.  The Japanese Empire was the most fanatical enemy the US has ever faced.  They make ISIS look like Care Bears.  In just over three years, Japan threw 5,000 suicide attacks at Allied forces.  They engaged in chemical and biological warfare.  They executed Allied prisoners of war and starved thousands more to death.
> 
> The application to two, rather small, nuclear devices, killing 170,000 persons, quickly changed Japan from a fanatical, fascist state to pacifist capitalists.
> 
> As weapons of war go, this has to be one of the most efficient ever created and quite effective when used on a small scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?
> 
> Think before posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> learn some history before making yourself look stupid
Click to expand...




And you?


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> This is the opinion of the typical ignorant American. Mass murder hundreds of thousands of defenseless women and children who had no input in the affairs of their government, because their tyrannical government attacked a US MILITARY BASE, killing a fraction of those civilians murdered by US bombing.



Casualties are the brutal reality of warfare. The number of deaths resulting from the Second World War remains uncertain, but was around 70 million persons. Of these, around 22 million were military deaths while the remainder were civilians killed during military operations, through famine, or in crimes against humanity. This represents about 3% of the total world population at the time. Casualties in the Pacific War numbered around 36 million or 50% of the total casualties of the Second World War.






The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Casualties


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> I get how many Americans believe mass mudering civilians is fine and dandy, because it’s war. Total war is something Americans have been trained to accept. Sadly.
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, had Stalin’s Stooge not imposed unconstitutional surrender terms.



Specifically, what were the "unconstitutional" surrender terms?  How too are terms of surrender,  "constitutional or unconstitutional"?


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
Click to expand...


Yet, they refused to surrender.  Instead, they choose to fight with anything and everything available to their death.


----------



## regent

The problem seems to be that Japan misunderstood the art of surrender. Apparently Japan believed the losing side dictated the surrender terms.








f


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> You clearly are not informed. The Japanese tried several times to surrender. FDR then Truman ignored their requests. The Japanese never thought the US would hold to their tyrannical unconditional surrender requirement, which at the time, was wholly unprecedented.



That is a lie.  A bold one at that.

Germany had unconditionally surrendered May 7, 1945

Japan's conditional surrender was announced August 15 and formally signed on September 2, 1945.

The single condition agreed to by the allies was that Japan could retain their Emperor in name only, a figurehead with no power.  Otherwise, it was unconditional.


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> So you think total war is justified. I don’t.



So...specifically what does a country do when total war is declared on them?


----------



## Markle

harmonica said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was just another weapon in war that had seen so many of them built and used.
> 
> Most of this Angst after the war came when both the US and USSR built enough bombs to end civilization, and then we got all worked up about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said this before.  The Japanese Empire was the most fanatical enemy the US has ever faced.  They make ISIS look like Care Bears.  In just over three years, Japan threw 5,000 suicide attacks at Allied forces.  They engaged in chemical and biological warfare.  They executed Allied prisoners of war and starved thousands more to death.
> 
> The application to two, rather small, nuclear devices, killing 170,000 persons, quickly changed Japan from a fanatical, fascist state to pacifist capitalists.
> 
> As weapons of war go, this has to be one of the most efficient ever created and quite effective when used on a small scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?
> 
> Think before posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> learn some history before making yourself look stupid
Click to expand...


WAY too late for that!


----------



## Aponi

regent said:


> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.


----------



## Markle

It appears that "gipper" is contesting for a place in the top five Trolls on USMB.


----------



## Aponi

I agree and the Japanese civilians were ready to fight for the emperor to the death as the japenese were well known to do.

Yes the bomb killed a a lot of people but probally saved millions of lives.


----------



## Aponi

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
Click to expand...


They were no where close to surrender


----------



## Unkotare

Aponi said:


> I agree and the Japanese civilians were ready to fight for the emperor to the death as the japenese were well known to do.
> 
> .....




Because Doctor Seuss told you so? Don’t be stupid. The civilian population consisted by then mostly of starving women, children, and the elderly.


----------



## Aponi

Japense soldiers who often kill themself or fight to the death.
It was not the japense way to surrender.


----------



## fncceo

Unkotare said:


> Because Doctor Seuss told you so?



Everything I need to know, I learned from Dr. Seuss.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Japan knew that they had lost the war before we even invaded Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Battle of Leyte Gulf was their last gasp. They had no navy left, and their fuel supplies were gone. Not only did they intentionally order their soldiers to fight to the death, knowing that they had lost the war, but they made no attempt to open negotiations with the USA for surrender. As for us, we were only concentrating on reducing our casualties, and in winning the peace, against the Soviets. The Japanese military government was simply considered an impediment that needed to be destroyed quickly, and at the least possible cost in Allied casualties.


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Doctor Seuss told you so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I need to know, I learned from Dr. Seuss.
Click to expand...




Couldn’t find the one vilifying Japanese Americans?


----------



## Unkotare

Aponi said:


> Japense soldiers who often kill themself or fight to the death.
> It was not the japense way to surrender.




The weak-minded lap up stereotypes like a saucer of milk.


----------



## bodecea

DGS49 said:


> You and the quoted writer are both morons.
> 
> Plan B was massive conventional bombing and a land invasion, in which many hundreds of thousands of Japanese and tens of thousands of Americans would have perished.
> 
> The Bomb(s) was the more humanitarian approach. People who always look to make America look bad are stupid swine.


Who said we had to invade?   Just bomb them and cut them off til they surrendered.


----------



## Unkotare

Aponi said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were no where close to surrender
Click to expand...




Wrong


----------



## fncceo

Unkotare said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Doctor Seuss told you so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I need to know, I learned from Dr. Seuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn’t find the one vilifying Japanese Americans?
Click to expand...


Since we had already thrown them into concentration camps, that might be considered a bit too much.  The 2nd World War was, thankfully, the last time we made a concerted effort to demonize an ethnicity for the sake of wartime propaganda.

It certainly wasn't the end of institutional racism, but we have made a lot of progress since 1945.


----------



## fncceo

bodecea said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the quoted writer are both morons.
> 
> Plan B was massive conventional bombing and a land invasion, in which many hundreds of thousands of Japanese and tens of thousands of Americans would have perished.
> 
> The Bomb(s) was the more humanitarian approach. People who always look to make America look bad are stupid swine.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said we had to invade?   Just bomb them and cut them off til they surrendered.
Click to expand...


By 1945, Americans were growing tired of the war.  I honestly don't think America had the political will to spend another five years or more starving Japan out.  Especially not if photos of starving Japanese kids ever found their way into the American press.  A negotiated peace agreement with Japan would have left the militarists in power and set the table for a second helping of the 2nd World War.  It might even have allowed Japan to retain its possessions in Manchuria and Korea.

Even by 1944, some American newspapers (major papers, not just fringe) were questioning why we didn't make a separate peace with Germany rather than insisting on total surrender.  There are analysts who speculate that if the Battle of the Bulge had gone better for Germany and dealt the Allies a significant setback, that Americans, already tired of the war, would have pushed for a peace deal with Germany that could have left Hitler in power.  This had to be in the back of Hitler's mind when he called for one final offensive against the Americans in the Ardenne. 

Bringing the war to a quick climax was possibly the best outcome we could have achieved.


----------



## Picaro

Both bomb targets were factory districts, so no problemo with wiping them out. Re the Russians, the bombs also kept them from ripping off further territory. Stalin only finally declared war on Japan after we had reduced them to nothing and he saw a chance to take territory at no cost to himself, so screw them, too.

As for all the hypocritical whining about 'civilians', Japan wasn't noted for its humanitarian occupations, and most of its people enthusiastically cheered their butchers on in their murderous conquest for decades, including those here in the U.S., so spare us the Pity Party; they don't rate one. They wanted war they got one, and just because they lost to us doesn't make them martyrs and hapless lil victims, like the sewer rats on the left keep trying to sell us on.

Still whining about the internment of Japs, are we? lol what a stupid meme.


----------



## Unkotare

Anyone who would talk about AMERICAN CITIZENS like that ^^^^^^ is NOT a real American, just another scumbag.


----------



## Picaro

fncceo said:


> Even by 1944, some American newspapers (major papers, not just fringe) were questioning why we didn't make a separate peace with Germany rather than insisting on total surrender.  There are analysts who speculate that if the Battle of the Bulge had gone better for Germany and dealt the Allies a significant setback, that Americans, already tired of the war, would have pushed for a peace deal with Germany that could have left Hitler in power.  This had to be in the back of Hitler's mind when he called for one final offensive against the Americans in the Ardenne.
> 
> Bringing the war to a quick climax was possibly the best outcome we could have achieved.



The firebombing killed more than the nukes, and an invasion would certainly have killed a lot more, so the sniveling over 'civilian casualties' is just simpering dishonest spin doctoring, re us 'Evul Amurkins n stuff', mostly about bashing Democrats with ridiculous bs 'history'. As for the 'separate peace' speculation, that wasn't going to happen, the fiasco with Wilson's attempts being still fresh in most policy wonks' memories at the time; it was a huge mistake when Wilson tried it, three times, and would have been a huge mistake again. No way any President was going to accept any kind of deal, especially one that left Hitler in power.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Anyone who would talk about AMERICAN CITIZENS like that ^^^^^^ is NOT a real American, just another scumbag.



Sorry moron, but a third of them were not citizens, and were never going to be, shithead, and the rest were huge fans of their home country's conquests and butchery, had the parades celebrating them, had charities sending their beloved troops care packages, the whole works, and had Japanese in Hawaii helping downed pilots to boot, so the precaution of interning them was completely justified, you sick gimp. Tough shit your parents spent your reparations, because you ain't getting any more.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would talk about AMERICAN CITIZENS like that ^^^^^^ is NOT a real American, just another scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron, but a third of them were not citizens, and were never going to be, shithead, and the rest were huge fans of their home country's conquests and butchery, had the parades celebrating them, had charities sending their beloved troops care packages, the whole works, and had Japanese in Hawaii helping downed pilots to boot, so the precaution of interning them was completely justified, you sick gimp. Tough shit your parents spent your reparations, because you ain't getting any more.
Click to expand...



Illogic, dishonesty and stupidity from the anti-American scumbag - again.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
Click to expand...

Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.


----------



## fncceo

Picaro said:


> As for the 'separate peace' speculation, that wasn't going to happen,



Of course,  it's only speculation.  But, if Truman hadn't had a nuclear option,  and was facing another five years of Pacific War with increasing American casualties,  I don't believe he could have sold it.

My opinion.


----------



## fncceo

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would talk about AMERICAN CITIZENS like that ^^^^^^ is NOT a real American, just another scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron, but a third of them were not citizens, and were never going to be, shithead, and the rest were huge fans of their home country's conquests and butchery, had the parades celebrating them, had charities sending their beloved troops care packages, the whole works, and had Japanese in Hawaii helping downed pilots to boot, so the precaution of interning them was completely justified, you sick gimp. Tough shit your parents spent your reparations, because you ain't getting any more.
Click to expand...


Make yourself familiar with the German American Bund in pre-war America. 

German American Bund - Wikipedia


----------



## Picaro

fncceo said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would talk about AMERICAN CITIZENS like that ^^^^^^ is NOT a real American, just another scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron, but a third of them were not citizens, and were never going to be, shithead, and the rest were huge fans of their home country's conquests and butchery, had the parades celebrating them, had charities sending their beloved troops care packages, the whole works, and had Japanese in Hawaii helping downed pilots to boot, so the precaution of interning them was completely justified, you sick gimp. Tough shit your parents spent your reparations, because you ain't getting any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make yourself familiar with the German American Bund in pre-war America.
> 
> German American Bund - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


I am familiar with them; we interned Germans and Italians as well, in both wars. My grandfather hired them from the Feds to work on the family farm during the war. m,any were released, the same as the Japanese were. They only interned those Japanese on the West Coast,, anyway, and given the war they were a lot safer interned; their fellow Asians were attacking them in the streets, especially Fillipinos. in California. Japanese in the Midwest and east coast weren't affected.

While Americans were 'tired of the war', what they wanted was a quicker ending, not peace treaties; they wanted them wiped out and thought our leaders were somehow dragging their feet or something, which wasn't true. They wouldn't have tolerated anything short of total victory. 

Don't know what needed to be 'sold'; before the bombs, everyone was resigned to having to invade the Japanese home islands. My father was there in the Philippines, airborne, and they all knew they were going in and would probably take heavy casualties. nobody was predicting anything like 5 more years, that I know of.


----------



## Picaro

Picaro said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would talk about AMERICAN CITIZENS like that ^^^^^^ is NOT a real American, just another scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron, but a third of them were not citizens, and were never going to be, shithead, and the rest were huge fans of their home country's conquests and butchery, had the parades celebrating them, had charities sending their beloved troops care packages, the whole works, and had Japanese in Hawaii helping downed pilots to boot, so the precaution of interning them was completely justified, you sick gimp. Tough shit your parents spent your reparations, because you ain't getting any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make yourself familiar with the German American Bund in pre-war America.
> 
> German American Bund - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am familiar with them; we interned Germans and Italians as well, in both wars. My grandfather hired them from the Feds to work on the family farm during the war. m,any were released, the same as the Japanese were. They only interned those Japanese on the West Coast,, anyway, and given the war they were a lot safer interned; their fellow Asians were attacking them in the streets, especially Fillipinos. in California. Japanese in the Midwest and east coast weren't affected.
> 
> While Americans were 'tired of the war', what they wanted was a quicker ending, not peace treaties; they wanted them wiped out and thought our leaders were somehow dragging their feet or something, which wasn't true. They wouldn't have tolerated anything short of total victory.
> 
> Don't know what needed to be 'sold'; before the bombs, everyone was resigned to having to invade the Japanese home islands. My father was there in the Philippines, airborne, and they all knew they were going in and would probably take heavy casualties. nobody was predicting anything like 5 more years, that I know of.
Click to expand...


I'll add that German and Italian Americans also had no qualms about reporting Nazi and fascist sympathizers either, while the Japanese didn't even report the Japanese agents sent over before Pearl to recruit saboteurs among the Jap communities here, another reason they weren't trusted. That ans other facts played a role, like the Niheiu incident made the first decisions viable. No time during wartime emergencies to play tag with the ACLU commies and all that handwringing rubbish, and rightfully so.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were no where close to surrender
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
Click to expand...


You're being foolish.

Why do you throw up such nonsense when even you know better?

Days after the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, their six-person board or whatever it was called, were divided 3 to 3.  The Emperor (God) himself had to cast the deciding vote.  Thousands of military and civilians either continued to fight or committed suicide.


----------



## Aponi

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
Click to expand...


Agreed even knowing we had the bomb after dropping the first they refused to surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
Click to expand...




What was General MacArthur’s motivation for lying about it? You are full of shit.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was just another weapon in war that had seen so many of them built and used.
> 
> Most of this Angst after the war came when both the US and USSR built enough bombs to end civilization, and then we got all worked up about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said this before.  The Japanese Empire was the most fanatical enemy the US has ever faced.  They make ISIS look like Care Bears.  In just over three years, Japan threw 5,000 suicide attacks at Allied forces.  They engaged in chemical and biological warfare.  They executed Allied prisoners of war and starved thousands more to death.
> 
> The application to two, rather small, nuclear devices, killing 170,000 persons, quickly changed Japan from a fanatical, fascist state to pacifist capitalists.
> 
> As weapons of war go, this has to be one of the most efficient ever created and quite effective when used on a small scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a justification for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children?
> 
> Think before posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> learn some history before making yourself look stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you?
Click to expand...

and me what??
I know WW2 history more than you/etc!
it's right there in my post--CANNOT be denied or argued 
I have MORE than proved my point


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
Click to expand...

whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
Click to expand...



Like General MacArthur?


----------



## gipper

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
Click to expand...

You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.

*72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
By Stephen Lendman

StephenLendman.org

August 8, 2017you are not informed. T


RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
Click to expand...


You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread. 

The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.  

For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.


----------



## gipper

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
Click to expand...

Get informed. Then you won’t be a dumb fucker anymore. If you refuse to learn, you will be banned.

Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


----------



## rightwinger

regent said:


> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.



Very true

But why did we bomb the way we did?  
Why TWO civilian targets?

Why not a demonstration on an uninhabited target with a warning the next would be on Tokyo?

Why was Nagasaki necessary?  Why was it dropped so soon without allowing time for negotiations after Hiroshima?


----------



## Unkotare

What some willful idiots fail to grasp is that there were obviously different voices in Japan’s wartime government. Some of the more level-headed were looking for ways to negotiate a surrender, but fdr dropped the ball and strengthened the hardliners, while screwing those in the government and among the public who had grown to oppose the war and sought to find a way out. 

But at least Truman got to kill hundreds of thousands more civilians.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
Click to expand...

I have linked numerous times to SOURCE documents that PROVE your tripe is wrong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But why did we bomb the way we did?
> Why TWO civilian targets?
> 
> Why not a demonstration on an uninhabited target with a warning the next would be on Tokyo?
> 
> Why was Nagasaki necessary?  Why was it dropped so soon without allowing time for negotiations after Hiroshima?
Click to expand...

LOL after 2 cities were destroyed the Japanese Government still refused to surrender, explain in detail what bombing a non military target would have done to convince them when 2 cites were not enough dumb ass. And the cites were war producing cities AND BOTH were Army Headquarters organizing the local areas into fighting the coming Invasion. NOT civilian targets at all.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have linked numerous times to SOURCE documents that PROVE your tripe is wrong.
Click to expand...



And you still don’t understand it. What a dope.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But why did we bomb the way we did?
> Why TWO civilian targets?
> 
> Why not a demonstration on an uninhabited target with a warning the next would be on Tokyo?
> 
> Why was Nagasaki necessary?  Why was it dropped so soon without allowing time for negotiations after Hiroshima?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL after 2 cities were destroyed the Japanese Government still refused to surrender, explain in detail what bombing a non military target would have done to convince them when 2 cites were not enough dumb ass. And the cites were war producing cities AND BOTH were Army Headquarters organizing the local areas into fighting the coming Invasion. NOT civilian targets at all.
Click to expand...



I guess those hundreds of thousands of civilians just happened to be there for a tour of the military installations, huh?  Idiot.


----------



## hunarcy

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.
Click to expand...


Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have linked numerous times to SOURCE documents that PROVE your tripe is wrong.
Click to expand...

It’s not my tripe. Numerous historians, experts, and officials like Ike and Leahy know you are a statist dupe.

Why do so many Americans believe their government, when it has lied and deceived them so many times?  The ruling class loves dupes.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But why did we bomb the way we did?
> Why TWO civilian targets?
> 
> Why not a demonstration on an uninhabited target with a warning the next would be on Tokyo?
> 
> Why was Nagasaki necessary?  Why was it dropped so soon without allowing time for negotiations after Hiroshima?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL after 2 cities were destroyed the Japanese Government still refused to surrender, explain in detail what bombing a non military target would have done to convince them when 2 cites were not enough dumb ass. And the cites were war producing cities AND BOTH were Army Headquarters organizing the local areas into fighting the coming Invasion. NOT civilian targets at all.
Click to expand...

They surrendered immediately after Nagasaki was bombed

We had the bomb, we were going to win without invading

Bombing a remote target with minimal population would have demonstrated the power we had. Japan could have seen firsthand the destructive power we now had with minimal loss of lives

If after the demonstration and a threat to start bombing major cities, Japan refused surrender, then we were morally entitled to drop an A bomb


----------



## Vandalshandle

hunarcy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb
Click to expand...


I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped.  ..
Click to expand...



That’s not what he said.


----------



## hunarcy

Vandalshandle said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..
Click to expand...


"Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."

Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.


----------



## Vandalshandle

hunarcy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
> 
> "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."
> 
> Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.
Click to expand...


Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....


----------



## hunarcy

Vandalshandle said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
> 
> "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."
> 
> Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....
Click to expand...


I can't speak to that.  I'm just providing a quote from Eisenhower.


----------



## rightwinger

Vandalshandle said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
> 
> "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."
> 
> Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....
Click to expand...

You would think they would need to know of the development of a super weapon that would impact their long range planning


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But why did we bomb the way we did?
> Why TWO civilian targets?
> 
> Why not a demonstration on an uninhabited target with a warning the next would be on Tokyo?
> 
> Why was Nagasaki necessary?  Why was it dropped so soon without allowing time for negotiations after Hiroshima?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL after 2 cities were destroyed the Japanese Government still refused to surrender, explain in detail what bombing a non military target would have done to convince them when 2 cites were not enough dumb ass. And the cites were war producing cities AND BOTH were Army Headquarters organizing the local areas into fighting the coming Invasion. NOT civilian targets at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They surrendered immediately after Nagasaki was bombed
> 
> We had the bomb, we were going to win without invading
> 
> Bombing a remote target with minimal population would have demonstrated the power we had. Japan could have seen firsthand the destructive power we now had with minimal loss of lives
> 
> If after the demonstration and a threat to start bombing major cities, Japan refused surrender, then we were morally entitled to drop an A bomb
Click to expand...

They did NOT the Government voted NOT to surrender the Emperor intervened to over rule them then the ruling party ( the Army) staged a Coup to stop the Emperor. At least leanr the facts before you try to lie about them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

At NO time before the Emperor ordered the surrender did the Government of Japan offer to surrender. NOT EVER. What they offered was cease fire, a return to Nov 41 start lines and no consequences for their war effort.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But why did we bomb the way we did?
> Why TWO civilian targets?
> 
> Why not a demonstration on an uninhabited target with a warning the next would be on Tokyo?
> 
> Why was Nagasaki necessary?  Why was it dropped so soon without allowing time for negotiations after Hiroshima?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL after 2 cities were destroyed the Japanese Government still refused to surrender, explain in detail what bombing a non military target would have done to convince them when 2 cites were not enough dumb ass. And the cites were war producing cities AND BOTH were Army Headquarters organizing the local areas into fighting the coming Invasion. NOT civilian targets at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They surrendered immediately after Nagasaki was bombed
> 
> We had the bomb, we were going to win without invading
> 
> Bombing a remote target with minimal population would have demonstrated the power we had. Japan could have seen firsthand the destructive power we now had with minimal loss of lives
> 
> If after the demonstration and a threat to start bombing major cities, Japan refused surrender, then we were morally entitled to drop an A bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did NOT the Government voted NOT to surrender the Emperor intervened to over rule them then the ruling party ( the Army) staged a Coup to stop the Emperor. At least leanr the facts before you try to lie about them.
Click to expand...


Which resulted in surrender 

Does not support that the anihilation of Hiroshima AND Nagasaki were the only way to achieve those goals

We had time on our side. Once we had the bomb and nobody else did, we could have selectively upped the anti 

Three days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not leave much room for negotiation


----------



## rightwinger

Once we had the bomb......the war was over 

There was no further need to plan an invasion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But why did we bomb the way we did?
> Why TWO civilian targets?
> 
> Why not a demonstration on an uninhabited target with a warning the next would be on Tokyo?
> 
> Why was Nagasaki necessary?  Why was it dropped so soon without allowing time for negotiations after Hiroshima?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL after 2 cities were destroyed the Japanese Government still refused to surrender, explain in detail what bombing a non military target would have done to convince them when 2 cites were not enough dumb ass. And the cites were war producing cities AND BOTH were Army Headquarters organizing the local areas into fighting the coming Invasion. NOT civilian targets at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They surrendered immediately after Nagasaki was bombed
> 
> We had the bomb, we were going to win without invading
> 
> Bombing a remote target with minimal population would have demonstrated the power we had. Japan could have seen firsthand the destructive power we now had with minimal loss of lives
> 
> If after the demonstration and a threat to start bombing major cities, Japan refused surrender, then we were morally entitled to drop an A bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did NOT the Government voted NOT to surrender the Emperor intervened to over rule them then the ruling party ( the Army) staged a Coup to stop the Emperor. At least leanr the facts before you try to lie about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which resulted in surrender
> 
> Does not support that the anihilation of Hiroshima AND Nagasaki were the only way to achieve those goals
> 
> We had time on our side. Once we had the bomb and nobody else did, we could have selectively upped the anti
> 
> Three days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not leave much room for negotiation
Click to expand...

The Japanese responded and the Government demanded the same thing it already had a ceasefire with return to 41 start lines.


----------



## Vandalshandle

hunarcy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
> 
> "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."
> 
> Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't speak to that.  I'm just providing a quote from Eisenhower.
Click to expand...


Maybe they just forgot to mention it to McArthur. After all, they didn't mention it to president Truman until April 24, 1945, and even he did not know if it would work until July 16, 1945, which was just 3 weeks before they dropped it..

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-is-briefed-on-manhattan-project


----------



## hunarcy

Vandalshandle said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
> 
> "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."
> 
> Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't speak to that.  I'm just providing a quote from Eisenhower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe they just forgot to mention it to McArthur. After all, they didn't mention it to president Truman until April 24, 1945.
> 
> https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-is-briefed-on-manhattan-project
Click to expand...


"It is already known that before the atomic bombings Eisenhower asked then President Harry Truman not to use nuclear arms, and the diary underlines that position. It was kept by an aide to U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Averell Harriman."

Diary shows Eisenhower had misgivings about A-bomb attacks | The Japan Times


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But why did we bomb the way we did?
> Why TWO civilian targets?
> 
> Why not a demonstration on an uninhabited target with a warning the next would be on Tokyo?
> 
> Why was Nagasaki necessary?  Why was it dropped so soon without allowing time for negotiations after Hiroshima?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL after 2 cities were destroyed the Japanese Government still refused to surrender, explain in detail what bombing a non military target would have done to convince them when 2 cites were not enough dumb ass. And the cites were war producing cities AND BOTH were Army Headquarters organizing the local areas into fighting the coming Invasion. NOT civilian targets at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They surrendered immediately after Nagasaki was bombed
> 
> We had the bomb, we were going to win without invading
> 
> Bombing a remote target with minimal population would have demonstrated the power we had. Japan could have seen firsthand the destructive power we now had with minimal loss of lives
> 
> If after the demonstration and a threat to start bombing major cities, Japan refused surrender, then we were morally entitled to drop an A bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did NOT the Government voted NOT to surrender the Emperor intervened to over rule them then the ruling party ( the Army) staged a Coup to stop the Emperor. At least leanr the facts before you try to lie about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which resulted in surrender
> 
> Does not support that the anihilation of Hiroshima AND Nagasaki were the only way to achieve those goals
> 
> We had time on our side. Once we had the bomb and nobody else did, we could have selectively upped the anti
> 
> Three days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not leave much room for negotiation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese responded and the Government demanded the same thing it already had a ceasefire with return to 41 start lines.
Click to expand...

Again, the bomb changed their mind

We did not need to destroy two cities to prove the power of the bomb


----------



## Vandalshandle

hunarcy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
> 
> "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."
> 
> Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't speak to that.  I'm just providing a quote from Eisenhower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe they just forgot to mention it to McArthur. After all, they didn't mention it to president Truman until April 24, 1945.
> 
> https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-is-briefed-on-manhattan-project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It is already known that before the atomic bombings Eisenhower asked then President Harry Truman not to use nuclear arms, and the diary underlines that position. It was kept by an aide to U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Averell Harriman."
> 
> Diary shows Eisenhower had misgivings about A-bomb attacks | The Japan Times
Click to expand...


So, Ike was against dropping the A bomb on October 4, 1945, even though it was dropped in August. Gotit! My best guess is that on Oct. 4, 1945, the Japanese were also against the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941!


----------



## rightwinger

Vandalshandle said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
> 
> "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."
> 
> Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't speak to that.  I'm just providing a quote from Eisenhower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe they just forgot to mention it to McArthur. After all, they didn't mention it to president Truman until April 24, 1945, and even he did not know if it would work until July 16, 1945, which was just 3 weeks before they dropped it..
> 
> https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-is-briefed-on-manhattan-project
Click to expand...

Maybe a Vice President didn’t need to know
Those leading our military forces needed to know what weapons were available and what was coming

It had major impact on military strategy


----------



## Vandalshandle

rightwinger said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
> 
> "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."
> 
> Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't speak to that.  I'm just providing a quote from Eisenhower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe they just forgot to mention it to McArthur. After all, they didn't mention it to president Truman until April 24, 1945, and even he did not know if it would work until July 16, 1945, which was just 3 weeks before they dropped it..
> 
> https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-is-briefed-on-manhattan-project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe a Vice President didn’t need to know
> Those leading our military forces needed to know what weapons were available and what was coming
> 
> It had major impact on military strategy
Click to expand...


You have to keep in mind the mind set of some of our military commanders. Curtis Lemay, for example, was the model for "Jack D Ripper", in Dr. Strangelove, the SAC Commander who went crazy and started a nuclear war. After WW2 was over, the president  directed that all nuclear weapons be put directly under his personal control. LeMay tried to hold back a few, "just in case". It didn't work. LeMay went on to run as George Wallace's running mate. MacArthur advocated nuclear war against Korea, and presumable China as well, during the Korean war.

 Besides. If word had gotten out to the Japanese that we were putting the invasion on hold, they would have assumed a much stronger negotiating position. In fact, it was recommended to Truman that he blow up an unpopulated Japanese Island instead of a city. Truman rejected the advice, correctly, in my opinion, that the Japanese would have assumed that we were not prepared to actually use it against the people of Japan. He was not afraid to use it, which is one of many reasons that Truman is my personal hero.


----------



## rightwinger

Vandalshandle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
> 
> "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."
> 
> Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't speak to that.  I'm just providing a quote from Eisenhower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe they just forgot to mention it to McArthur. After all, they didn't mention it to president Truman until April 24, 1945, and even he did not know if it would work until July 16, 1945, which was just 3 weeks before they dropped it..
> 
> https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-is-briefed-on-manhattan-project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe a Vice President didn’t need to know
> Those leading our military forces needed to know what weapons were available and what was coming
> 
> It had major impact on military strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to keep in mind the mind set of some of our military commanders. Curtis Lemay, for example, was the model for "Jack D Ripper", in Dr. Strangelove, the SAC Commander who went crazy and started a nuclear war. After WW2 was over, the president  directed that all nuclear weapons be put directly under his personal control. LeMay tried to hold back a few, "just in case". It didn't work. LeMay went on to run as George Wallace's running mate. MacArthur advocated nuclear war against Korea, and presumable China as well, during the Korean war.
> 
> Besides. If word had gotten out to the Japanese that we were putting the invasion on hold, they would have assumed a much stronger negotiating position. In fact, it was recommended to Truman that he blow up an unpopulated Japanese Island instead of a city. Truman rejected the advice, correctly, in my opinion, that the Japanese would have assumed that we were not prepared to actually use it against the people of Japan. He was not afraid to use it, which is one of many reasons that Truman is my personal hero.
Click to expand...

Both LeMay and Mac wanted to nuke the hell out of North Korea. 30 -40 bombs

We only had three nukes in WWII but they would have flattened Japan if they could 

We could have taken the chance to nuke an unpopulated island with the assurance that the next one would land on Tokyo 

Once we had the bomb......there was no real hurry


----------



## sparky

This fits here>

Warning Leaflets

~S~


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL after 2 cities were destroyed the Japanese Government still refused to surrender, explain in detail what bombing a non military target would have done to convince them when 2 cites were not enough dumb ass. And the cites were war producing cities AND BOTH were Army Headquarters organizing the local areas into fighting the coming Invasion. NOT civilian targets at all.
> 
> 
> 
> They surrendered immediately after Nagasaki was bombed
> 
> We had the bomb, we were going to win without invading
> 
> Bombing a remote target with minimal population would have demonstrated the power we had. Japan could have seen firsthand the destructive power we now had with minimal loss of lives
> 
> If after the demonstration and a threat to start bombing major cities, Japan refused surrender, then we were morally entitled to drop an A bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did NOT the Government voted NOT to surrender the Emperor intervened to over rule them then the ruling party ( the Army) staged a Coup to stop the Emperor. At least leanr the facts before you try to lie about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which resulted in surrender
> 
> Does not support that the anihilation of Hiroshima AND Nagasaki were the only way to achieve those goals
> 
> We had time on our side. Once we had the bomb and nobody else did, we could have selectively upped the anti
> 
> Three days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not leave much room for negotiation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese responded and the Government demanded the same thing it already had a ceasefire with return to 41 start lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the bomb changed their mind
> 
> We did not need to destroy two cities to prove the power of the bomb
Click to expand...

Wrong after the first bomb the Government did NOT surrender and the Emperor DID NOT intervene. After the 2nd Bomb the Government DID NOT surrender BUT the Emperor intervened and was met by a Coup attempt.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> At NO time before the Emperor ordered the surrender did the Government of Japan offer to surrender. NOT EVER. What they offered was cease fire, a return to Nov 41 start lines and no consequences for their war effort.




Wrong


----------



## Unkotare

2 days before Roosevelt left for Yalta, MacArthur forwarded a 40 page memorandum to the White House outlining 5 separate overtures for surrender he had received.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> 2 days before Roosevelt left for Yalta, MacArthur forwarded a 40 page memorandum to the White House outlining 5 separate overtures for surrender he had received.


Amazingly few Americans know this, thanks to the power of statist education.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> What some willful idiots fail to grasp is that there were obviously different voices in Japan’s wartime government. Some of the more level-headed were looking for ways to negotiate a surrender, but fdr dropped the ball and strengthened the hardliners, while screwing those in the government and among the public who had grown to oppose the war and sought to find a way out.
> 
> But at least Truman got to kill hundreds of thousands more civilians.


yes--it was FDR's fault
he made the Japanese attack Pearl--then after we destroyed all their major cities, blockaded them, FDR forced them not to surrender


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get informed. Then you won’t be a dumb fucker anymore. If you refuse to learn, you will be banned.
> 
> Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Click to expand...

they were so willing to surrender, they surrendered pre-ABombs 
isn't that correct?


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
Click to expand...

.....Germany also got POUNDED and POUNDED and they also did NOT surrender till the Russians were in Berlin --and the Germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese
..and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
..learn some history


----------



## sparky

Unkotare said:


> 2 days before Roosevelt left for Yalta, MacArthur forwarded a 40 page memorandum to the White House outlining 5 separate overtures for surrender he had received.



There are declassified docs , alluding to some sort of meeting FDR & Japanese representatives that never occured, curious if that's where this came from??

~S~


----------



## sparky

harmonica said:


> .and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!



Only if the emperor _himself _told them to.   

Further reading reveals some japanese communication w/ russia , not quite sure of the story , but possiblly they were looking for a liason ?

~S~


----------



## Vandalshandle

rightwinger said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak to that.  I'm just providing a quote from Eisenhower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe they just forgot to mention it to McArthur. After all, they didn't mention it to president Truman until April 24, 1945, and even he did not know if it would work until July 16, 1945, which was just 3 weeks before they dropped it..
> 
> https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-is-briefed-on-manhattan-project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe a Vice President didn’t need to know
> Those leading our military forces needed to know what weapons were available and what was coming
> 
> It had major impact on military strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to keep in mind the mind set of some of our military commanders. Curtis Lemay, for example, was the model for "Jack D Ripper", in Dr. Strangelove, the SAC Commander who went crazy and started a nuclear war. After WW2 was over, the president  directed that all nuclear weapons be put directly under his personal control. LeMay tried to hold back a few, "just in case". It didn't work. LeMay went on to run as George Wallace's running mate. MacArthur advocated nuclear war against Korea, and presumable China as well, during the Korean war.
> 
> Besides. If word had gotten out to the Japanese that we were putting the invasion on hold, they would have assumed a much stronger negotiating position. In fact, it was recommended to Truman that he blow up an unpopulated Japanese Island instead of a city. Truman rejected the advice, correctly, in my opinion, that the Japanese would have assumed that we were not prepared to actually use it against the people of Japan. He was not afraid to use it, which is one of many reasons that Truman is my personal hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both LeMay and Mac wanted to nuke the hell out of North Korea. 30 -40 bombs
> 
> We only had three nukes in WWII but they would have flattened Japan if they could
> 
> We could have taken the chance to nuke an unpopulated island with the assurance that the next one would land on Tokyo
> 
> Once we had the bomb......there was no real hurry
Click to expand...


The hurry was to win the war before the Soviets had a chance to turn Tokyo into another East Berlin.


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What some willful idiots fail to grasp is that there were obviously different voices in Japan’s wartime government. Some of the more level-headed were looking for ways to negotiate a surrender, but fdr dropped the ball and strengthened the hardliners, while screwing those in the government and among the public who had grown to oppose the war and sought to find a way out.
> 
> But at least Truman got to kill hundreds of thousands more civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> yes--it was FDR's fault
> he made the Japanese attack Pearl--...
Click to expand...


Really? How?


----------



## harmonica

sparky said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if the emperor _himself _told them to.
> 
> Further reading reveals some japanese communication w/ russia , not quite sure of the story , but possiblly they were looking for a liason ?
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

yes--but not unconditional surrender


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....Germany also got POUNDED and POUNDED and they also did NOT surrender till the Russians were in Berlin --and the Germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese
> ..and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> ..learn some history
Click to expand...




Psst.... Japan DID surrender.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....Germany also got POUNDED and POUNDED and they also did NOT surrender till the Russians were in Berlin --and the Germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese
> ..and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> ..learn some history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst.... Japan DID surrender.
Click to expand...

...AFTER TWO A bombs and AFTER the vote ended in a tie and AFTER Japanese tried to stop the surrender--NOT before
so- OBVIOUSLY they were not willing to surrender 
..you didn't know any of that--did you??


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....Germany also got POUNDED and POUNDED and they also did NOT surrender till the Russians were in Berlin --and the Germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese
> ..and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> ..learn some history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst.... Japan DID surrender.
Click to expand...

very stupid shit--stop wasting yours and our time with stupid post like that 
they were NOT surrendering


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> 
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....Germany also got POUNDED and POUNDED and they also did NOT surrender till the Russians were in Berlin --and the Germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese
> ..and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> ..learn some history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst.... Japan DID surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... OBVIOUSLY they were not willing to surrender
> ....
Click to expand...



They DID surrender.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> 
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....Germany also got POUNDED and POUNDED and they also did NOT surrender till the Russians were in Berlin --and the Germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese
> ..and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> ..learn some history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst.... Japan DID surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... OBVIOUSLY they were not willing to surrender
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They DID surrender.
Click to expand...

hahahhahahahhah--dumbshit


----------



## anynameyouwish

regent said:


> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.




which would have been the same result if they had dropped those bombs on ARMIES and NAVIES instead of innocent people.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> 2 days before Roosevelt left for Yalta, MacArthur forwarded a 40 page memorandum to the White House outlining 5 separate overtures for surrender he had received.


I have source documents dumb ass all the Japanese offered were variations on a return to 41 start line and no concessions on China. No occupation no disarmament no surrender.


----------



## anynameyouwish

regent said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a nation destroys an enemy's naval base for starters what destruction would be appropriate? Maybe if the Japanese cut off the heads of our fliers the destruction would have seemed more appropriate? What do you think?
Click to expand...



I think the whole point of the USA was that we are NOT blood thirsty savages and we do NOT go around slaughtering innocent people. When attacked, we fight back, we win, but we BEHAVE IN A FKN CIVILIZED FASHION and we do NOT behave like our enemies!


or am I wrong?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> 
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....Germany also got POUNDED and POUNDED and they also did NOT surrender till the Russians were in Berlin --and the Germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese
> ..and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> ..learn some history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst.... Japan DID surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... OBVIOUSLY they were not willing to surrender
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They DID surrender.
Click to expand...





 Which puts the lie to the ridiculous cartoon notion that surrender was absolutely inconceivable for the Japanese. They had contacted MacArthur  no fewer than five times with overtures toward finding terms of surrender, terms that it turns out were  exactly the same as those terms we did eventually imposed  anyway. I’m sure you have some comic book fantasy about samurai who never ever surrendered, but that also is historically inaccurate, so your dime store  cultural psychology bullshit does not apply either. It was a country, it had to been for all intents and purposes defeated, it was looking for a way out, the scumbag Roosevelt ignored this in favor of annihilating hundreds of thousands of civilians.  A death sentence carried out by his lackey Truman after the scum bag fdr had finally died.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sparky said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if the emperor _himself _told them to.
> 
> Further reading reveals some japanese communication w/ russia , not quite sure of the story , but possiblly they were looking for a liason ?
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Actually when the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army attempted a Coup to stop it.


----------



## anynameyouwish

BlackFlag said:


> It was a war we didn't start, we developed a means to end it, and we ended it.  Should we all find ourselves in a similar predicament in WW3, we'll dream of a similar means of ending the war.




I have no doubt that YOU "dream" of killing innocent people but my hope is to either avoid war or to win it with as little damage to life, limb and property and then just make everyone behave.


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which would have been the same result if they had dropped those bombs on ARMIES and NAVIES instead of innocent people.
Click to expand...

....please point targets in Japan where civilians would not have been killed by an A bomb dropped on a military target
...also, as stated in many posts, the Japanese were very fanatical---a TREMENDOUS shock attack had to be used to get them to surrender
please read the previous posts: even AFTER the 2 A bombs totally destroyed the cities and killed thousands--the Japanese STILL did NOT want to surrender!!!


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 days before Roosevelt left for Yalta, MacArthur forwarded a 40 page memorandum to the White House outlining 5 separate overtures for surrender he had received.
> 
> 
> 
> I have source documents....
Click to expand...



 You’ve got one google search that you’ve been riding for ages and yet have never been able to understand in historical context. It comforts you because it plays to your strength: no longer even trying to think.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They surrendered immediately after Nagasaki was bombed
> 
> We had the bomb, we were going to win without invading
> 
> Bombing a remote target with minimal population would have demonstrated the power we had. Japan could have seen firsthand the destructive power we now had with minimal loss of lives
> 
> If after the demonstration and a threat to start bombing major cities, Japan refused surrender, then we were morally entitled to drop an A bomb
> 
> 
> 
> They did NOT the Government voted NOT to surrender the Emperor intervened to over rule them then the ruling party ( the Army) staged a Coup to stop the Emperor. At least leanr the facts before you try to lie about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which resulted in surrender
> 
> Does not support that the anihilation of Hiroshima AND Nagasaki were the only way to achieve those goals
> 
> We had time on our side. Once we had the bomb and nobody else did, we could have selectively upped the anti
> 
> Three days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not leave much room for negotiation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese responded and the Government demanded the same thing it already had a ceasefire with return to 41 start lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the bomb changed their mind
> 
> We did not need to destroy two cities to prove the power of the bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong after the first bomb the Government did NOT surrender and the Emperor DID NOT intervene. After the 2nd Bomb the Government DID NOT surrender BUT the Emperor intervened and was met by a Coup attempt.
Click to expand...

Three days is not much time to negotiate

What was our hurry?  We had the bomb, they didn’t. 

We did not need to invade and could drop the last bomb anytime we wanted


----------



## Vandalshandle

anynameyouwish said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which would have been the same result if they had dropped those bombs on ARMIES and NAVIES instead of innocent people.
Click to expand...


They no longer had a navy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Source documents that PROVE the Japanese never actually offered to surrender and then attempted a COUP when the Emperor ordered the surrender The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I see absolutely NO source documents from any of the revisionist history types.


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did NOT the Government voted NOT to surrender the Emperor intervened to over rule them then the ruling party ( the Army) staged a Coup to stop the Emperor. At least leanr the facts before you try to lie about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which resulted in surrender
> 
> Does not support that the anihilation of Hiroshima AND Nagasaki were the only way to achieve those goals
> 
> We had time on our side. Once we had the bomb and nobody else did, we could have selectively upped the anti
> 
> Three days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not leave much room for negotiation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese responded and the Government demanded the same thing it already had a ceasefire with return to 41 start lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the bomb changed their mind
> 
> We did not need to destroy two cities to prove the power of the bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong after the first bomb the Government did NOT surrender and the Emperor DID NOT intervene. After the 2nd Bomb the Government DID NOT surrender BUT the Emperor intervened and was met by a Coup attempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Three days is not much time to negotiate
> 
> What was our hurry?  We had the bomb, they didn’t.
> 
> We did not need to invade and could drop the last bomb anytime we wanted
Click to expand...

what part do you people not understand??
.....AFTER TWO A bombs destroyed the cities and killed thousands in seconds, the Japanese were NOT surrendering
???
NO theere was NO time to fk around!!!
hundreds of thousands of Americans dead/dismembered/etc after a SNEAK attack
---
AGAIN--for all of you--we should have waited????!!! until when??


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Source documents that PROVE the Japanese never actually offered to surrender ...



No, they don’t.


----------



## BlackFlag

anynameyouwish said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a war we didn't start, we developed a means to end it, and we ended it.  Should we all find ourselves in a similar predicament in WW3, we'll dream of a similar means of ending the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that YOU "dream" of killing innocent people but my hope is to either avoid war or to win it with as little damage to life, limb and property and then just make everyone behave.
Click to expand...

Oh woooow so you are literally EVERYONE.  Good for you, little one!  So special! 

Meanwhile 10’s of millions of innocents had already been killed and still were being killed but you would have let that continue, hmm?  You’re so special


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> I see absolutely NO source documents from any of the revisionist history types.




 Somebody seems to want to think MacArthur lied to Roosevelt. Someone is very desperate to sell his Google search.


----------



## harmonica

jesus christ--again--you people are thinking in unrealistic/fairytale/TV-movie terms
[ this is common in a lot of these threads ] 
....the Japanese and German hierarchy did NOT CARE if their citizens were being massacred
..they are going down until they are dead and the country is destroyed--and many of them committed suicide
..if you KNOW anything about WW2, you would know this 

100,000 died in the Tokyo bombing [ etc ]  --NO surrender 
so it's ok to kill civilians with ''regular'' bombing, but not with A bombs?


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.



Prove it, with a reliable source and link.  You can't.  So please, excuse yourself and go hide with the other USMB Troll Collection.


----------



## rightwinger

Vandalshandle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak to that.  I'm just providing a quote from Eisenhower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they just forgot to mention it to McArthur. After all, they didn't mention it to president Truman until April 24, 1945, and even he did not know if it would work until July 16, 1945, which was just 3 weeks before they dropped it..
> 
> https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-is-briefed-on-manhattan-project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe a Vice President didn’t need to know
> Those leading our military forces needed to know what weapons were available and what was coming
> 
> It had major impact on military strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to keep in mind the mind set of some of our military commanders. Curtis Lemay, for example, was the model for "Jack D Ripper", in Dr. Strangelove, the SAC Commander who went crazy and started a nuclear war. After WW2 was over, the president  directed that all nuclear weapons be put directly under his personal control. LeMay tried to hold back a few, "just in case". It didn't work. LeMay went on to run as George Wallace's running mate. MacArthur advocated nuclear war against Korea, and presumable China as well, during the Korean war.
> 
> Besides. If word had gotten out to the Japanese that we were putting the invasion on hold, they would have assumed a much stronger negotiating position. In fact, it was recommended to Truman that he blow up an unpopulated Japanese Island instead of a city. Truman rejected the advice, correctly, in my opinion, that the Japanese would have assumed that we were not prepared to actually use it against the people of Japan. He was not afraid to use it, which is one of many reasons that Truman is my personal hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both LeMay and Mac wanted to nuke the hell out of North Korea. 30 -40 bombs
> 
> We only had three nukes in WWII but they would have flattened Japan if they could
> 
> We could have taken the chance to nuke an unpopulated island with the assurance that the next one would land on Tokyo
> 
> Once we had the bomb......there was no real hurry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hurry was to win the war before the Soviets had a chance to turn Tokyo into another East Berlin.
Click to expand...

We are talking days 

The Soviets would have taken a year and provided additional incentive to surrender


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> 
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....Germany also got POUNDED and POUNDED and they also did NOT surrender till the Russians were in Berlin --and the Germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese
> ..and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> ..learn some history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst.... Japan DID surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...AFTER TWO A bombs and AFTER the vote ended in a tie and AFTER Japanese tried to stop the surrender--NOT before
> so- OBVIOUSLY they were not willing to surrender
> ..you didn't know any of that--did you??
Click to expand...

They surrendered within a week of Hiroshima

We didn’t offer much room to negotiate


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they just forgot to mention it to McArthur. After all, they didn't mention it to president Truman until April 24, 1945, and even he did not know if it would work until July 16, 1945, which was just 3 weeks before they dropped it..
> 
> https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-is-briefed-on-manhattan-project
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a Vice President didn’t need to know
> Those leading our military forces needed to know what weapons were available and what was coming
> 
> It had major impact on military strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to keep in mind the mind set of some of our military commanders. Curtis Lemay, for example, was the model for "Jack D Ripper", in Dr. Strangelove, the SAC Commander who went crazy and started a nuclear war. After WW2 was over, the president  directed that all nuclear weapons be put directly under his personal control. LeMay tried to hold back a few, "just in case". It didn't work. LeMay went on to run as George Wallace's running mate. MacArthur advocated nuclear war against Korea, and presumable China as well, during the Korean war.
> 
> Besides. If word had gotten out to the Japanese that we were putting the invasion on hold, they would have assumed a much stronger negotiating position. In fact, it was recommended to Truman that he blow up an unpopulated Japanese Island instead of a city. Truman rejected the advice, correctly, in my opinion, that the Japanese would have assumed that we were not prepared to actually use it against the people of Japan. He was not afraid to use it, which is one of many reasons that Truman is my personal hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both LeMay and Mac wanted to nuke the hell out of North Korea. 30 -40 bombs
> 
> We only had three nukes in WWII but they would have flattened Japan if they could
> 
> We could have taken the chance to nuke an unpopulated island with the assurance that the next one would land on Tokyo
> 
> Once we had the bomb......there was no real hurry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hurry was to win the war before the Soviets had a chance to turn Tokyo into another East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking days
> 
> The Soviets would have taken a year and provided additional incentive to surrender
Click to expand...

what's your plan?? to wait?
you people are GENIUSES 
you would make a better POTUS than Truman or anybody
you have all the answers


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> 
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....Germany also got POUNDED and POUNDED and they also did NOT surrender till the Russians were in Berlin --and the Germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese
> ..and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> ..learn some history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst.... Japan DID surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...AFTER TWO A bombs and AFTER the vote ended in a tie and AFTER Japanese tried to stop the surrender--NOT before
> so- OBVIOUSLY they were not willing to surrender
> ..you didn't know any of that--did you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They surrendered within a week of Hiroshima
> 
> We didn’t offer much room to negotiate
Click to expand...

they voted 3-3 to surrender AFTER the A bombs ..the vote was TIED 
only because of the Abombs did the Emperor vote for surrender --and even then, some Japanese tried to stop it 

again, what would you have done?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Even after the bombs, the emperor found it necessary to record his surrender speech to the population the day before broadcasting it, and locking it in a safe, because he feared a coup would develop, with his kidnapping, thus preventing it from being broadcast. He was right. Several senior officers tried to stop the surrender the next day, resulting in a bloodbath.

In addition to that, officers of the military labeled the bombs the equivalent of "fake news", and refused to tell the truth to the Japanese people, who had never even been told that they had lost the battle of Midway, years before.


----------



## sparky

harmonica said:


> again, what would you have done?



To my reading nagasaki & hiroshima were on the south end, pointing torward Tokyo on the north end of Japan

We planned a dozen atomic incidents leading up to ,and including Tokyo, but it only took 2

So what not (as Rwinger suggested) have started out in the E China sea, maybe an atoll or two first????

~S~


----------



## Vandalshandle

sparky said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, what would you have done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my reading nagasaki & hiroshima were on the south end, pointing torward Tokyo on the north end of Japan
> 
> We planned a dozen atomic incidents leading up to ,and including Tokyo, but it only took 2
> 
> So what not (as Rwinger suggested) have started out in the E China sea, maybe an atoll or two first????
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


Nagasaki and Hiroshima had been off limits to Curtis LeMay's bombers, because we wanted these cities undamaged, in order to properly measure and demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb.

It is also noteworthy that in the Emperor's speech to the nation about the surrender, he never used the Japanese word for "surrender". He said that it was necessary to "endure the unendurable". That was as far as he went. Japanese history books did not mention the word, "surrender" until the late 1960's. Until then, it was, according to the Japanese, a "negotiated peace".


----------



## Markle

rightwinger said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> But why did we bomb the way we did?
> Why TWO civilian targets?
> 
> Why not a demonstration on an uninhabited target with a warning the next would be on Tokyo?
> 
> Why was Nagasaki necessary?  Why was it dropped so soon without allowing time for negotiations after Hiroshima?
Click to expand...


There was nothing to negotiate.  Surrender.  Period.

You WIN a war by totally destroying your enemy along with their ability and will to commit war.  It really is that simple.


rightwinger said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. Even Truman, who was Vice president, didn't know that the bombs existed until after be was sworn in as president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to read it. Ike's opinion on the atomic bomb was formed long after it had been dropped. He did not know about it before then. Ike was a big believer in covert action, instead of massive force. He routinely used the CIA to topple freely elected Latin American political leaders, in favor of his golfing buddies from United Fruit Company, who did not want land redistributed to the people ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb
> 
> "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan..."
> 
> Doesn't seem "long after it had been dropped.  Note the "preparing to drop" phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems kind of odd that nobody notified McArthur, Supreme Commander in the Pacific, or Curtis LeMay, in charge of the Army Air Corp bombing campaign of Japan....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would think they would need to know of the development of a super weapon that would impact their long range planning
Click to expand...


That's how it was kept secret.


----------



## Markle

sparky said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, what would you have done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my reading nagasaki & hiroshima were on the south end, pointing torward Tokyo on the north end of Japan
> 
> We planned a dozen atomic incidents leading up to ,and including Tokyo, but it only took 2
> 
> So what not (as Rwinger suggested) have started out in the E China sea, maybe an atoll or two first????
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


We only had three bombs.  One was used for testing, to see if it even worked and the other two for use in Japan, or wherever was necessary.  It would have taken a minimum of six months to build another bomb much less ten.

You are ignoring the horrors the Japanese perpetrated on the civilians they conquered along with the prisoners of war.  Don't forget the Bataan Death March which took place way back in 1942.  The Japanese military killed millions of civilians.  Not unlike Germany.

"Casualties are the brutal reality of warfare. The number of deaths resulting from the Second World War remains uncertain, but was around 70 million persons. Of these, around 22 million were military deaths while the remainder were civilians killed during military operations, through famine, or in crimes against humanity. This represents about 3% of the total world population at the time. Casualties in the Pacific War numbered around 36 million or 50% of the total casualties of the Second World War."







The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Casualties


----------



## Markle

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL after 2 cities were destroyed the Japanese Government still refused to surrender, explain in detail what bombing a non military target would have done to convince them when 2 cites were not enough dumb ass. And the cites were war producing cities AND BOTH were Army Headquarters organizing the local areas into fighting the coming Invasion. NOT civilian targets at all.
> 
> 
> 
> They surrendered immediately after Nagasaki was bombed
> 
> We had the bomb, we were going to win without invading
> 
> Bombing a remote target with minimal population would have demonstrated the power we had. Japan could have seen firsthand the destructive power we now had with minimal loss of lives
> 
> If after the demonstration and a threat to start bombing major cities, Japan refused surrender, then we were morally entitled to drop an A bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did NOT the Government voted NOT to surrender the Emperor intervened to over rule them then the ruling party ( the Army) staged a Coup to stop the Emperor. At least leanr the facts before you try to lie about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which resulted in surrender
> 
> Does not support that the anihilation of Hiroshima AND Nagasaki were the only way to achieve those goals
> 
> We had time on our side. Once we had the bomb and nobody else did, we could have selectively upped the anti
> 
> Three days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not leave much room for negotiation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese responded and the Government demanded the same thing it already had a ceasefire with return to 41 start lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the bomb changed their mind
> 
> We did not need to destroy two cities to prove the power of the bomb
Click to expand...


Like it or not, it worked and saved millions of lives.


----------



## Markle

rightwinger said:


> Both LeMay and Mac wanted to nuke the hell out of North Korea. 30 -40 bombs
> 
> We only had three nukes in WWII but they would have flattened Japan if they could
> 
> We could have taken the chance to nuke an unpopulated island with the assurance that the next one would land on Tokyo
> 
> Once we had the bomb......there was no real hurry



That's just foolish!  Stupid in fact.

The allies were fighting daily and suffering under horrid conditions.  The Soviet Union had just declared war on Japan and were invading from the North.

Easy for you to say, sitting in your comfortable house...seventy years later.

You also were not one of the millions who received a telegram like this from the government after not hearing from your loved one for four months.


----------



## Markle

sparky said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if the emperor _himself _told them to.
> 
> Further reading reveals some japanese communication w/ russia , not quite sure of the story , but possiblly they were looking for a liason ?
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


August 8, 1945, The USSR declared war on Japan.


----------



## Markle

anynameyouwish said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a nation destroys an enemy's naval base for starters what destruction would be appropriate? Maybe if the Japanese cut off the heads of our fliers the destruction would have seemed more appropriate? What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the whole point of the USA was that we are NOT blood thirsty savages and we do NOT go around slaughtering innocent people. When attacked, we fight back, we win, but we BEHAVE IN A FKN CIVILIZED FASHION and we do NOT behave like our enemies!
> 
> or am I wrong?
Click to expand...


You've never been in a street fight, have you?


----------



## Markle

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> whoever thinks Japan was ready to surrender obviously has no knowledge of WW2
> 
> 
> 
> You are merely a typical uninformed propagandized American. Sadly, there are too many like you.
> 
> *72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima’s Gratuitous Mass Murder*
> By Stephen Lendman
> 
> StephenLendman.org
> 
> August 8, 2017you are not informed. T
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic Bombs and then when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the Army tried a Coup to stop that. This bullshit claim that Japan was ready to surrender is simply a LIE, a poorly done lie easily shown to be a lie and yet you RETARDS keep claiming it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....Germany also got POUNDED and POUNDED and they also did NOT surrender till the Russians were in Berlin --and the Germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese
> ..and you think the Japanese would've surrendered????!!!!
> ..learn some history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst.... Japan DID surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...AFTER TWO A bombs and AFTER the vote ended in a tie and AFTER Japanese tried to stop the surrender--NOT before
> so- OBVIOUSLY they were not willing to surrender
> ..you didn't know any of that--did you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They surrendered within a week of Hiroshima
> 
> We didn’t offer much room to negotiate
Click to expand...


Wow, you catch on quick!  Not much room to negotiate, you say?  That's the plan baby, that's the plan!

Have you ever watched a boxing match?  An MMA fight?  When one of the fighters is on the ropes, staggering or just covering up, does the other fighter back off and let his opponent recover or do they go in for the knockout?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see absolutely NO source documents from any of the revisionist history types.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody seems to want to think MacArthur lied to Roosevelt. Someone is very desperate to sell his Google search.
Click to expand...

Someone has no ACTUAL evidence as for MacArthur lying? Seems he did that in Korea too. I have actual links to documents you have hearsay.


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it, with a reliable source and link.  You can't.  So please, excuse yourself and go hide with the other USMB Troll Collection.
Click to expand...

Already done. Many times. You just need to open your mind and eliminate your statist inclinations. 

If the Japanese government’s requests for surrender is new to you, then you have to admit you are not informed.


----------



## sparky

Markle said:


> We only had three bombs. One was used for testing, to see if it even worked and the other two for use in Japan, or wherever was necessary. It would have taken a minimum of six months to build another bomb much less ten.



try this>
U.S. Planned to Drop 12 Atomic Bombs on Japan



Markle said:


> August 8, 1945, The USSR declared war on Japan.



intertesting history.....

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-USSR-agree-to-attack-Japan-on-August-8-1945

~S~


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a Vice President didn’t need to know
> Those leading our military forces needed to know what weapons were available and what was coming
> 
> It had major impact on military strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep in mind the mind set of some of our military commanders. Curtis Lemay, for example, was the model for "Jack D Ripper", in Dr. Strangelove, the SAC Commander who went crazy and started a nuclear war. After WW2 was over, the president  directed that all nuclear weapons be put directly under his personal control. LeMay tried to hold back a few, "just in case". It didn't work. LeMay went on to run as George Wallace's running mate. MacArthur advocated nuclear war against Korea, and presumable China as well, during the Korean war.
> 
> Besides. If word had gotten out to the Japanese that we were putting the invasion on hold, they would have assumed a much stronger negotiating position. In fact, it was recommended to Truman that he blow up an unpopulated Japanese Island instead of a city. Truman rejected the advice, correctly, in my opinion, that the Japanese would have assumed that we were not prepared to actually use it against the people of Japan. He was not afraid to use it, which is one of many reasons that Truman is my personal hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both LeMay and Mac wanted to nuke the hell out of North Korea. 30 -40 bombs
> 
> We only had three nukes in WWII but they would have flattened Japan if they could
> 
> We could have taken the chance to nuke an unpopulated island with the assurance that the next one would land on Tokyo
> 
> Once we had the bomb......there was no real hurry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hurry was to win the war before the Soviets had a chance to turn Tokyo into another East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking days
> 
> The Soviets would have taken a year and provided additional incentive to surrender
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's your plan?? to wait?
> you people are GENIUSES
> you would make a better POTUS than Truman or anybody
> you have all the answers
Click to expand...


Yes, wait more than three days before killing another 100,000 civilians
We should have entered into negotiations after Hiroshima with the understanding that there was more to come


----------



## rightwinger

sparky said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only had three bombs. One was used for testing, to see if it even worked and the other two for use in Japan, or wherever was necessary. It would have taken a minimum of six months to build another bomb much less ten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try this>
> U.S. Planned to Drop 12 Atomic Bombs on Japan
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> August 8, 1945, The USSR declared war on Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> intertesting history.....
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Why-did-USSR-agree-to-attack-Japan-on-August-8-1945
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Interesting link

We had more bombs coming down the pike and ramped up production after the war

An invasion was never going to be necessary


----------



## sparky

rightwinger said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only had three bombs. One was used for testing, to see if it even worked and the other two for use in Japan, or wherever was necessary. It would have taken a minimum of six months to build another bomb much less ten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try this>
> U.S. Planned to Drop 12 Atomic Bombs on Japan
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> August 8, 1945, The USSR declared war on Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> intertesting history.....
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Why-did-USSR-agree-to-attack-Japan-on-August-8-1945
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting link
> 
> We had more bombs coming down the pike and ramped up production after the war
> 
> An invasion was never going to be necessary
Click to expand...


The approval ratings _then_, and 70 yrs after are interesting, almost inversely proportional.  I'm unsure if it simply being_ niave _of things nuclear _then_, or the reality of _mass_ causalties.

If the latter is_ chief_ concern, think of how many civilian deaths were assumed in our warfare history _since_ , it actually amounts (all told) to far more....

~S~


----------



## Picaro

On other major reason was they also a warning to Stalin and Mao, a factor most don't consider. Stalin was trying to grab as much of Japanese territory as he could, and doubtful he would have been intimated out of further mischief if we hand't dropped them both; he already knew we had them, but not whether they would actually work. Same for the cretin Mao's ambitions along all of his borders.


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep in mind the mind set of some of our military commanders. Curtis Lemay, for example, was the model for "Jack D Ripper", in Dr. Strangelove, the SAC Commander who went crazy and started a nuclear war. After WW2 was over, the president  directed that all nuclear weapons be put directly under his personal control. LeMay tried to hold back a few, "just in case". It didn't work. LeMay went on to run as George Wallace's running mate. MacArthur advocated nuclear war against Korea, and presumable China as well, during the Korean war.
> 
> Besides. If word had gotten out to the Japanese that we were putting the invasion on hold, they would have assumed a much stronger negotiating position. In fact, it was recommended to Truman that he blow up an unpopulated Japanese Island instead of a city. Truman rejected the advice, correctly, in my opinion, that the Japanese would have assumed that we were not prepared to actually use it against the people of Japan. He was not afraid to use it, which is one of many reasons that Truman is my personal hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Both LeMay and Mac wanted to nuke the hell out of North Korea. 30 -40 bombs
> 
> We only had three nukes in WWII but they would have flattened Japan if they could
> 
> We could have taken the chance to nuke an unpopulated island with the assurance that the next one would land on Tokyo
> 
> Once we had the bomb......there was no real hurry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hurry was to win the war before the Soviets had a chance to turn Tokyo into another East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking days
> y
> The Soviets would have taken a year and provided additional incentive to surrender
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's your plan?? to wait?
> you people are GENIUSES
> you would make a better POTUS than Truman or anybody
> you have all the answers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, wait more than three days before killing another 100,000 civilians
> We should have entered into negotiations after Hiroshima with the understanding that there was more to come
Click to expand...

they needed to think we had many bombs because of what I said before:
they needed a HUGE shock
again:
even after TWO Abombs, the vote was *tied *AND some Japanese tried to stop the surrender and MANY more did NOT want to surrender
what don't you understand about that?? 


> Confidential reports added that “even after two atom bombs, they preferred to fight on till they are all dead. Death or glory.”


U.S. Planned to Drop 12 Atomic Bombs on Japan
how much and how detailed have you people read on the subject?
....I remember reading how some Japanese leaders said the US didn't have any more bombs, so we shouldn't surrender 

AGAIN:
what's the difference between regular bombs killing 100,000 and an A bomb killing about 50,000 initially???!!!!


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep in mind the mind set of some of our military commanders. Curtis Lemay, for example, was the model for "Jack D Ripper", in Dr. Strangelove, the SAC Commander who went crazy and started a nuclear war. After WW2 was over, the president  directed that all nuclear weapons be put directly under his personal control. LeMay tried to hold back a few, "just in case". It didn't work. LeMay went on to run as George Wallace's running mate. MacArthur advocated nuclear war against Korea, and presumable China as well, during the Korean war.
> 
> Besides. If word had gotten out to the Japanese that we were putting the invasion on hold, they would have assumed a much stronger negotiating position. In fact, it was recommended to Truman that he blow up an unpopulated Japanese Island instead of a city. Truman rejected the advice, correctly, in my opinion, that the Japanese would have assumed that we were not prepared to actually use it against the people of Japan. He was not afraid to use it, which is one of many reasons that Truman is my personal hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Both LeMay and Mac wanted to nuke the hell out of North Korea. 30 -40 bombs
> 
> We only had three nukes in WWII but they would have flattened Japan if they could
> 
> We could have taken the chance to nuke an unpopulated island with the assurance that the next one would land on Tokyo
> 
> Once we had the bomb......there was no real hurry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hurry was to win the war before the Soviets had a chance to turn Tokyo into another East Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking days
> 
> The Soviets would have taken a year and provided additional incentive to surrender
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what's your plan?? to wait?
> you people are GENIUSES
> you would make a better POTUS than Truman or anybody
> you have all the answers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, wait more than three days before killing another 100,000 civilians
> We should have entered into negotiations after Hiroshima with the understanding that there was more to come
Click to expand...




> Truman called for surrender the day after the bombing at Hiroshima once more, but once more the *Japanese government refused*


The Manhattan Project and the atomic bomb
jesus christ, it sounds like you people have about zero knowledge on the subject 

AFTER Hiroshima:


> The opposing group, maintaining that the real test of Japan's strength was yet to come in the expected Homeland battle, argued that once severe casualties had been inflicted on the invasion force, it would be possible to terminate, the war on more favorable terms.





> , he attempted to minimize the *effectiveness of the atom bomb* on the home front


*AFTER Nagasaki:*


> Chiefs of the Army and Navy General Staffs, went to the Imperial Palace together and made a joint plea to the Emperor to reject the Allied conditions.





> Suzuki, revealing dissatisfaction with the Allied reply, stated bluntly that there was no alternative but to continue the war





> The surrender discussions had now been *deadlocked* for more than four days,


Chapter 20:  Decision to Surrender


----------



## harmonica

sparky said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, what would you have done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my reading nagasaki & hiroshima were on the south end, pointing torward Tokyo on the north end of Japan
> 
> We planned a dozen atomic incidents leading up to ,and including Tokyo, but it only took 2
> 
> So what not (as Rwinger suggested) have started out in the E China sea, maybe an atoll or two first????
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

see my latest post
AGAIN:
we had ALREADY destroyed ALL of their major cities !!!!!!
and hundreds of thousands of Japanese had ALREADY been killed !!!
BEFORE the A bombs
if they were not surrendering after all of this destruction and killing, hitting an atoll would UNDENIABLY have been USELESS


----------



## harmonica

allow me to say again--read this carefully
we had ALREADY destroyed ALL of their major cities !!!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo-100,000 dead
ALL of their major cities destroyed
they were NOT surrendering after ALL of this
and *hundreds of thousands *of Japanese had ALREADY been killed !!!
*BEFORE *the A bombs
---if they were not surrendering after all of this destruction and killing, hitting an atoll would UNDENIABLY have been USELESS
--hitting just a military target would have been useless

they needed a BIGGER shock


----------



## harmonica

*LESS *were killed at the Nagasaki initial blast and right after-- than at the March Tokyo bombing!!!!!
1 MILLION displaced after the Tokyo bombing
and they were NOT surrendering
and we want to wait to see if they surrender???!!!


----------



## harmonica

sparky said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, what would you have done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my reading nagasaki & hiroshima were on the south end, pointing torward Tokyo on the north end of Japan
> 
> We planned a dozen atomic incidents leading up to ,and including Tokyo, but it only took 2
> 
> So what not (as Rwinger suggested) have started out in the E China sea, maybe an atoll or two first????
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

again:
they were not surrendering after Hroshima and Nagasaki--the vote was tied
many higher ups were against surrendering AFTER Nagasaki
...hitting an atoll would be useless--nothing to destroy--the power of the bomb could not have been realized/seen/shown
there would* not have been much to destroy on an atoll*


----------



## harmonica

think realistically
we had been burning and bombing their cities--for MONTHS
the Japanese had a looooong time to think and talk it over
and they are not surrendering
we are bombing and burning them to hell 
this isn't one or two buildings or one block of houses burning--but whole cities
this is not making them surrender--
this is total war--the most costly/destructive--going on for over 3 years
we needed and wanted it stopped 
and a huge shock is needed to stop it


----------



## Unkotare

All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.


sure--we can't have any one die during a TOTAL war


----------



## whitehall

The issue that isn't generally addressed is the likelyhood that the egg head scientists were pressuring the military to try out their new toy on civilians. The Germans were developing jet planes and coming close to nuclear weapons but for some reason the U.S. decided to drop the Bomb on civilians who lived in paper houses. The dirty little secret is the inherent racism that the U.S. still held toward the Yellow races. Nazis were like us even if they were monsters but the Japanese weren't. The victors write the history books and historians are always kind to democrat administrations so the fact that "give 'em hell Harry" was a rube bean counting senator who found himself president one morning in April 1945 and didn't have a clue and the Japanese were defeated and trying desperately to negotiate terms of surrender with Stalin, goes relatively unnoticed.


----------



## harmonica

whitehall said:


> The issue that isn't generally addressed is the likelyhood that the egg head scientists were pressuring the military to try out their new toy on civilians. The Germans were developing jet planes and coming close to nuclear weapons but for some reason the U.S. decided to drop the Bomb on civilians who lived in paper houses. The dirty little secret is the inherent racism that the U.S. still held toward the Yellow races. Nazis were like us even if they were monsters but the Japanese weren't. The victors write the history books and historians are always kind to democrat administrations so the fact that "give 'em hell Harry" was a rube bean counting senator who found himself president one morning in April 1945 and didn't have a clue and the Japanese were defeated and trying desperately to negotiate terms of surrender with Stalin, goes relatively unnoticed.


please prove it was dropped because of racism


----------



## harmonica

whitehall said:


> The issue that isn't generally addressed is the likelyhood that the egg head scientists were pressuring the military to try out their new toy on civilians. The Germans were developing jet planes and coming close to nuclear weapons but for some reason the U.S. decided to drop the Bomb on civilians who lived in paper houses. The dirty little secret is the inherent racism that the U.S. still held toward the Yellow races. Nazis were like us even if they were monsters but the Japanese weren't. The victors write the history books and historians are always kind to democrat administrations so the fact that "give 'em hell Harry" was a rube bean counting senator who found himself president one morning in April 1945 and didn't have a clue and the Japanese were defeated and trying desperately to negotiate terms of surrender with Stalin, goes relatively unnoticed.


...if it was because of racism, then how do you explain the destruction/killing of the Germans/German cities??!!!!???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


----------



## Vandalshandle

whitehall said:


> The issue that isn't generally addressed is the likelyhood that the egg head scientists were pressuring the military to try out their new toy on civilians. The Germans were developing jet planes and coming close to nuclear weapons but for some reason the U.S. decided to drop the Bomb on civilians who lived in paper houses. The dirty little secret is the inherent racism that the U.S. still held toward the Yellow races. Nazis were like us even if they were monsters but the Japanese weren't. The victors write the history books and historians are always kind to democrat administrations so the fact that "give 'em hell Harry" was a rube bean counting senator who found himself president one morning in April 1945 and didn't have a clue and the Japanese were defeated and trying desperately to negotiate terms of surrender with Stalin, goes relatively unnoticed.




And, there we have it, folks. The strongest argument ever against home schooling!


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> sure--we can't have any one die during a TOTAL war
Click to expand...



You WANT American soldiers to die? What the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> sure--we can't have any one die during a TOTAL war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You WANT American soldiers to die? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

as stated, we can't have ANY one die during a  [ total ] war


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com




yeah truman was a mass murderer who should have been tried like the nuremberg trials.the REAL history we were never taught in our corrupt school system is that japen offered to surrender and our government ignored them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only had three bombs. One was used for testing, to see if it even worked and the other two for use in Japan, or wherever was necessary. It would have taken a minimum of six months to build another bomb much less ten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try this>
> U.S. Planned to Drop 12 Atomic Bombs on Japan
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> August 8, 1945, The USSR declared war on Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> intertesting history.....
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Why-did-USSR-agree-to-attack-Japan-on-August-8-1945
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


markle got her ass taken to school.LOL


----------



## harmonica

hindsight is 20/20


----------



## harmonica

so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
till when?? 
out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
they are NOT surrendering 
they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties


----------



## harmonica

...so the plan is to wait and see if they MIGHT surrender??!--in the most destructive/mortal EVENT in human history 
like maybe I might win the lottery?
or maybe I might see a meteorite?? 
or I'll wait to see if the weather report MIGHT be accurate


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.


Japan NEVER offered to surrender I have links to intercepts from the Japanese Government ALL they offered was a Ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. Where is your link to these supposed peace offerings?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

whitehall said:


> The issue that isn't generally addressed is the likelyhood that the egg head scientists were pressuring the military to try out their new toy on civilians. The Germans were developing jet planes and coming close to nuclear weapons but for some reason the U.S. decided to drop the Bomb on civilians who lived in paper houses. The dirty little secret is the inherent racism that the U.S. still held toward the Yellow races. Nazis were like us even if they were monsters but the Japanese weren't. The victors write the history books and historians are always kind to democrat administrations so the fact that "give 'em hell Harry" was a rube bean counting senator who found himself president one morning in April 1945 and didn't have a clue and the Japanese were defeated and trying desperately to negotiate terms of surrender with Stalin, goes relatively unnoticed.


Germany SURRENDERED before we had a working A Bomb Numnuts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LA RAM FAN said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah truman was a mass murderer who should have been tried like the nuremberg trials.the REAL history we were never taught in our corrupt school system is that japen offered to surrender and our government ignored them.
Click to expand...

Once again proved an actual link to any ACTUAL peace offer made by Japan. I have a link to what they offered.... it was ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with no concessions in China.


----------



## Unkotare

Truman Library: U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, June 19, 1946. Truman Papers, President's Secretary's File. Atomic Bomb-Hiroshima.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender I have links to intercepts from the Japanese Government ALL they offered was a Ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. Where is your link to these supposed peace offerings?
Click to expand...



What a sad, stupid old fool.

Chicago Tribune History


----------



## gipper

harmonica said:


> hindsight is 20/20


Yeah hindsight is required because no one knows incinerating women and children is f**king wrong. WTF!


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hindsight is 20/20
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah hindsight is required because no one knows incinerating women and children is f**king wrong. WTF!
Click to expand...

what about Dresden and Hamburg?? was that wrong?


----------



## gipper

harmonica said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hindsight is 20/20
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah hindsight is required because no one knows incinerating women and children is f**king wrong. WTF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about Dresden and Hamburg?? was that wrong?
Click to expand...

Abso-fucking-lutely.  

Total war IS MASS MURDER. YES?  NO?


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hindsight is 20/20
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah hindsight is required because no one knows incinerating women and children is f**king wrong. WTF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about Dresden and Hamburg?? was that wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abso-fucking-lutely.
> 
> Total war IS MASS MURDER. YES?  NO?
Click to expand...

you argue with emotion and without facts


----------



## gipper

harmonica said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hindsight is 20/20
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah hindsight is required because no one knows incinerating women and children is f**king wrong. WTF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about Dresden and Hamburg?? was that wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abso-fucking-lutely.
> 
> Total war IS MASS MURDER. YES?  NO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you argue with emotion and without facts
Click to expand...

That’s too funny. You think mass murdering innocent civilians is just emoting. I mean wtf.  Just kill those bastards. The state says it’s okay.


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hindsight is 20/20
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah hindsight is required because no one knows incinerating women and children is f**king wrong. WTF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about Dresden and Hamburg?? was that wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abso-fucking-lutely.
> 
> Total war IS MASS MURDER. YES?  NO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you argue with emotion and without facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s too funny. You think mass murdering innocent civilians is just emoting. I mean wtf.  Just kill those bastards. The state says it’s okay.
Click to expand...

...so was it ok to bomb/burn/incinerate/etc civilians at Tokyo, Dresden, and Hamburg, but not Hiroshima?


----------



## gipper

harmonica said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah hindsight is required because no one knows incinerating women and children is f**king wrong. WTF!
> 
> 
> 
> what about Dresden and Hamburg?? was that wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abso-fucking-lutely.
> 
> Total war IS MASS MURDER. YES?  NO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you argue with emotion and without facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s too funny. You think mass murdering innocent civilians is just emoting. I mean wtf.  Just kill those bastards. The state says it’s okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...so was it ok to bomb/burn/incinerate/etc civilians at Tokyo, Dresden, and Hamburg, but not Hiroshima?
Click to expand...

You’re a bit slow. Take a guess?


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not informed. Please cease and desist from posting in my thread.
> 
> The Japanese tried to surrender several times. FDR and Truman ignored them. FDR’s tyrannical unjust and terribly deadly dictate of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans and Japanese.
> 
> For this, FDR and Truman should burn in Hell for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it, with a reliable source and link.  You can't.  So please, excuse yourself and go hide with the other USMB Troll Collection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already done. Many times. You just need to open your mind and eliminate your statist inclinations.
> 
> If the Japanese government’s requests for surrender is new to you, then you have to admit you are not informed.
Click to expand...


Please show us your reliable source and link showing that Japan had offered unconditional surrender prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.



Unconditional surrender only.

What happened after a CONDITIONAL surrender was accepted by Germany after WW-I?


----------



## Markle

LA RAM FAN said:


> yeah truman was a mass murderer who should have been tried like the nuremberg trials.the REAL history we were never taught in our corrupt school system is that japen offered to surrender and our government ignored them.



CONDITIONAL surrender.  The only thing acceptable, as you know was UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.

Which part is not clear to you?


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconditional surrender only.
> 
> What happened after a CONDITIONAL surrender was accepted by Germany after WW-I?
Click to expand...

Is that your defense of total war?  Mass murder civilians because unconditional surrender is the only acceptable statist option. Because Germany wasn’t TOTALLY destroyed in WWI, we had to mass murder them in WWII. 

You might be a psychopath. Have you been tested?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gipper said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconditional surrender only.
> 
> What happened after a CONDITIONAL surrender was accepted by Germany after WW-I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that your defense of total war?  Mass murder civilians because unconditional surrender is the only acceptable statist option. Because Germany wasn’t TOTALLY destroyed in WWI, we had to mass murder them in WWII.
> 
> You might be a psychopath. Have you been tested?
Click to expand...


Start a world war, bad shit happens to you...…..


----------



## gipper

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconditional surrender only.
> 
> What happened after a CONDITIONAL surrender was accepted by Germany after WW-I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that your defense of total war?  Mass murder civilians because unconditional surrender is the only acceptable statist option. Because Germany wasn’t TOTALLY destroyed in WWI, we had to mass murder them in WWII.
> 
> You might be a psychopath. Have you been tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start a world war, bad shit happens to you...…..
Click to expand...

...but only if you lose to the USA.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gipper said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconditional surrender only.
> 
> What happened after a CONDITIONAL surrender was accepted by Germany after WW-I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that your defense of total war?  Mass murder civilians because unconditional surrender is the only acceptable statist option. Because Germany wasn’t TOTALLY destroyed in WWI, we had to mass murder them in WWII.
> 
> You might be a psychopath. Have you been tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start a world war, bad shit happens to you...…..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...but only if you lose to the USA.
Click to expand...


Germany and Japan haven't started any wars lately, have they?


----------



## whitehall

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender I have links to intercepts from the Japanese Government ALL they offered was a Ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. Where is your link to these supposed peace offerings?
Click to expand...

Do the links indicate that Japan was trying to negotiate with Stalin? Truman refused to even talk to the Japanese holdouts. The ironic thing was that the biggest issue for surrender negotiations was the preservation of the Japanese emperor which happened under MacArthur's reign anyway after we used the most barbarous weapon in history on civilians. The strategy of the time was to keep killing civilians and destroying infrastructure until the maniacs surrendered Contrast that with today's standards of holding a U.S. Seal for murder after he killed a terrorist bomb maker.


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties





 Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender ...?
Click to expand...




 Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconditional surrender only.
> 
> What happened after a CONDITIONAL surrender was accepted by Germany after WW-I?
Click to expand...




 If you knew anything about the history of that., You would know that World War II most certainly did not happen because we went to easy on Germany. Quite the contrary. Most people who have completed high school have at least been exposed to this information. Maybe you forgot maybe you failed maybe you’re stupid I don’t know


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.
Click to expand...

No they did not dumb ass be specific and quote from a reliable source where japan offered what we took. What we took was UNCONDITIONAL surrender what we gave after that is irrelevant.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they did not ......
Click to expand...



 Yes, they did. You are desperate to hide from this fact because you are desperate to absolve yourself of any moral questions in the consideration of the events in question. In short, you do not have the courage to examine the situation directly and evaluate it objectively.


----------



## whitehall

The deal is that 75 years of propaganda still works. Even today if you voiced some misgivings about incinerating Japanese civilians with the most horrific weapon ever made you might be called a "dirty Jap lover" or a "traitor". The hypocrisy is so ingrained in the minds of public school educated people that you risk anger and even assault if you voice an argument that contradicts the flawed Truman doctrine.


----------



## Unkotare

whitehall said:


> The deal is that 75 years of propaganda still works. Even today if you voiced some misgivings about incinerating Japanese civilians with the most horrific weapon ever made you might be called a "dirty Jap lover" or a "traitor". The hypocrisy is so ingrained in the minds of public school educated people that you risk anger and even assault if you voice an argument that contradicts the flawed Truman doctrine.





Don’t blame the schools for everything.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they did not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they did. You are desperate to hide from this fact because you are desperate to absolve yourself of any moral questions in the consideration of the events in question. In short, you do not have the courage to examine the situation directly and evaluate it objectively.
Click to expand...

I notice you did not quote my whole reply you are a fraud a liar and a fake. Japan NEVER offered to surrender and you know it.


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> Is that your defense of total war? Mass murder civilians because unconditional surrender is the only acceptable statist option. Because Germany wasn’t TOTALLY destroyed in WWI, we had to mass murder them in WWII.
> 
> You might be a psychopath. Have you been tested?



Sure, a defense of total war, because it works.  Germany negotiated surrender in WW-1. What was the result?  Germany totally destroyed in WW-II and there was an unconditional surrender.  What was the result?

I might have been tested.  I qualified for sniper school at Fort Benning/Sand Hill in basic training.  That would be before you were born.  People like me and many others exist and are willing to do the dirty work so that people like you can sit in the background, whine and beat on your tom-toms.


----------



## Markle

whitehall said:


> Do the links indicate that Japan was trying to negotiate with Stalin? *Truman refused to even talk to the Japanese holdouts. The ironic thing was that the biggest issue for surrender negotiations was the preservation of the Japanese emperor which happened under MacArthur's reign anyway after we used the most barbarous weapon in history on civilians.* The strategy of the time was to keep killing civilians and destroying infrastructure until the maniacs surrendered Contrast that with today's standards of holding a U.S. Seal for murder after he killed a terrorist bomb maker.



My highlights above.

Wrong whitehall, the Japanese demanded that their God, their Emperor, remain as the supreme being and oversee the rebuilding of Japan.  That was a condition we could not accept.  With the unconditional surrender, the Emperor was allowed to stay, but only as a figurehead.  He would have no say, no control, whatsoever in the new government and rebuilding of Japan.  MAJOR DIFFERENCE.


----------



## Markle

whitehall said:


> Do the links indicate that Japan was trying to negotiate with Stalin? Truman refused to even talk to the Japanese holdouts. The ironic thing was that the biggest issue for surrender negotiations was the preservation of the Japanese emperor which happened under MacArthur's reign anyway after we used the most barbarous weapon in history on civilians. *The strategy of the time was to keep killing civilians and destroying infrastructure until the maniacs surrendered Contrast that with today's standards of holding a U.S. Seal for murder after he killed a terrorist bomb maker.*



My highlights above.

There is a backstory to this of which you are obviously not aware.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.



Not at all true.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Japanese civilians suffered horribly in the total war that their militaristic leaders began. To blame the USA on that suffering is downright absurd. The Japanese were not the models of kindness to civilians. Google the "Rape of Nanking", where the Japanese used the Chinese civilians for bayonet practice.


----------



## Picaro

Vandalshandle said:


> Japanese civilians suffered horribly in the total war that their militaristic leaders began. To blame the USA on that suffering is downright absurd. The Japanese were not the models of kindness to civilians. Google the "Rape of Nanking", where the Japanese used the Chinese civilians for bayonet practice.



They were also intensely patriotic, too, and knew what their armies were doing to the Chinese and other ethnic groups in Asia, and that includes the Japanese here. No need to waste a lot of sympathy on them, and even today they lie in their own history books to their people about their conduct then. Same goes for many Europeans as well, while the U.S.  schools have gone in the opposite direction in its lying to school children about it history, greatly exaggerating its negative stuff, and a lot of outright lying about non-existent failings.


----------



## Markle

Vandalshandle said:


> Japanese civilians suffered horribly in the total war that their militaristic leaders began. To blame the USA on that suffering is downright absurd. The Japanese were not the models of kindness to civilians. Google the "Rape of Nanking", where the Japanese used the Chinese civilians for bayonet practice.



There are hundreds of other obscene examples.  The Bataan Death March for one.  Japan had so terrorized the civilians on the islands they captured about what the Americans would do to them if they were captured, the mothers murdered their children before killing themselves rather than being captured.

If possible, the Japanese command was even more barbaric than the Germans.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all true.
Click to expand...


Exactly true


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your defense of total war? Mass murder civilians because unconditional surrender is the only acceptable statist option. Because Germany wasn’t TOTALLY destroyed in WWI, we had to mass murder them in WWII.
> 
> You might be a psychopath. Have you been tested?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, a defense of total war, because it works.  Germany negotiated surrender in WW-1. What was the result?  Germany totally destroyed in WW-II and there was an unconditional surrender.  What was the result?
> 
> I might have been tested.  I qualified for sniper school at Fort Benning/Sand Hill in basic training.  That would be before you were born.  People like me and many others exist and are willing to do the dirty work so that people like you can sit in the background, whine and beat on your tom-toms.
Click to expand...

Too many fallacies in your post, for me to get to them all. 

War is a racket. War is about the health of the state. Total war is a war crime. All wars are bankers wars.  LEARN IT. 

The US had no business entering either WWI or WWII. Had we had intelligent fair minded leadership, thousands of Americans and others would not have died for the benefit of the ruling class.  

I thought as you do at one time, then I got a real education on my own.


----------



## gipper

Picaro said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese civilians suffered horribly in the total war that their militaristic leaders began. To blame the USA on that suffering is downright absurd. The Japanese were not the models of kindness to civilians. Google the "Rape of Nanking", where the Japanese used the Chinese civilians for bayonet practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were also intensely patriotic, too, and knew what their armies were doing to the Chinese and other ethnic groups in Asia, and that includes the Japanese here. No need to waste a lot of sympathy on them, and even today they lie in their own history books to their people about their conduct then. Same goes for many Europeans as well, while the U.S.  schools have gone in the opposite direction in its lying to school children about it history, greatly exaggerating its negative stuff, and a lot of outright lying about non-existent failings.
Click to expand...

You need to recognize that what our government did in ruthlessly and systematically carpet bombing civilians of Germany and Japan, was no different from the heinous actions of those governments.

Government always sucks, but it really sucks when at war.


----------



## sparky

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender I have links to intercepts from the Japanese Government ALL they offered was a Ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. Where is your link to these supposed peace offerings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a sad, stupid old fool.
> 
> Chicago Tribune History
Click to expand...




> Trohan's article revealed that two days prior to Roosevelt's departure for Yalta, the president received a crucial, *forty page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Jap officials offering surrender terms* which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August.
> 
> The MacArthur communication was *leaked to Trohan in early 1945 by Admiral William D. Leahy, FDR's chief of staff, who feared it would be classified as top secret for decades or even destroyed.* The authenticity of Trohan's article (which elicited no editorial notice or re-publication in any other major U.S. newspaper), was never challenged by the White House. Former President Herbert Hoover personally queried General MacArthur on the _Tribune's_ story and the general acknowledged its accuracy in every detail




5 of 6 generals were on the same page .....
The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It

~S~


----------



## sparky

gipper said:


> *War is a racket*. War is about the health of the state. Total war is a war crime. All wars are bankers wars. LEARN IT.




~S~


----------



## Unkotare

sparky said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender I have links to intercepts from the Japanese Government ALL they offered was a Ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. Where is your link to these supposed peace offerings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a sad, stupid old fool.
> 
> Chicago Tribune History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trohan's article revealed that two days prior to Roosevelt's departure for Yalta, the president received a crucial, *forty page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Jap officials offering surrender terms* which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August.
> 
> The MacArthur communication was *leaked to Trohan in early 1945 by Admiral William D. Leahy, FDR's chief of staff, who feared it would be classified as top secret for decades or even destroyed.* The authenticity of Trohan's article (which elicited no editorial notice or re-publication in any other major U.S. newspaper), was never challenged by the White House. Former President Herbert Hoover personally queried General MacArthur on the _Tribune's_ story and the general acknowledged its accuracy in every detail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 5 of 6 generals were on the same page .....
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
Click to expand...

they were not accepting unconditional surrender --plain and simple--can't be denied


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> .......
> They were also intensely patriotic, too, and knew what their armies were doing to the Chinese and other ethnic groups in Asia, and that includes the Japanese here.



Unlike German and Italian Americans, no Japanese American was ever convicted of sabotage or espionage throughout the war. Comparing America's enemy in WWII with the brave, loyal Americans who comprised the most decorated army unit in US history is not only despicably anti-American, but it reveals your true motivation in all this with absolute clarity.  




Picaro said:


> ........... even today they lie in their own history books to their people about their conduct then. ....



Who told you that? China or Korea?


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were not accepting unconditional surrender --plain and simple--can't be denied
Click to expand...


The conditions we DID accept when all was said and done were exactly the same as those offered in the peace overtures that the scumbag fdr ignored long before many, many American servicemen died in subsequent battles that might not have had to take place.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were not accepting unconditional surrender --plain and simple--can't be denied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conditions we DID accept when all was said and done were exactly the same as those offered in the peace overtures that the scumbag fdr ignored long before many, many American servicemen died in subsequent battles that might not have had to take place.
Click to expand...

please link/quotes


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were not accepting unconditional surrender --plain and simple--can't be denied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conditions we DID accept when all was said and done were exactly the same as those offered in the peace overtures that the scumbag fdr ignored long before many, many American servicemen died in subsequent battles that might not have had to take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please link/quotes
Click to expand...





Chicago Tribune History


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were not accepting unconditional surrender --plain and simple--can't be denied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conditions we DID accept when all was said and done were exactly the same as those offered in the peace overtures that the scumbag fdr ignored long before many, many American servicemen died in subsequent battles that might not have had to take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please link/quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago Tribune History
Click to expand...

hahahah
1. Chicago Tribune!!  hahahaha
a.ONE reporter--wow--a whole ONE 
2. 





> The *unofficial *Jap peace brokers


this was NOT the terms agreed to by the *OFFICIAL* Japanese hierarchy/Emperor/leaders

the REAL leaders' VOTE was tied 3-3 surrender/no surrender 
if what you are saying is true/substantiated/etc, how come the vote was tied 3-3?
this shows Roosevelt was CORRECT to dismiss this crap

3. he departed for Yalta?  Yalta conference 4 Feb 1945?
Iwo Jima starts 19 Feb
so he's going to call off the Iwo Jima forces because of this unsubstantiated memo?



> Reports from Tokyo indicated that Japan meant to *fight the war to a finish*. On June 8 an imperial conference adopted “The Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War,” which pledged to “prosecute the war to the bitter end in order to uphold the national polity, protect the imperial land, and accomplish the objectives for which we went to war.” Truman had no reason to believe that the proclamation meant anything other than what it said.


The Biggest Decision: Why We Had To Drop The Atomic Bomb | AMERICAN HERITAGE

your argument/link/etc is weak at best


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were not accepting unconditional surrender --plain and simple--can't be denied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conditions we DID accept when all was said and done were exactly the same as those offered in the peace overtures that the scumbag fdr ignored long before many, many American servicemen died in subsequent battles that might not have had to take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please link/quotes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago Tribune History
Click to expand...

where is /link the actual memo ?


> Too bad, the existence of the MacArthur memo *can’t be confirmed.*


China Matters: Was MacArthur a Japanese Agent?


----------



## Unkotare

Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.


....do you have any more substantiated proof of this supposed unconditional surrender of the Japanese??
B29 airfields Marianas finally captured Nov 1944
the tremendous burning/bombing of  Japan didn't get going till AFTER Feb 1945


> Concerned about the relative failure of the B-29 offensive to deal any crippling blows to Japan, General LeMay issued a new directive on *February 19.* General LeMay had analyzed the structure of the Japanese economy, which depended heavily on cottage industries housed in cities close to major industrial areas. By destroying these feeder industries, the flow of vital components to the central plants could be slowed, disorganizing production of weapons vital to Japan. He decided to do this by using incendiary bombs rather than purely high-explosive bombs, which would, it was hoped, cause general conflagrations in large cities like Tokyo or Nagoya, spreading to some of the priority targets.
> 
> In addition, LeMay had concluded that the effects of the jet stream, cloud cover, and high operating altitudes were to blame for the failure of the B-29 raids to do any significant damage to the Japanese war industry


and the Japanese want to surrender in Feb 1945?  but not in August 1945??
doesn't make sense





B-29 Attacks on Japan from the Marianas


----------



## Unkotare

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-03-18a.html


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.


links to the memo??


----------



## Unkotare

"4 June 1945

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:

The following information, transmitted by the OSS representative in Bern on 2 June, is a sequel to memorandum dated 12 May 1945 concerning an alleged Japanese peace feeler. The source of the information is the same German authority on the Far East who is considered anti-Nazi but pro-Japanese:

Source is in touch with Fujimura, who is understood to be one of the principal Japanese naval representatives in Europe and a former Assistant Naval Attache in Berlin. Fujimura is reported to be in direct and secret contact by cable with the Japanese Minister of Marine [Navy?] and is believed to enjoy the confidence of the Japanese Government.

Fujimura indicated to source that the Navy circles who now control [?] the Japanese Government would be willing to surrender but wish, if possible, to save some face from the present wreckage. These Navy circles, he declares, particularly stress the necessity of preserving the Emperor in order to avoid Communism and chaos. Fujimura emphasizes that Japan can not supply itself with basically essential foodstuffs and is dependent upon Korea for sugar and rice. He also insists that Japan needs to retain some of its merchant marine for necessary food imports."

Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency


----------



## Unkotare

"
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:

The following information, received from Mr. Allen Dulles in Wiesbaden, dated 12 and 13 July, concerns a new Japanese attempt  to approach Allied authorities through OSS representatives in Switzerland:

Per Jacobson,14 a Swedish national and economic adviser to the Bank for International Settlements, has been approached by Kojiro Kitamura, a director of the Bank, a representative of the Yokohama Specie Bank and former financial attache in Berlin. Kitamura indicated to Jacobson that he was anxious to establish immediate contact with American representatives and implied that the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.  Kitamura showed that he was completely familiar with OSS operations which led to the surrender of the German forces in North Italy, and declared that be wished to establish a contact similar to that made by General Karl Wolff.

According to Jacobson, Kitamura is acting with the consent of the Japanese Minister to Switzerland, Shunichi Kase, and is working with Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto, a former Japanese Military Attache in Bern. [Okamoto is probably the chief of Japanese Intelligence in Europe.] Kitamura claims that the Japanese group in Switzerland has direct communications with Tokyo and is in a position to make definite commitments.

(Responsible OSS cut-out sources who talked with Jacobson at Basel believe that the Kitamura approach was initiated locally rather than on the basis of instructions from Tokyo. Hence it is difficult to assess the seriousness of the approach.

(The OSS representative in Bern reports that Jacobson has urgently requested him to come to Basel to see him this coming week-end. The OSS representative has declined the invitation but has told Jacobson that he could see him in Bern15 on Sunday, 15 July. The OSS representative in Bern will see Jacobson only to obtain such intelligence as Jacobson is able to give, and expects to treat the entire matter with the greatest caution and reserve.)"


----------



## Unkotare

"
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:

The following information, a sequel to a memorandum dated 13 July ... has been received from Mr. Allen Dulles in Wiesbaden. ...

Jacobsson reports that between 10 and 13 July he had a series of conferences with Yoshimura, a Japanese official attached to the Bank for International Settlements, and Kojiro Kitamura, a director of the Bank, representative of the Yokohama Specie Bank, and former financial attache in Berlin. Yoshimura and Kitamura claim to be acting in consultation with the Japanese Minister to Switzerland, Shunichi Kase, and Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto, former Japanese military attache in Bern, who now is believed to be chief of Japanese Intelligence in Europe. Yoshimura and Kitamura claim further that Kase and Okamoto have direct and secret means of communicating with the Japanese Chief of Staff. Yosbimura also claims that the peace group which he represents includes General Ushijiro Umezu, Army Chief of Staff;16 Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, Minister of Navy; and Shigenori Togo, Foreign Minister.

Yoshimura and Kitamura appeared to Jacobsson no longer to question the principle of unconditional surrender, though at one point they asked whether unconditional military and naval surrender might not be sufficient. On his own initiative Jacobsson replied that such a proposal would not be acceptable to the Allies but would be considered merely a quibble.17Both Japanese officials raised the question of maintaining Japanese territorial integrity, but they apparently did not mean to include Manchukuo, Korea or Formosa.

Throughout discussions with Jacobsson, the Japanese officials stressed only two points: (a) the preservation of the Emperor, and (b) the possibility of returning to the constitution promulgated in 1889.  Kitamura prepared and presented to Jacobsson a memorandum asking him to sound out Mr. Dulles' opinion on the two points.

(Mr. Dulles feels that these two Japanese are insisting on the retention of the Emperor because they feel that he alone can take  effective action with respect to surrender and that some hope of survival must be held out to him in order to gain his support for unconditional surrender.)

Later Yoshimura and Kitamura prepared a second memorandum in which they asked how, if Tokyo were ready to proceed, conversations could be arranged with Allied representatives and what form of authorization would be required."


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> "4 June 1945
> 
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> The following information, transmitted by the OSS representative in Bern on 2 June, is a sequel to memorandum dated 12 May 1945 concerning an alleged Japanese peace feeler. The source of the information is the same German authority on the Far East who is considered anti-Nazi but pro-Japanese:
> 
> Source is in touch with Fujimura, who is understood to be one of the principal Japanese naval representatives in Europe and a former Assistant Naval Attache in Berlin. Fujimura is reported to be in direct and secret contact by cable with the Japanese Minister of Marine [Navy?] and is believed to enjoy the confidence of the Japanese Government.
> 
> Fujimura indicated to source that the Navy circles who now control [?] the Japanese Government would be willing to surrender but wish, if possible, to save some face from the present wreckage. These Navy circles, he declares, particularly stress the necessity of preserving the Emperor in order to avoid Communism and chaos. Fujimura emphasizes that Japan can not supply itself with basically essential foodstuffs and is dependent upon Korea for sugar and rice. He also insists that Japan needs to retain some of its merchant marine for necessary food imports."
> 
> Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency


I saw this
is this the MacArthur memo or not?
plain and simple--they did not surrender until AFTER and because of the A bombs


----------



## Unkotare

"
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:

* * *

Immediately following is a summary of a report by Per Jacobsson, a Swedish national and economic adviser to the Bank for International Settlements, transmitted to Mr. Dulles through an intermediary:

The Japanese Chief of Staff has acknowledged without comment a long cable which Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto sent from Switzerland on 19 July. Okamoto's telegram reportedly stated that Japan has lost the war and must promptly accept the consequences. ...

The Japanese Foreign Minister has also acknowledged a detailed report from Shunichi Kase, Japanese Minister in Bern. Kase's report, sent on or about 21 July, included (a) Mr. Grew's statement of 10 July, (b) a memorandum from Kojiro Kitamura, director of the Bank for International Settlements and former financial attache in Berlin, who has been active in the current Japanese approaches to Mr. Dulles, and (c) a statement of Kase's own position. The Foreign Minister's reply to Kase's message contained the following query: "Is that all you have to say?"  Kase interprets this query as an invitation to continue peace approaches.

The recent tripartite ultimatum to Japan21 has been the chief topic of discussion among Japanese groups in Switzerland. Their first reaction, on the basis of excerpts published in the Swiss press, was that (a) the proclamation showed a lack of understanding of Japanese character, (b) the document should have not been framed on a basis of "take it or leave it," (c) the inclusion of China as a signatory represented an "added element of humiliation," and (d) the document should have been sent through private channels rather than publicly.  After receiving the full English text through Jacobsson, and after further study, the attitude of the group changed, and the proclamation was accepted as an "astute document which left a possible way out." The group was particularly impressed by "unconditional surrender" in connection with the "Japanese armed forces" and to the reference to revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. As a result, a telegram stressing these points was to be sent to Tokyo on 30 July.

The following is a summary of a memorandum to Mr. Dulles from the Japanese group in contact with Per Jacobsson.  Jacobsson transmitted this memo along with his own report summarized above.

The Japanese group emphasizes that it is hoping for some decision within a week unless "resistance is too great." The Allies should not take "too seriously" what was said over the Tokyo radio about the tripartite proclamation.22 This radio comment was merely "propaganda to maintain morale in Japan." The real reply will be given through some "official channel," possibly by Minister Kase or General Okamoto, if an official Government reply is not made over the Tokyo radio.

Mr. Dulles also has been informed, by a German authority on the Far East living in Switzerland who is one of his regular contacts, that Yosikazu23 Fujimura, a Japanese Navy representative in Bern, has sent seven long cables to his superiors in Tokyo during the past two months urging immediate cessation of hostilities. His superiors cabled in reply that the Japanese Navy no longer is able to "act alone," and instructed Fujimura not to take the initiative without orders from Tokyo, but to maintain his "most valuable contacts.""


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> "4 June 1945
> 
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> The following information, transmitted by the OSS representative in Bern on 2 June, is a sequel to memorandum dated 12 May 1945 concerning an alleged Japanese peace feeler. The source of the information is the same German authority on the Far East who is considered anti-Nazi but pro-Japanese:
> 
> Source is in touch with Fujimura, who is understood to be one of the principal Japanese naval representatives in Europe and a former Assistant Naval Attache in Berlin. Fujimura is reported to be in direct and secret contact by cable with the Japanese Minister of Marine [Navy?] and is believed to enjoy the confidence of the Japanese Government.
> 
> Fujimura indicated to source that the Navy circles who now control [?] the Japanese Government would be willing to surrender but wish, if possible, to save some face from the present wreckage. These Navy circles, he declares, particularly stress the necessity of preserving the Emperor in order to avoid Communism and chaos. Fujimura emphasizes that Japan can not supply itself with basically essential foodstuffs and is dependent upon Korea for sugar and rice. He also insists that Japan needs to retain some of its merchant marine for necessary food imports."
> 
> Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency


any way these are worthless--the votes of the hierarchy are what counted


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> "
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> * * *
> 
> Immediately following is a summary of a report by Per Jacobsson, a Swedish national and economic adviser to the Bank for International Settlements, transmitted to Mr. Dulles through an intermediary:
> 
> The Japanese Chief of Staff has acknowledged without comment a long cable which Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto sent from Switzerland on 19 July. Okamoto's telegram reportedly stated that Japan has lost the war and must promptly accept the consequences. ...
> 
> The Japanese Foreign Minister has also acknowledged a detailed report from Shunichi Kase, Japanese Minister in Bern. Kase's report, sent on or about 21 July, included (a) Mr. Grew's statement of 10 July, (b) a memorandum from Kojiro Kitamura, director of the Bank for International Settlements and former financial attache in Berlin, who has been active in the current Japanese approaches to Mr. Dulles, and (c) a statement of Kase's own position. The Foreign Minister's reply to Kase's message contained the following query: "Is that all you have to say?"  Kase interprets this query as an invitation to continue peace approaches.
> 
> The recent tripartite ultimatum to Japan21 has been the chief topic of discussion among Japanese groups in Switzerland. Their first reaction, on the basis of excerpts published in the Swiss press, was that (a) the proclamation showed a lack of understanding of Japanese character, (b) the document should have not been framed on a basis of "take it or leave it," (c) the inclusion of China as a signatory represented an "added element of humiliation," and (d) the document should have been sent through private channels rather than publicly.  After receiving the full English text through Jacobsson, and after further study, the attitude of the group changed, and the proclamation was accepted as an "astute document which left a possible way out." The group was particularly impressed by "unconditional surrender" in connection with the "Japanese armed forces" and to the reference to revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. As a result, a telegram stressing these points was to be sent to Tokyo on 30 July.
> 
> The following is a summary of a memorandum to Mr. Dulles from the Japanese group in contact with Per Jacobsson.  Jacobsson transmitted this memo along with his own report summarized above.
> 
> The Japanese group emphasizes that it is hoping for some decision within a week unless "resistance is too great." The Allies should not take "too seriously" what was said over the Tokyo radio about the tripartite proclamation.22 This radio comment was merely "propaganda to maintain morale in Japan." The real reply will be given through some "official channel," possibly by Minister Kase or General Okamoto, if an official Government reply is not made over the Tokyo radio.
> 
> Mr. Dulles also has been informed, by a German authority on the Far East living in Switzerland who is one of his regular contacts, that Yosikazu23 Fujimura, a Japanese Navy representative in Bern, has sent seven long cables to his superiors in Tokyo during the past two months urging immediate cessation of hostilities. His superiors cabled in reply that the Japanese Navy no longer is able to "act alone," and instructed Fujimura not to take the initiative without orders from Tokyo, but to maintain his "most valuable contacts.""


in other words and to be more concise = no surrender


----------



## harmonica

--the Emperor, who cast the deciding vote, mentions the A bombs as *the reason *for surrendering
the vote was tied


> ''The enemy has begun to employ a *new and most cruel bomb, *the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives,'' the emperor said


A Leader Who Took Japan to War, to Surrender, and Finally to Peace

this is the walk off home run


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were not accepting unconditional surrender --plain and simple--can't be denied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conditions we DID accept when all was said and done were exactly the same as those offered in the peace overtures that the scumbag fdr ignored long before many, many American servicemen died in subsequent battles that might not have had to take place.
Click to expand...

No they WERE not The Japanese Emperor offered Unconditional surrender dumb ass.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.


I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

LA RAM FAN said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah truman was a mass murderer who should have been tried like the nuremberg trials.the REAL history we were never taught in our corrupt school system is that japen offered to surrender and our government ignored them.
Click to expand...



i see that little truth hurts the feelings of the brainwashed sheep harmonica and markie.this is them after hearing the truth on this.


----------



## harmonica

LA RAM FAN said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah truman was a mass murderer who should have been tried like the nuremberg trials.the REAL history we were never taught in our corrupt school system is that japen offered to surrender and our government ignored them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i see that little truth hurts the feelings of the brainwashed sheep harmonica and markie.this is them after hearing the truth on this.
Click to expand...

without the A bombs- no surrender 


> ''The enemy has begun to employ a *new and most cruel bomb,* the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives,''


all you have to back up your crap is crap--no links/etc--just insults 
hahahahahhaah
A Leader Who Took Japan to War, to Surrender, and Finally to Peace


----------



## harmonica

LA RAM FAN said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah truman was a mass murderer who should have been tried like the nuremberg trials.the REAL history we were never taught in our corrupt school system is that japen offered to surrender and our government ignored them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i see that little truth hurts the feelings of the brainwashed sheep harmonica and markie.this is them after hearing the truth on this.
Click to expand...

that's why they surrendered pre- Abomb, correct?? 
Japan offered to surrender?? !!!!!??hahhahahaha
please link


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
Click to expand...




You’ve repeated your one and only talking point enough old man. Go sit in the corner and eat your jello.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve repeated your one and only talking point enough old man. Go sit in the corner and eat your jello.
Click to expand...

the Japanese were DYING to surrender 
they really wanted to surrender so bad that they finally did it on 15 August


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were not accepting unconditional surrender --plain and simple--can't be denied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conditions we DID accept when all was said and done were exactly the same as those offered in the peace overtures that the scumbag fdr ignored long before many, many American servicemen died in subsequent battles that might not have had to take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they WERE not ...
Click to expand...



Yes they were.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were not accepting unconditional surrender --plain and simple--can't be denied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conditions we DID accept when all was said and done were exactly the same as those offered in the peace overtures that the scumbag fdr ignored long before many, many American servicemen died in subsequent battles that might not have had to take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they WERE not ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.
Click to expand...

no they were not


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve repeated your one and only talking point enough old man. Go sit in the corner and eat your jello.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Japanese were DYING to surrender
> they really wanted to surrender so bad that they finally did it on 15 August
Click to expand...




The scumbag fdr was so interested in peace that he ignored all possibilities and was happy to have more American servicemen die until the opportunity to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians at one shot was ready.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve repeated your one and only talking point enough old man. Go sit in the corner and eat your jello.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Japanese were DYING to surrender
> they really wanted to surrender so bad that they finally did it on 15 August
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag fdr was so interested in peace that he ignored all possibilities and was happy to have more American servicemen die until the opportunity to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians at one shot was ready.
Click to expand...

FDR wanted more Americans to die
???!!!!!!!
''HAPPY''' to have them die
you have lost your mind


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> The following information, a sequel to a memorandum dated 13 July ... has been received from Mr. Allen Dulles in Wiesbaden. ...
> 
> Jacobsson reports that between 10 and 13 July he had a series of conferences with Yoshimura, a Japanese official attached to the Bank for International Settlements, and Kojiro Kitamura, a director of the Bank, representative of the Yokohama Specie Bank, and former financial attache in Berlin. Yoshimura and Kitamura claim to be acting in consultation with the Japanese Minister to Switzerland, Shunichi Kase, and Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto, former Japanese military attache in Bern, who now is believed to be chief of Japanese Intelligence in Europe. Yoshimura and Kitamura claim further that Kase and Okamoto have direct and secret means of communicating with the Japanese Chief of Staff. Yosbimura also claims that the peace group which he represents includes General Ushijiro Umezu, Army Chief of Staff;16 Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, Minister of Navy; and Shigenori Togo, Foreign Minister.
> 
> Yoshimura and Kitamura appeared to Jacobsson no longer to question the principle of unconditional surrender, though at one point they asked whether unconditional military and naval surrender might not be sufficient. On his own initiative Jacobsson replied that such a proposal would not be acceptable to the Allies but would be considered merely a quibble.17Both Japanese officials raised the question of maintaining Japanese territorial integrity, but they apparently did not mean to include Manchukuo, Korea or Formosa.
> 
> Throughout discussions with Jacobsson, the Japanese officials stressed only two points: (a) the preservation of the Emperor, and (b) the possibility of returning to the constitution promulgated in 1889.  Kitamura prepared and presented to Jacobsson a memorandum asking him to sound out Mr. Dulles' opinion on the two points.
> 
> (Mr. Dulles feels that these two Japanese are insisting on the retention of the Emperor because they feel that he alone can take  effective action with respect to surrender and that some hope of survival must be held out to him in order to gain his support for unconditional surrender.)
> 
> Later Yoshimura and Kitamura prepared a second memorandum in which they asked how, if Tokyo were ready to proceed, conversations could be arranged with Allied representatives and what form of authorization would be required."


.


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve repeated your one and only talking point enough old man. Go sit in the corner and eat your jello.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Japanese were DYING to surrender
> they really wanted to surrender so bad that they finally did it on 15 August
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag fdr was so interested in peace that he ignored all possibilities and was happy to have more American servicemen die until the opportunity to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians at one shot was ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR wanted more Americans to die
> ???!!!!!!!
> ''HAPPY''' to have them die
> you have lost your mind
Click to expand...




Life, liberty, equality and the US Constitution meant nothing to that scumbag. He was a model democrat.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly true
Click to expand...


Prove it.  Show your reliable source and link.  Their CONDITIONS until after the bomb on Nagasaki were that the Emperor (God) remained in power, controlled the rebuilding and that we not occupy Japan.

Try again!


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve repeated your one and only talking point enough old man. Go sit in the corner and eat your jello.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Japanese were DYING to surrender
> they really wanted to surrender so bad that they finally did it on 15 August
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag fdr was so interested in peace that he ignored all possibilities and was happy to have more American servicemen die until the opportunity to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians at one shot was ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR wanted more Americans to die
> ???!!!!!!!
> ''HAPPY''' to have them die
> you have lost your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life, liberty, equality and the US Constitution meant nothing to that scumbag. He was a model democrat.
Click to expand...

sounds so much like hitler/Pol Pot/Idi Amin/etc


----------



## harmonica

....plain and simple--the A bombs shocked the Emperor to cast the deciding vote for surrender--per HIS quote
...if the A bombs were not dropped, there is no proof/guarantee/etc that they would've surrendered '''soon enough'''


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> * * *
> 
> Immediately following is a summary of a report by Per Jacobsson, a Swedish national and economic adviser to the Bank for International Settlements, transmitted to Mr. Dulles through an intermediary:
> 
> The Japanese Chief of Staff has acknowledged without comment a long cable which Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto sent from Switzerland on 19 July. Okamoto's telegram reportedly stated that Japan has lost the war and must promptly accept the consequences. ...
> 
> The Japanese Foreign Minister has also acknowledged a detailed report from Shunichi Kase, Japanese Minister in Bern. Kase's report, sent on or about 21 July, included (a) Mr. Grew's statement of 10 July, (b) a memorandum from Kojiro Kitamura, director of the Bank for International Settlements and former financial attache in Berlin, who has been active in the current Japanese approaches to Mr. Dulles, and (c) a statement of Kase's own position. The Foreign Minister's reply to Kase's message contained the following query: "Is that all you have to say?"  Kase interprets this query as an invitation to continue peace approaches.
> 
> The recent tripartite ultimatum to Japan21 has been the chief topic of discussion among Japanese groups in Switzerland. Their first reaction, on the basis of excerpts published in the Swiss press, was that (a) the proclamation showed a lack of understanding of Japanese character, (b) the document should have not been framed on a basis of "take it or leave it," (c) the inclusion of China as a signatory represented an "added element of humiliation," and (d) the document should have been sent through private channels rather than publicly.  After receiving the full English text through Jacobsson, and after further study, the attitude of the group changed, and the proclamation was accepted as an "astute document which left a possible way out." The group was particularly impressed by "unconditional surrender" in connection with the "Japanese armed forces" and to the reference to revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. As a result, a telegram stressing these points was to be sent to Tokyo on 30 July.
> 
> The following is a summary of a memorandum to Mr. Dulles from the Japanese group in contact with Per Jacobsson.  Jacobsson transmitted this memo along with his own report summarized above.
> 
> The Japanese group emphasizes that it is hoping for some decision within a week unless "resistance is too great." The Allies should not take "too seriously" what was said over the Tokyo radio about the tripartite proclamation.22 This radio comment was merely "propaganda to maintain morale in Japan." The real reply will be given through some "official channel," possibly by Minister Kase or General Okamoto, if an official Government reply is not made over the Tokyo radio.
> 
> Mr. Dulles also has been informed, by a German authority on the Far East living in Switzerland who is one of his regular contacts, that Yosikazu23 Fujimura, a Japanese Navy representative in Bern, has sent seven long cables to his superiors in Tokyo during the past two months urging immediate cessation of hostilities. His superiors cabled in reply that the Japanese Navy no longer is able to "act alone," and instructed Fujimura not to take the initiative without orders from Tokyo, but to maintain his "most valuable contacts.""


.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve repeated your one and only talking point enough old man. Go sit in the corner and eat your jello.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Japanese were DYING to surrender
> they really wanted to surrender so bad that they finally did it on 15 August
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag fdr was so interested in peace that he ignored all possibilities and was happy to have more American servicemen die until the opportunity to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians at one shot was ready.
Click to expand...



.


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> Too many fallacies in your post, for me to get to them all.



So, that's your cowardly way of saying you've got nothing!  Thank you!


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-03-18a.html


Who knew the Vatican was a participant in WW-II.


----------



## Markle

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
Click to expand...


Then you have a scoop on World history!


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> The scumbag fdr was so interested in peace that he ignored all possibilities and was happy to have more American servicemen die until the opportunity to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians at one shot was ready.



FDR was dead, April 12, 1945.

A-bomb tested July 16, 1945

Until it exploded, we had no clue if it would even work.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’ve repeated your one and only talking point enough old man. Go sit in the corner and eat your jello.
Click to expand...

And you can not dispute ACTUAL Government documents with a News paper article.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Markle said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have a scoop on World history!
Click to expand...

Actually world history got it right Japan never offered to surrender all they EVER offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.


----------



## HenryBHough

harmonica said:


> FDR wanted more Americans to die
> ???!!!!!!!
> ''HAPPY''' to have them die
> you have lost your mind



Look at it from FDR's perspective:

1.   Dead Americans don't get counted for unemployment  stats.
2.  Dead Americans vote Democrat.


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "4 June 1945
> 
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> The following information, transmitted by the OSS representative in Bern on 2 June, is a sequel to memorandum dated 12 May 1945 concerning an alleged Japanese peace feeler. The source of the information is the same German authority on the Far East who is considered anti-Nazi but pro-Japanese:
> 
> Source is in touch with Fujimura, who is understood to be one of the principal Japanese naval representatives in Europe and a former Assistant Naval Attache in Berlin. Fujimura is reported to be in direct and secret contact by cable with the Japanese Minister of Marine [Navy?] and is believed to enjoy the confidence of the Japanese Government.
> 
> Fujimura indicated to source that the Navy circles who now control [?] the Japanese Government would be willing to surrender but wish, if possible, to save some face from the present wreckage. These Navy circles, he declares, particularly stress the necessity of preserving the Emperor in order to avoid Communism and chaos. Fujimura emphasizes that Japan can not supply itself with basically essential foodstuffs and is dependent upon Korea for sugar and rice. He also insists that Japan needs to retain some of its merchant marine for necessary food imports."
> 
> Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> 
> 
> any way these are worthless--the votes of the hierarchy are what counted
Click to expand...



"yeahbut, yeahbut, yeahbut"   as expected


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now MacArthur was secretly a Japanese agent?   You wanna stick with that one?  Might be time to take your condition to the conspiracy forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I can link to ACTUAL Government Documents you have a link to an unsubstantiated Newspaper story. Gee I wonder which is accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have a scoop on World history!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually world history got it right Japan never offered to surrender all they EVER offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
Click to expand...



wrong


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "4 June 1945
> 
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> The following information, transmitted by the OSS representative in Bern on 2 June, is a sequel to memorandum dated 12 May 1945 concerning an alleged Japanese peace feeler. The source of the information is the same German authority on the Far East who is considered anti-Nazi but pro-Japanese:
> 
> Source is in touch with Fujimura, who is understood to be one of the principal Japanese naval representatives in Europe and a former Assistant Naval Attache in Berlin. Fujimura is reported to be in direct and secret contact by cable with the Japanese Minister of Marine [Navy?] and is believed to enjoy the confidence of the Japanese Government.
> 
> Fujimura indicated to source that the Navy circles who now control [?] the Japanese Government would be willing to surrender but wish, if possible, to save some face from the present wreckage. These Navy circles, he declares, particularly stress the necessity of preserving the Emperor in order to avoid Communism and chaos. Fujimura emphasizes that Japan can not supply itself with basically essential foodstuffs and is dependent upon Korea for sugar and rice. He also insists that Japan needs to retain some of its merchant marine for necessary food imports."
> 
> Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> 
> 
> any way these are worthless--the votes of the hierarchy are what counted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "yeahbut, yeahbut, yeahbut"   as expected
Click to expand...

that's why they surrendered in Feb of 1945 .......?


----------



## Unkotare

Five myths about the atomic bomb


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "4 June 1945
> 
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> The following information, transmitted by the OSS representative in Bern on 2 June, is a sequel to memorandum dated 12 May 1945 concerning an alleged Japanese peace feeler. The source of the information is the same German authority on the Far East who is considered anti-Nazi but pro-Japanese:
> 
> Source is in touch with Fujimura, who is understood to be one of the principal Japanese naval representatives in Europe and a former Assistant Naval Attache in Berlin. Fujimura is reported to be in direct and secret contact by cable with the Japanese Minister of Marine [Navy?] and is believed to enjoy the confidence of the Japanese Government.
> 
> Fujimura indicated to source that the Navy circles who now control [?] the Japanese Government would be willing to surrender but wish, if possible, to save some face from the present wreckage. These Navy circles, he declares, particularly stress the necessity of preserving the Emperor in order to avoid Communism and chaos. Fujimura emphasizes that Japan can not supply itself with basically essential foodstuffs and is dependent upon Korea for sugar and rice. He also insists that Japan needs to retain some of its merchant marine for necessary food imports."
> 
> Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> 
> 
> any way these are worthless--the votes of the hierarchy are what counted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "yeahbut, yeahbut, yeahbut"   as expected
Click to expand...

that's your most intelligent post on the whole thread


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Five myths about the atomic bomb


That does not say what you say at all.


----------



## Unkotare

Five myths about the atomic bomb


----------



## Unkotare

Five myths about the atomic bomb


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Five myths about the atomic bomb


Again does not say what you claim. No claim Japan tried to surrender unconditional in fact it specifically says that an option was to offer negotiations on terms. Further it belays its own claim the bomb did not end the war by stating that the second bomb convinced the Emperor to surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

A piece by Justin Libby in the Summer 1993 issue of World Affairs delineates the efforts at negotiating a surrender throughout 1945.


----------



## Unkotare

The terms being sought by those agents of the Japanese government attempting to negotiate surrender were the same terms that we eventually accepted after fdr's bombs fulfilled his final wish to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> The terms being sought by those agents of the Japanese government attempting to negotiate surrender were the same terms that we eventually accepted after fdr's bombs fulfilled his final wish to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.


No they were NOT Japan insisted on a ceasefire a return to 1941 start lines No occupation in fact no foreign troops in Japan at ALL, the Emperor in sole control, and no consequences for the war at all. They were STILL demanding that after the 1st Bomb.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The terms being sought by those agents of the Japanese government attempting to negotiate surrender were the same terms that we eventually accepted after fdr's bombs fulfilled his final wish to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> No they were NOT ....
Click to expand...



Keep repeating yourself, rainman.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The terms being sought by those agents of the Japanese government attempting to negotiate surrender were the same terms that we eventually accepted after fdr's bombs fulfilled his final wish to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> No they were NOT ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep repeating yourself, rainman.
Click to expand...

I will since I have ACTUAL evidence to support my position you have nothing IN FACT NONE of your supposed sources even say what the Japanese offered and NONE are official Government records.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The terms being sought by those agents of the Japanese government attempting to negotiate surrender were the same terms that we eventually accepted after fdr's bombs fulfilled his final wish to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> No they were NOT ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep repeating yourself, rainman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will since I have ACTUAL evidence to support my position you have nothing IN FACT NONE of your supposed sources even say what the Japanese offered and NONE are official Government records.
Click to expand...




Are you a very good driver?


----------



## whitehall

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they did not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they did. You are desperate to hide from this fact because you are desperate to absolve yourself of any moral questions in the consideration of the events in question. In short, you do not have the courage to examine the situation directly and evaluate it objectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice you did not quote my whole reply you are a fraud a liar and a fake. Japan NEVER offered to surrender and you know it.
Click to expand...

What if you found out that Japan was desperately seeking to negotiate terms of surrender? Would it change your mind about the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese civilians? My guess is ...no.


----------



## Unkotare

whitehall said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender ...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they did not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they did. You are desperate to hide from this fact because you are desperate to absolve yourself of any moral questions in the consideration of the events in question. In short, you do not have the courage to examine the situation directly and evaluate it objectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice you did not quote my whole reply you are a fraud a liar and a fake. Japan NEVER offered to surrender and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if you found out that Japan was desperately seeking to negotiate terms of surrender? Would it change your mind about the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese civilians? My guess is ...no.
Click to expand...



He quit thinking a long time ago. Probably used a patch or something to gradually wean himself off the stuff.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

whitehall said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan NEVER offered to surrender ...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. No fewer than five times. Offering conditions that turned out to be the exact ones that we excepted from them when all was said and done anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they did not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they did. You are desperate to hide from this fact because you are desperate to absolve yourself of any moral questions in the consideration of the events in question. In short, you do not have the courage to examine the situation directly and evaluate it objectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice you did not quote my whole reply you are a fraud a liar and a fake. Japan NEVER offered to surrender and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if you found out that Japan was desperately seeking to negotiate terms of surrender? Would it change your mind about the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese civilians? My guess is ...no.
Click to expand...

I have the Historical facts Japan offered a Ceasefire with return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China no occupation and no consequences for starting the war. And No I would IGNORE those terms too.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I keep asking for a link to these supposed peace offerings and never get one. I can link to what the Japanese Government actually said you two can not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Still waiting for a link to these supposed peace offerings by Japan.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Still waiting for a link to these supposed peace offerings by Japan.



No, you're not.


----------



## gipper

After a couple bourbons, I thought I should dedicate this great tune to all the bloodthirsty warmongers who posted in this thread. You know who you are...can you enjoy great music that outs you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a link to these supposed peace offerings by Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're not.
Click to expand...

I have an ACTUAL link to what the Japanese offered, you have hearsay and innuendo . Isn't it telling you can't produce a single link to ANY of the claimed peace offers.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


The estimates for casualties for the invasion of Japan where 500,000 on the US side and 5 to 10 million dead Japanese civilians. For every person who thinks Japan was going to surrender there are many more who believe they would not.


----------



## Unkotare

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> The estimates for casualties for the invasion of Japan where 500,000 on the US side and 5 to 10 million dead Japanese civilians. For every person who thinks Japan was going to surrender there are many more who believe they would not.
Click to expand...




Speculation


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> The estimates for casualties for the invasion of Japan where 500,000 on the US side and 5 to 10 million dead Japanese civilians. For every person who thinks Japan was going to surrender there are many more who believe they would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation
Click to expand...

The speculation is yours you can NOT even link to a single supposed peace offer YOU claim the Japanese made.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Speculation



That is the only thing you've ever posted.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing you've ever posted.
Click to expand...


?????


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing you've ever posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?????
Click to expand...


Speculation


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing you've ever posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?????
Click to expand...

I repeat AGAIN, link to an official source that is at least one of the supposed peace offers Japan made before the Atomic bombs were dropped. You claim there were dozens of them LINK to one. And no a book is not proof nor is a newspaper article since NEITHER have actual Government sources from either Japan or the US or even the Soviets.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Five myths about the atomic bomb


.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> A piece by Justin Libby in the Summer 1993 issue of World Affairs delineates the efforts at negotiating a surrender throughout 1945.


.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> The following information, a sequel to a memorandum dated 13 July ... has been received from Mr. Allen Dulles in Wiesbaden. ...
> 
> Jacobsson reports that between 10 and 13 July he had a series of conferences with Yoshimura, a Japanese official attached to the Bank for International Settlements, and Kojiro Kitamura, a director of the Bank, representative of the Yokohama Specie Bank, and former financial attache in Berlin. Yoshimura and Kitamura claim to be acting in consultation with the Japanese Minister to Switzerland, Shunichi Kase, and Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto, former Japanese military attache in Bern, who now is believed to be chief of Japanese Intelligence in Europe. Yoshimura and Kitamura claim further that Kase and Okamoto have direct and secret means of communicating with the Japanese Chief of Staff. Yosbimura also claims that the peace group which he represents includes General Ushijiro Umezu, Army Chief of Staff;16 Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, Minister of Navy; and Shigenori Togo, Foreign Minister.
> 
> Yoshimura and Kitamura appeared to Jacobsson no longer to question the principle of unconditional surrender, though at one point they asked whether unconditional military and naval surrender might not be sufficient. On his own initiative Jacobsson replied that such a proposal would not be acceptable to the Allies but would be considered merely a quibble.17Both Japanese officials raised the question of maintaining Japanese territorial integrity, but they apparently did not mean to include Manchukuo, Korea or Formosa.
> 
> Throughout discussions with Jacobsson, the Japanese officials stressed only two points: (a) the preservation of the Emperor, and (b) the possibility of returning to the constitution promulgated in 1889.  Kitamura prepared and presented to Jacobsson a memorandum asking him to sound out Mr. Dulles' opinion on the two points.
> 
> (Mr. Dulles feels that these two Japanese are insisting on the retention of the Emperor because they feel that he alone can take  effective action with respect to surrender and that some hope of survival must be held out to him in order to gain his support for unconditional surrender.)
> 
> Later Yoshimura and Kitamura prepared a second memorandum in which they asked how, if Tokyo were ready to proceed, conversations could be arranged with Allied representatives and what form of authorization would be required."
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Not one of those link to an actual source. I repeat link to an actual legit source that can be verified and proven to exist.


----------



## mikegriffith1

I recently finished reading three books that question the need for and the morality of Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Steven Walker's _Shockwave: Countdown to Hiroshima_, Paul Ham's _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath_, and Gar Alperovitz's _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.

One reason this is such a tough issue is that the Japanese of World War II, especially their leaders, are hardly sympathetic characters. One is strongly tempted to say, "Even if there were other ways to end the war without an invasion, the Japanese deserved what they got." Another factor is that we *did* give Japan's leaders assurances, in the Potsdam Declaration, that "unconditional surrender" did not mean endless occupation, nor the destruction of Japan as a nation, and that we would ensure that the Japanese people would be able to elect their own leaders.

I think one fact that has been established rather firmly is that by June 1945 the vast majority of our civilian and military leaders realized there was no need to invade Japan because Japan was already clearly defeated and devastated. So there were other options besides dropping the A-bomb and invading.

Another fact that seems pretty well documented is that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, Truman's statements and posturing played into the hands of Japan's hardline military leaders and made it much harder for Japan's moderate civilian leaders to make the case for surrender.

I was surprised to read of the considerable, indeed overwhelming, evidence that it was the Soviet invasion, not the use of the A-bomb, that finally enabled the moderates to overcome the hardliners and to bring about Japan's surrender. I was not aware that the vast majority of historians who have studied the subject have recognized this fact.

Was Truman a war criminal? Sadly, I think the answer to that question is yes. He seemingly did all he could to ensure that Japan did *not* surrender before the atomic bomb was ready for use, and he ignored the repeated advice that if he would just notify the Japanese, privately or publicly, that "unconditional surrender" did not mean deposing the emperor, the Japanese likely would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. Even more disturbing, we now know that Truman knew from multiple sources, including decrypted Japanese diplomatic cables, that at least two weeks before we nuked Hiroshima, Japan's emperor was ready to end the war and that the only real sticking point was whether "unconditional surrender" included harming the emperor.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> I recently finished reading three books that question the need for and the morality of Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Steven Walker's _Shockwave: Countdown to Hiroshima_, Paul Ham's _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath_, and Gar Alperovitz's _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.
> 
> One reason this is such a tough issue is that the Japanese of World War II, especially their leaders, are hardly sympathetic characters. One is strongly tempted to say, "Even if there were other ways to end the war without an invasion, the Japanese deserved what they got." Another factor is that we *did* give Japan's leaders assurances, in the Potsdam Declaration, that "unconditional surrender" did not mean endless occupation, nor the destruction of Japan as a nation, and that we would ensure that the Japanese people would be able to elect their own leaders.
> 
> I think one fact that has been established rather firmly is that by June 1945 the vast majority of our civilian and military leaders realized there was no need to invade Japan because Japan was already clearly defeated and devastated. So there were other options besides dropping the A-bomb and invading.
> 
> Another fact that seems pretty well documented is that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, Truman's statements and posturing played into the hands of Japan's hardline military leaders and made it much harder for Japan's moderate civilian leaders to make the case for surrender.
> 
> I was surprised to read of the considerable, indeed overwhelming, evidence that it was the Soviet invasion, not the use of the A-bomb, that finally enabled the moderates to overcome the hardliners and to bring about Japan's surrender. I was not aware that the vast majority of historians who have studied the subject have recognized this fact.
> 
> Was Truman a war criminal? Sadly, I think the answer to that question is yes. He seemingly did all he could to ensure that Japan did *not* surrender before the atomic bomb was ready for use, and he ignored the repeated advice that if he would just notify the Japanese, privately or publicly, that "unconditional surrender" did not mean deposing the emperor, the Japanese likely would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. Even more disturbing, we now know that Truman knew from multiple sources, including decrypted Japanese diplomatic cables, that at least two weeks before we nuked Hiroshima, Japan's emperor was ready to end the war and that the only real sticking point was whether "unconditional surrender" included harming the emperor.


Revisionist clap trap, even after 2 BOMBS the Government REFUSED to surrender and attempted a Coup when the Emperor did surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently finished reading three books that question the need for and the morality of Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Steven Walker's _Shockwave: Countdown to Hiroshima_, Paul Ham's _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath_, and Gar Alperovitz's _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.
> 
> One reason this is such a tough issue is that the Japanese of World War II, especially their leaders, are hardly sympathetic characters. One is strongly tempted to say, "Even if there were other ways to end the war without an invasion, the Japanese deserved what they got." Another factor is that we *did* give Japan's leaders assurances, in the Potsdam Declaration, that "unconditional surrender" did not mean endless occupation, nor the destruction of Japan as a nation, and that we would ensure that the Japanese people would be able to elect their own leaders.
> 
> I think one fact that has been established rather firmly is that by June 1945 the vast majority of our civilian and military leaders realized there was no need to invade Japan because Japan was already clearly defeated and devastated. So there were other options besides dropping the A-bomb and invading.
> 
> Another fact that seems pretty well documented is that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, Truman's statements and posturing played into the hands of Japan's hardline military leaders and made it much harder for Japan's moderate civilian leaders to make the case for surrender.
> 
> I was surprised to read of the considerable, indeed overwhelming, evidence that it was the Soviet invasion, not the use of the A-bomb, that finally enabled the moderates to overcome the hardliners and to bring about Japan's surrender. I was not aware that the vast majority of historians who have studied the subject have recognized this fact.
> 
> Was Truman a war criminal? Sadly, I think the answer to that question is yes. He seemingly did all he could to ensure that Japan did *not* surrender before the atomic bomb was ready for use, and he ignored the repeated advice that if he would just notify the Japanese, privately or publicly, that "unconditional surrender" did not mean deposing the emperor, the Japanese likely would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. Even more disturbing, we now know that Truman knew from multiple sources, including decrypted Japanese diplomatic cables, that at least two weeks before we nuked Hiroshima, Japan's emperor was ready to end the war and that the only real sticking point was whether "unconditional surrender" included harming the emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist clap trap, even after 2 BOMBS the Government REFUSED to surrender and attempted a Coup when the Emperor did surrender.
Click to expand...



You cling to your security blanket like a child.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Facts are not your friend it is HISTORICAL FACT that the Japanese Government refused to surrender even after 2 atomic bombs and that the Emperor had to intervene and order the surrender and THEN it is HISTORICAL FACT that the Army which ran the Government tried a Coup to stop the Emperor.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> The following information, a sequel to a memorandum dated 13 July ... has been received from Mr. Allen Dulles in Wiesbaden. ...
> 
> Jacobsson reports that between 10 and 13 July he had a series of conferences with Yoshimura, a Japanese official attached to the Bank for International Settlements, and Kojiro Kitamura, a director of the Bank, representative of the Yokohama Specie Bank, and former financial attache in Berlin. Yoshimura and Kitamura claim to be acting in consultation with the Japanese Minister to Switzerland, Shunichi Kase, and Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto, former Japanese military attache in Bern, who now is believed to be chief of Japanese Intelligence in Europe. Yoshimura and Kitamura claim further that Kase and Okamoto have direct and secret means of communicating with the Japanese Chief of Staff. Yosbimura also claims that the peace group which he represents includes General Ushijiro Umezu, Army Chief of Staff;16 Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, Minister of Navy; and Shigenori Togo, Foreign Minister.
> 
> Yoshimura and Kitamura appeared to Jacobsson no longer to question the principle of unconditional surrender, though at one point they asked whether unconditional military and naval surrender might not be sufficient. On his own initiative Jacobsson replied that such a proposal would not be acceptable to the Allies but would be considered merely a quibble.17Both Japanese officials raised the question of maintaining Japanese territorial integrity, but they apparently did not mean to include Manchukuo, Korea or Formosa.
> 
> Throughout discussions with Jacobsson, the Japanese officials stressed only two points: (a) the preservation of the Emperor, and (b) the possibility of returning to the constitution promulgated in 1889.  Kitamura prepared and presented to Jacobsson a memorandum asking him to sound out Mr. Dulles' opinion on the two points.
> 
> (Mr. Dulles feels that these two Japanese are insisting on the retention of the Emperor because they feel that he alone can take  effective action with respect to surrender and that some hope of survival must be held out to him in order to gain his support for unconditional surrender.)
> 
> Later Yoshimura and Kitamura prepared a second memorandum in which they asked how, if Tokyo were ready to proceed, conversations could be arranged with Allied representatives and what form of authorization would be required."
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LOL again for the slow stupid and misinformed , the Government of Japan during the end days of World War II was run by the Army. There was a MINORITY of members that were predisposed to peace. They tried several times to bring it up and were shot down EVERY time by the Army. No matter how many times you trot out some peace proposal from the peace faction it does not negate change nor mitigate the fact that the ARMY controlled the Government and HAD NO INTENTION of surrendering. The Government of Japan REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic BOMBS it REFUSED, even after the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army attempted a COUP to stop the surrender. At NO TIME did the Army , which ran the Government, EVER propose peace. On several occasions they did offer a cease fire return to 41 start lines except in China and no occupation.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> * * *
> 
> Immediately following is a summary of a report by Per Jacobsson, a Swedish national and economic adviser to the Bank for International Settlements, transmitted to Mr. Dulles through an intermediary:
> 
> The Japanese Chief of Staff has acknowledged without comment a long cable which Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto sent from Switzerland on 19 July. Okamoto's telegram reportedly stated that Japan has lost the war and must promptly accept the consequences. ...
> 
> The Japanese Foreign Minister has also acknowledged a detailed report from Shunichi Kase, Japanese Minister in Bern. Kase's report, sent on or about 21 July, included (a) Mr. Grew's statement of 10 July, (b) a memorandum from Kojiro Kitamura, director of the Bank for International Settlements and former financial attache in Berlin, who has been active in the current Japanese approaches to Mr. Dulles, and (c) a statement of Kase's own position. The Foreign Minister's reply to Kase's message contained the following query: "Is that all you have to say?"  Kase interprets this query as an invitation to continue peace approaches.
> 
> The recent tripartite ultimatum to Japan21 has been the chief topic of discussion among Japanese groups in Switzerland. Their first reaction, on the basis of excerpts published in the Swiss press, was that (a) the proclamation showed a lack of understanding of Japanese character, (b) the document should have not been framed on a basis of "take it or leave it," (c) the inclusion of China as a signatory represented an "added element of humiliation," and (d) the document should have been sent through private channels rather than publicly.  After receiving the full English text through Jacobsson, and after further study, the attitude of the group changed, and the proclamation was accepted as an "astute document which left a possible way out." The group was particularly impressed by "unconditional surrender" in connection with the "Japanese armed forces" and to the reference to revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. As a result, a telegram stressing these points was to be sent to Tokyo on 30 July.
> 
> The following is a summary of a memorandum to Mr. Dulles from the Japanese group in contact with Per Jacobsson.  Jacobsson transmitted this memo along with his own report summarized above.
> 
> The Japanese group emphasizes that it is hoping for some decision within a week unless "resistance is too great." The Allies should not take "too seriously" what was said over the Tokyo radio about the tripartite proclamation.22 This radio comment was merely "propaganda to maintain morale in Japan." The real reply will be given through some "official channel," possibly by Minister Kase or General Okamoto, if an official Government reply is not made over the Tokyo radio.
> 
> Mr. Dulles also has been informed, by a German authority on the Far East living in Switzerland who is one of his regular contacts, that Yosikazu23 Fujimura, a Japanese Navy representative in Bern, has sent seven long cables to his superiors in Tokyo during the past two months urging immediate cessation of hostilities. His superiors cabled in reply that the Japanese Navy no longer is able to "act alone," and instructed Fujimura not to take the initiative without orders from Tokyo, but to maintain his "most valuable contacts.""
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
> 
> * * *
> 
> Immediately following is a summary of a report by Per Jacobsson, a Swedish national and economic adviser to the Bank for International Settlements, transmitted to Mr. Dulles through an intermediary:
> 
> The Japanese Chief of Staff has acknowledged without comment a long cable which Brigadier General Kiyotomi Okamoto sent from Switzerland on 19 July. Okamoto's telegram reportedly stated that Japan has lost the war and must promptly accept the consequences. ...
> 
> The Japanese Foreign Minister has also acknowledged a detailed report from Shunichi Kase, Japanese Minister in Bern. Kase's report, sent on or about 21 July, included (a) Mr. Grew's statement of 10 July, (b) a memorandum from Kojiro Kitamura, director of the Bank for International Settlements and former financial attache in Berlin, who has been active in the current Japanese approaches to Mr. Dulles, and (c) a statement of Kase's own position. The Foreign Minister's reply to Kase's message contained the following query: "Is that all you have to say?"  Kase interprets this query as an invitation to continue peace approaches.
> 
> The recent tripartite ultimatum to Japan21 has been the chief topic of discussion among Japanese groups in Switzerland. Their first reaction, on the basis of excerpts published in the Swiss press, was that (a) the proclamation showed a lack of understanding of Japanese character, (b) the document should have not been framed on a basis of "take it or leave it," (c) the inclusion of China as a signatory represented an "added element of humiliation," and (d) the document should have been sent through private channels rather than publicly.  After receiving the full English text through Jacobsson, and after further study, the attitude of the group changed, and the proclamation was accepted as an "astute document which left a possible way out." The group was particularly impressed by "unconditional surrender" in connection with the "Japanese armed forces" and to the reference to revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. As a result, a telegram stressing these points was to be sent to Tokyo on 30 July.
> 
> The following is a summary of a memorandum to Mr. Dulles from the Japanese group in contact with Per Jacobsson.  Jacobsson transmitted this memo along with his own report summarized above.
> 
> The Japanese group emphasizes that it is hoping for some decision within a week unless "resistance is too great." The Allies should not take "too seriously" what was said over the Tokyo radio about the tripartite proclamation.22 This radio comment was merely "propaganda to maintain morale in Japan." The real reply will be given through some "official channel," possibly by Minister Kase or General Okamoto, if an official Government reply is not made over the Tokyo radio.
> 
> Mr. Dulles also has been informed, by a German authority on the Far East living in Switzerland who is one of his regular contacts, that Yosikazu23 Fujimura, a Japanese Navy representative in Bern, has sent seven long cables to his superiors in Tokyo during the past two months urging immediate cessation of hostilities. His superiors cabled in reply that the Japanese Navy no longer is able to "act alone," and instructed Fujimura not to take the initiative without orders from Tokyo, but to maintain his "most valuable contacts.""
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You can post that all you want it is NOT then nor now from the Government of Japan. it even states i  your quote where the Navy made the offer, again DUMB FUCK the ARMY controlled the Government, further your OWN link STATES they actually were NOT to make the offer with OUT Government authority.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

if if if if if if if if if you have a lot of ifs
the Japanese were NOT surrendering--period


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if if if if if if if if if you have a lot of ifs
> the Japanese were NOT surrendering--period
Click to expand...





 Of course FDR had no interest in peace, the bloodthirsty scum bag.


----------



## Markle

whitehall said:


> *What if *you found out that Japan was desperately seeking to negotiate terms of surrender? Would it change your mind about the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese civilians? My guess is ...no.



No "what if" about it.  Japan refused to surrender, the two bombs were dropped and millions of lives were saved.  IF you'd have done differently, then you are a cruel, unthinking person.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing you've ever posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?????
Click to expand...


Speculation, the only thing you've posted on this thread.


----------



## Faun

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
Click to expand...

They were not ready to surrender. They didn't even surrender after we dropped an atomic bomb on them. It took two to bring them to their knees.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.


.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

regent said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a nation destroys an enemy's naval base for starters what destruction would be appropriate? Maybe if the Japanese cut off the heads of our fliers the destruction would have seemed more appropriate? What do you think?
Click to expand...

*Japan did a lot of cutting off heads during the war to POWs and civilian POW.  Then there was the death marches.  Starvation and about every other bad deaths.  I had not problems with total bombing of the whole Nation. *


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
Click to expand...

IKE was not in the area he was in Europe, better read some history on this part of the war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this talk about the servicemen who might have died in a hypothetical invasion, but where is the outrage over the servicemen who DID die on Iwo and Okinawa? Both of those battles took place after the scumbag fdr ignored rather than explored the overtures for surrender that MacArthur had informed him of.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Again for the STUPIDLY SLOW and MORONIC the Army controlled the Government and NEVER once offered to surrender. And when the Emperor DID surrender the Army tried to stage a Coup.


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if if if if if if if if if you have a lot of ifs
> the Japanese were NOT surrendering--period
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course FDR had no interest in peace, the bloodthirsty scum bag.
Click to expand...

if if if if if if if 
you think in fairytale terms, not reality


----------



## progressive hunter

America Warned Hiroshima and Nagasaki Citizens


----------



## gipper

Dan Stubbs said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IKE was not in the area he was in Europe, better read some history on this part of the war.
Click to expand...

LOL. You both proved you don’t know WTF you are posting. 

Please learn...

Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: History: Pre Cold War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Eisenhower's Opinion on the Atomic Bomb


----------



## gipper

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not ready to surrender. They didn't even surrender after we dropped an atomic bomb on them. It took two to bring them to their knees.
Click to expand...

You don’t know history. Come back later when you learn it.


----------



## gipper

harmonica said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if if if if if if if if if you have a lot of ifs
> the Japanese were NOT surrendering--period
Click to expand...

Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.


----------



## pismoe

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
Click to expand...

---------------------------   i don't think that the 'japs' wanted to surrender Properly Gipper .


----------



## progressive hunter

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if if if if if if if if if you have a lot of ifs
> the Japanese were NOT surrendering--period
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.
Click to expand...



it takes a lot of crazy to say such a thing


----------



## gipper

progressive hunter said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if if if if if if if if if you have a lot of ifs
> the Japanese were NOT surrendering--period
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it takes a lot of crazy to say such a thing
Click to expand...

Yes some see the truth as crazy.


----------



## gipper

pismoe said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------   i don't think that the 'japs' wanted to surrender Properly Gipper .
Click to expand...

Properly...LMFAO.


----------



## pismoe

yep , PROPERLY , the 'japs'  didn't want to do a PROPER Unconditional Surrender as was demanded of them Gipper .


----------



## pismoe

'japs' were just lucky that they didn't get a few more American made Mighty  Bombs  Gipper .


----------



## Faun

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not ready to surrender. They didn't even surrender after we dropped an atomic bomb on them. It took two to bring them to their knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know history. Come back later when you learn it.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

So we didn’t drop a second bomb on them when they refused to surrender after we dropped the first one? Whew, what a relief to discover everything I learned in history on this was wrong.


----------



## progressive hunter

gipper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if if if if if if if if if you have a lot of ifs
> the Japanese were NOT surrendering--period
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it takes a lot of crazy to say such a thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes some see the truth as crazy.
Click to expand...

you ate a BIG bowel of KOO-KOO puffs this morning didnt you???


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.



Please show us the hundreds of concentration and extermination camps set up by President Truman.

The two bombs saved the lives of millions of combat troops and civilians.  A fact that even you cannot deny.


----------



## pismoe

likely save my Dads and Uncles lives as they were getting ready to invade 'japan' .


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show us the hundreds of concentration and extermination camps set up by President Truman.
> 
> The two bombs saved the lives of millions of combat troops and civilians.  A fact that even you cannot deny.
Click to expand...

So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different.  Can you explain?


----------



## gipper

pismoe said:


> likely save my Dads and Uncles lives as they were getting ready to invade 'japan' .


You need to ask yourself a simple question.

Why did the US government think it necessary to invade Japan?


----------



## Faun

gipper said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show us the hundreds of concentration and extermination camps set up by President Truman.
> 
> The two bombs saved the lives of millions of combat troops and civilians.  A fact that even you cannot deny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different.  Can you explain?
Click to expand...

Were they put to death?


----------



## gipper

I thought like you statist duped dummies once.  Then, I educated myself.  

I love my country, but I hate it's government.


----------



## progressive hunter

gipper said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show us the hundreds of concentration and extermination camps set up by President Truman.
> 
> The two bombs saved the lives of millions of combat troops and civilians.  A fact that even you cannot deny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different.  Can you explain?
Click to expand...

they were given fair warning to leave


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different. Can you explain?



For you, who seems to be slow.  I'd be happy to explain.

"A total of about 185,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and their immediate aftermath. Of these, around 110,000 died instantly, and the rest died within days of trauma and radiation sustained in the bombing."
How Many People Died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

"If the US were to invade the Japanese home islands, it was estimated about 1.5 million American military deaths, 2 million Japanese military deaths, and 10 million Japanese civilian deaths would occur."
What was the estimated number of deaths if the US were to invade Japan during 1942

Got it?  Round it off at 200,000 fatalities v 13.5 MILLION fatalities

Hmmmmm...think, think, think!


----------



## gipper

progressive hunter said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show us the hundreds of concentration and extermination camps set up by President Truman.
> 
> The two bombs saved the lives of millions of combat troops and civilians.  A fact that even you cannot deny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different.  Can you explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were given fair warning to leave
Click to expand...

LOL.  Yeah...do you know what it is like to live under a tyrannical government?  

Think man.  Think!


----------



## pismoe

gipper said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> likely save my Dads and Uncles lives as they were getting ready to invade 'japan' .
> 
> 
> 
> You need to ask yourself a simple question.
> 
> Why did the US government think it necessary to invade Japan?
Click to expand...

----------------------  i'd say it was to pay back plus to crush the 'japs'  pride and to humiliate them .     Also ,  to take over the 'japs'  lands , goods , people and everything else in 'japan' and then reorganization plus to put the 'japs' under Americas thumb would be my answer .  Seems to me that America USED to be smart under an Older , Smarter and BETTER Generation as it totally crushed its enemies Gipper .


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> likely save my Dads and Uncles lives as they were getting ready to invade 'japan' .
> 
> 
> 
> You need to ask yourself a simple question.
> 
> Why did the US government think it necessary to invade Japan?
Click to expand...


What?  Are you serious?  What would have been your solution?


----------



## progressive hunter

gipper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show us the hundreds of concentration and extermination camps set up by President Truman.
> 
> The two bombs saved the lives of millions of combat troops and civilians.  A fact that even you cannot deny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different.  Can you explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were given fair warning to leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Yeah...do you know what it is like to live under a tyrannical government?
> 
> Think man.  Think!
Click to expand...

dont change the subject


----------



## Votto

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com



I say that their deaths were quicker and more humane than infusing that culture with drugs, a subpar education, and slowly crashing their economy along side massive debt.


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different. Can you explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For you, who seems to be slow.  I'd be happy to explain.
> 
> "A total of about 185,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and their immediate aftermath. Of these, around 110,000 died instantly, and the rest died within days of trauma and radiation sustained in the bombing."
> How Many People Died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> "If the US were to invade the Japanese home islands, it was estimated about 1.5 million American military deaths, 2 million Japanese military deaths, and 10 million Japanese civilian deaths would occur."
> What was the estimated number of deaths if the US were to invade Japan during 1942
> 
> Got it?  Round it off at 200,000 fatalities v 13.5 MILLION fatalities
> 
> Hmmmmm...think, think, think!
Click to expand...

BS.  

You bought the lie that Ike said nothing about dropping the A-bombs, and I educated you on that.  Now you post this absurd lie that millions would die, if the Americans invaded the home islands.  This figure was made up by Truman, AFTER he mass murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of a nation destroyed and repeatedly demanding surrender. 

Secondly, there was no need to invade Japan, unless the US is an imperialistic nation.  Right?  Why invade a nation destroyed and willing to surrender????  Ask yourself this simple question.


----------



## gipper

progressive hunter said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show us the hundreds of concentration and extermination camps set up by President Truman.
> 
> The two bombs saved the lives of millions of combat troops and civilians.  A fact that even you cannot deny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different.  Can you explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were given fair warning to leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Yeah...do you know what it is like to live under a tyrannical government?
> 
> Think man.  Think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont change the subject
Click to expand...

LOL.

Do you really think the Japanese Imperial government was going to let their people leave, based on their enemies warnings?  Think man.  Think.


----------



## pismoe

pismoe said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> likely save my Dads and Uncles lives as they were getting ready to invade 'japan' .
> 
> 
> 
> You need to ask yourself a simple question.
> 
> Why did the US government think it necessary to invade Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------  i'd say it was to pay back plus to crush the 'japs'  pride and to humiliate them .     Also ,  to take over the 'japs'  lands , goods , people and everything else in 'japan' and then reorganization plus to put the 'japs' under Americas thumb would be my answer .  Seems to me that America USED to be smart under an Older , Smarter and BETTER Generation as it totally crushed its enemies Gipper .
Click to expand...

----------------------------------   or 17 years under many stupid 'prezidents' fighting  muslims in the middle east rather than simply destroying the enemy muslims Gipper .  Just an example as i am not trying to change subjects  Gipper .


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> likely save my Dads and Uncles lives as they were getting ready to invade 'japan' .
> 
> 
> 
> You need to ask yourself a simple question.
> 
> Why did the US government think it necessary to invade Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Are you serious?  What would have been your solution?
Click to expand...

Oh come on now.  You can't think of it yourself?

Simple: even before Okinawa, our stupid murderous government should have accepted Japan's surrender and went home.  Imagine the numbers of young American boys who would have lived.


----------



## progressive hunter

gipper said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show us the hundreds of concentration and extermination camps set up by President Truman.
> 
> The two bombs saved the lives of millions of combat troops and civilians.  A fact that even you cannot deny.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different.  Can you explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they were given fair warning to leave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Yeah...do you know what it is like to live under a tyrannical government?
> 
> Think man.  Think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont change the subject
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Do you really think the Japanese Imperial government was going to let their people leave, based on their enemies warnings?  Think man.  Think.
Click to expand...



what they did or didnt do is irrelevant to your point or mine


----------



## progressive hunter

gipper said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> likely save my Dads and Uncles lives as they were getting ready to invade 'japan' .
> 
> 
> 
> You need to ask yourself a simple question.
> 
> Why did the US government think it necessary to invade Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Are you serious?  What would have been your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh come on now.  You can't think of it yourself?
> 
> Simple: even before Okinawa, our stupid murderous government should have accepted Japan's surrender and went home.  Imagine the numbers of young American boys who would have lived.
Click to expand...

when did they surrender???


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different. Can you explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For you, who seems to be slow.  I'd be happy to explain.
> 
> "A total of about 185,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and their immediate aftermath. Of these, around 110,000 died instantly, and the rest died within days of trauma and radiation sustained in the bombing."
> How Many People Died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> "If the US were to invade the Japanese home islands, it was estimated about 1.5 million American military deaths, 2 million Japanese military deaths, and 10 million Japanese civilian deaths would occur."
> What was the estimated number of deaths if the US were to invade Japan during 1942
> 
> Got it?  Round it off at 200,000 fatalities v 13.5 MILLION fatalities
> 
> Hmmmmm...think, think, think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.
> 
> You bought the lie that Ike said nothing about dropping the A-bombs, and I educated you on that.  Now you post this absurd lie that millions would die, if the Americans invaded the home islands.  This figure was made up by Truman, AFTER he mass murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of a nation destroyed and repeatedly demanding surrender.
> 
> Secondly, there was no need to invade Japan, unless the US is an imperialistic nation.  Right?  Why invade a nation destroyed and willing to surrender????  Ask yourself this simple question.
Click to expand...

Well except for the simple fact the Government of Japan NEVER offered to surrender and after 2 atomic bombs REFUSED to surrender and even after the Emperor ordered the surrender the leaders of the Government staged a Coup to stop that surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and the Japanese civilians were ready to fight for the emperor to the death as the japenese were well known to do.
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Doctor Seuss told you so? Don’t be stupid. The civilian population consisted by then mostly of starving women, children, and the elderly.
Click to expand...

.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and the Japanese civilians were ready to fight for the emperor to the death as the japenese were well known to do.
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Doctor Seuss told you so? Don’t be stupid. The civilian population consisted by then mostly of starving women, children, and the elderly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Except we have verifiable proof from the war that the Japanese civilian population did what ever the Government told it to do. Saipan and Okinawa provide that proof.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and the Japanese civilians were ready to fight for the emperor to the death as the japenese were well known to do.
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Doctor Seuss told you so? Don’t be stupid. The civilian population consisted by then mostly of starving women, children, and the elderly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why do you throw up so many posts without adding anything?  Just a blank.


----------



## progressive hunter

Markle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and the Japanese civilians were ready to fight for the emperor to the death as the japenese were well known to do.
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Doctor Seuss told you so? Don’t be stupid. The civilian population consisted by then mostly of starving women, children, and the elderly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you throw up so many posts without adding anything?  Just a blank.
Click to expand...

he is commenting, but for some reason you have to hit the expand button


----------



## CrusaderFrank

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
Click to expand...

Stalin ordered FDR to do so


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different. Can you explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For you, who seems to be slow.  I'd be happy to explain.
> 
> "A total of about 185,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and their immediate aftermath. Of these, around 110,000 died instantly, and the rest died within days of trauma and radiation sustained in the bombing."
> How Many People Died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> "If the US were to invade the Japanese home islands, it was estimated about 1.5 million American military deaths, 2 million Japanese military deaths, and 10 million Japanese civilian deaths would occur."
> What was the estimated number of deaths if the US were to invade Japan during 1942
> 
> Got it?  Round it off at 200,000 fatalities v 13.5 MILLION fatalities
> 
> Hmmmmm...think, think, think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.
> 
> You bought the lie that Ike said nothing about dropping the A-bombs, and I educated you on that.  Now you post this absurd lie that millions would die, if the Americans invaded the home islands.  This figure was made up by Truman, AFTER he mass murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of a nation destroyed and repeatedly demanding surrender.
> 
> Secondly, there was no need to invade Japan, unless the US is an imperialistic nation.  Right?  Why invade a nation destroyed and willing to surrender????  Ask yourself this simple question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well except for the simple fact the Government of Japan NEVER offered to surrender and after 2 atomic bombs REFUSED to surrender and even after the Emperor ordered the surrender the leaders of the Government staged a Coup to stop that surrender.
Click to expand...

Read the column I posted in the OP.  Please get educated.  Ignorance of your kind is so disappointing.


----------



## Tax Man

I do remember the fire bombing of Japan. I also know that the military has soldiers watch an atomic bomb explode at about a mile away. That was done to see what effects it had on them.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ike did not even KNOW about the bombs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Ike said not to drop the bombs that he didn't know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to his own account, he did know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Months after the bombs were dropped, Ike said that he wish that they had not been dropped. In other words, Monday morning quarterbacking. And, he was also wrong.


----------



## sparky

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different. Can you explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For you, who seems to be slow.  I'd be happy to explain.
> 
> "A total of about 185,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and their immediate aftermath. Of these, around 110,000 died instantly, and the rest died within days of trauma and radiation sustained in the bombing."
> How Many People Died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> "If the US were to invade the Japanese home islands, it was estimated about 1.5 million American military deaths, 2 million Japanese military deaths, and 10 million Japanese civilian deaths would occur."
> What was the estimated number of deaths if the US were to invade Japan during 1942
> 
> Got it?  Round it off at 200,000 fatalities v 13.5 MILLION fatalities
> 
> Hmmmmm...think, think, think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.
> 
> You bought the lie that Ike said nothing about dropping the A-bombs, and I educated you on that.  Now you post this absurd lie that millions would die, if the Americans invaded the home islands.  This figure was made up by Truman, AFTER he mass murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of a nation destroyed and repeatedly demanding surrender.
> 
> Secondly, there was no need to invade Japan, unless the US is an imperialistic nation.  Right?  Why invade a nation destroyed and willing to surrender????  Ask yourself this simple question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well except for the simple fact the Government of Japan NEVER offered to surrender and after 2 atomic bombs REFUSED to surrender and even after the Emperor ordered the surrender the leaders of the Government staged a Coup to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the column I posted in the OP.  Please get educated.  Ignorance of your kind is so disappointing.
Click to expand...



But the truth is.....ugly......~S~


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians is somehow different. Can you explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For you, who seems to be slow.  I'd be happy to explain.
> 
> "A total of about 185,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and their immediate aftermath. Of these, around 110,000 died instantly, and the rest died within days of trauma and radiation sustained in the bombing."
> How Many People Died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> "If the US were to invade the Japanese home islands, it was estimated about 1.5 million American military deaths, 2 million Japanese military deaths, and 10 million Japanese civilian deaths would occur."
> What was the estimated number of deaths if the US were to invade Japan during 1942
> 
> Got it?  Round it off at 200,000 fatalities v 13.5 MILLION fatalities
> 
> Hmmmmm...think, think, think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS.
> 
> You bought the lie that Ike said nothing about dropping the A-bombs, and I educated you on that.  Now you post this absurd lie that millions would die, if the Americans invaded the home islands.  This figure was made up by Truman, AFTER he mass murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of a nation destroyed and repeatedly demanding surrender.
> 
> Secondly, there was no need to invade Japan, unless the US is an imperialistic nation.  Right?  Why invade a nation destroyed and willing to surrender????  Ask yourself this simple question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well except for the simple fact the Government of Japan NEVER offered to surrender and after 2 atomic bombs REFUSED to surrender and even after the Emperor ordered the surrender the leaders of the Government staged a Coup to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the column I posted in the OP.  Please get educated.  Ignorance of your kind is so disappointing.
Click to expand...

I have SOURCE documents from US and Japan Governments, at NO TIME did Japanese Government offer to surrender, several Naval members made overtures but they were the MINORITY the Army controlled the Government and NEVER offered to surrender, learn a little ACTUAL history instead of revisionist crap by idiots.


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if if if if if if if if if you have a lot of ifs
> the Japanese were NOT surrendering--period
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Truman was a war criminal not unlike Hitler.
Click to expand...

hahahahhahah


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not ready to surrender. They didn't even surrender after we dropped an atomic bomb on them. It took two to bring them to their knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know history. Come back later when you learn it.
Click to expand...

YOU don't know history
he's right
the vote was a TIE for surrender or not--- AFTER the bomb
then, when the Emperor broke the tie, many tried to stop the surrender
...it took 2 atomic bombs to make the Japanese  surrender--plain and simple and undeniable
..learn some history please


----------



## harmonica

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the plan is to --------wait??  not use the bombs and ---wait???!!
> till when??
> out of about 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima, only about 300 taken prisoner/etc
> they are NOT surrendering
> they put up an even tougher defense on Okinawa--with OVER 10,000 American dead
> I say again --ten THOUSAND American dead--over FORTY THOUSAND casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those battles necessarily had to happen at all if the scumbag FDR hadn’t completely ignored the overtures for surrender the general MacArthur and forward it to him before the scum bag and left for Yalta. He glanced at the extensive report MacArthur had sent and dismissed it. Did not even take or mention the offer of surrender at Yalta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

.....also---if they '''''surrendered''''' before those battles, you would've had the same situation you had 1918---do you not know about that??  the Germans were not totally beaten--not even close....and they thought they really didn't lose the war......etc---then you get WW2 !!!
...the Japanese radicals/militarists would still be in charge/etc --so in a few years or decades, they would start the same shit---and might even be able to produce their own Abomb/etc
..you would have the same shit that went on for decades [ and still is ] with the Israelis-Arabs because there was no total victory
..they needed to be pounded --plain and simple
..shocked so much that they would not dare start that crap again


----------



## gipper

Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?


----------



## pismoe

gipper said:


> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?


---------------------------------   why do Some in the USA think that Total War is NOT acceptable Gipper ??


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?



What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.


----------



## pismoe

gipper said:


> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?


---------------------------------   And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .


----------



## gipper

pismoe said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------   And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .
Click to expand...

At least you’re an honest blood thirsty lover of mass murdering innocent women and children.


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
Click to expand...

Yeah... the only option is total war. LMFAO.


----------



## pismoe

gipper said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------   And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least you’re an honest blood thirsty lover of mass murdering innocent women and children.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------------------------   not really a Lover but simply , i am a practical man is how i look at it Gipper .  I mean , i simply follow in the same thinking of millions of Americans that were a Great Generation that wanted whatever was best for their American kids as they fought to WIN a World War on 2 fronts Gipper . ----------------   i mean , look at how we handled 'dresden germany'  before we did 'hiroshima and nagasaki' Gipper .


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?



Because total war leads to a Clausewitzian resolution to the underlying conflict by demanding unconditional surrender, or at least making it an option. Without total war the losing side can always try to parlay, and thus trade peace for conditions that allow them to continue the conflict at a later date.

What is more inhumane, a shorter bloody conflict utilizing strategic bombing of economic assets, or a protracted multiple war conflict that ends in asymmetrical warfare and  a slow but steady stream of civilian casualties over decades?


----------



## pismoe

martybegan said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because total war leads to a Clausewitzian resolution to the underlying conflict by demanding unconditional surrender, or at least making it an option. Without total war the losing side can always try to parlay, and thus trade peace for conditions that allow them to continue the conflict at a later date.
> 
> What is more inhumane, a shorter bloody conflict utilizing strategic bombing of economic assets, or a protracted multiple war conflict that ends in asymmetrical warfare and  a slow but steady stream of civilian casualties over decades?
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------   thanks for info Marty .


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because total war leads to a Clausewitzian resolution to the underlying conflict by demanding unconditional surrender, or at least making it an option. Without total war the losing side can always try to parlay, and thus trade peace for conditions that allow them to continue the conflict at a later date.
> 
> What is more inhumane, a shorter bloody conflict utilizing strategic bombing of economic assets, or a protracted multiple war conflict that ends in asymmetrical warfare and  a slow but steady stream of civilian casualties over decades?
Click to expand...

Silly. 

Our debate here is about Japan specifically. Prior to Truman’s war crime, Japan had no navy or air forces. Their army was essentially destroyed and their best fighting men dead. 

Now compare that with the armed forces of the USA. Do you comprehend or do I need to spell it out?


----------



## gipper

pismoe said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------   And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least you’re an honest blood thirsty lover of mass murdering innocent women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------   not really a Lover but simply , i am a practical man is how i look at it Gipper .  I mean , i simply follow in the same thinking of millions of Americans that were a Great Generation that wanted whatever was best for their American kids as they fought to WIN a World War on 2 fronts Gipper . ----------------   i mean , look at how we handled 'dresden germany'  before we did 'hiroshima and nagasaki' Gipper .
Click to expand...

If it is a war crime for Germany or Japan to commit total war, then logically it is also a war crime if the USA commits it.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because total war leads to a Clausewitzian resolution to the underlying conflict by demanding unconditional surrender, or at least making it an option. Without total war the losing side can always try to parlay, and thus trade peace for conditions that allow them to continue the conflict at a later date.
> 
> What is more inhumane, a shorter bloody conflict utilizing strategic bombing of economic assets, or a protracted multiple war conflict that ends in asymmetrical warfare and  a slow but steady stream of civilian casualties over decades?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silly.
> 
> Our debate here is about Japan specifically. Prior to Truman’s war crime, Japan had no navy or air forces. Their army was essentially destroyed and their best fighting men dead.
> 
> Now compare that with the armed forces of the USA. Do you comprehend or do I need to spell it out?
Click to expand...


And yet they refused to surrender unconditionally. They still had plenty of infantry, and the will to use them. They had a few thousand crappy planes left for kamikaze attacks. They were prepared for a combination of banzai attacks on the beaches and defense in depth in the interiors. 

You brought up the total war concept, I was responding to it.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------   And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least you’re an honest blood thirsty lover of mass murdering innocent women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------   not really a Lover but simply , i am a practical man is how i look at it Gipper .  I mean , i simply follow in the same thinking of millions of Americans that were a Great Generation that wanted whatever was best for their American kids as they fought to WIN a World War on 2 fronts Gipper . ----------------   i mean , look at how we handled 'dresden germany'  before we did 'hiroshima and nagasaki' Gipper .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is a war crime for Germany or Japan to commit total war, then logically it is also a war crime if the USA commits it.
Click to expand...


They were not tried for total war, they were tried for crimes against peace, aggressive war, specific war crimes, and crimes against humanity.


----------



## pismoe

gipper said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------   And I suppose that the answer to your question is that some Americans had Fathers and others that fought Total War just 80years ago and we see how nicely Total War got things done Gipper .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least you’re an honest blood thirsty lover of mass murdering innocent women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------   not really a Lover but simply , i am a practical man is how i look at it Gipper .  I mean , i simply follow in the same thinking of millions of Americans that were a Great Generation that wanted whatever was best for their American kids as they fought to WIN a World War on 2 fronts Gipper . ----------------   i mean , look at how we handled 'dresden germany'  before we did 'hiroshima and nagasaki' Gipper .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is a war crime for Germany or Japan to commit total war, then logically it is also a war crime if the USA commits it.
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------   says WHO Gipper plus what Specific WAR Crimes are you talking about Gipper ??


----------



## pismoe

the only acceptable way to fight a War is TOTAL War ,  ---   just a comment .


----------



## Vandalshandle

Okinawa

One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.

List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists

Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.


----------



## pismoe

pismoe said:


> the only acceptable way to fight a War is TOTAL War ,  ---   just a comment .


------------------------------------------------    you sound like 'islamic state' or 'isis' as they at times look for Truces and the end of War and hostility when they are losing  .  Best thing to do when the enemy is losing is to Crush the enemy totally  Gipper ,  [no quarter for the enemy Gipper]


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.


What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.   

Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!

Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists. 

Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs? 

Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
Click to expand...


Revisionist history. at the time they were also demanding no occupation, no war crime trials held by the victors, and that they disarm themselves without outside observation.


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. at the time they were also demanding no occupation, no war crime trials held by the victors, and that they disarm themselves without outside observation.
Click to expand...

Be specific. What in my post is wrong?


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. at the time they were also demanding no occupation, no war crime trials held by the victors, and that they disarm themselves without outside observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be specific. What in my post is wrong?
Click to expand...


That they only asked about the Emperor's life as a negotiating point. Even up to the first bombing the military wanted no occupation, no war crimes trial, and self-disarmament as conditions of a conditional surrender.


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. at the time they were also demanding no occupation, no war crime trials held by the victors, and that they disarm themselves without outside observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be specific. What in my post is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That they only asked about the Emperor's life as a negotiating point. Even up to the first bombing the military wanted no occupation, no war crimes trial, and self-disarmament as conditions of a conditional surrender.
Click to expand...

Okay you just proved you aren’t informed.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. at the time they were also demanding no occupation, no war crime trials held by the victors, and that they disarm themselves without outside observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be specific. What in my post is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That they only asked about the Emperor's life as a negotiating point. Even up to the first bombing the military wanted no occupation, no war crimes trial, and self-disarmament as conditions of a conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay you just proved you aren’t informed.
Click to expand...


It's well documented that the military held out with those demands until the Emperor overrode them AFTER the Nagasaki bomb. 

That you choose to ignore this, and proceed with a version of history that suits your axe to grind shows you are just as dishonest as the lefties on this board.


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. at the time they were also demanding no occupation, no war crime trials held by the victors, and that they disarm themselves without outside observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be specific. What in my post is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That they only asked about the Emperor's life as a negotiating point. Even up to the first bombing the military wanted no occupation, no war crimes trial, and self-disarmament as conditions of a conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay you just proved you aren’t informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's well documented that the military held out with those demands until the Emperor overrode them AFTER the Nagasaki bomb.
> 
> That you choose to ignore this, and proceed with a version of history that suits your axe to grind shows you are just as dishonest as the lefties on this board.
Click to expand...

Wrong that’s just what the government told you and they always lie.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. at the time they were also demanding no occupation, no war crime trials held by the victors, and that they disarm themselves without outside observation.
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific. What in my post is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That they only asked about the Emperor's life as a negotiating point. Even up to the first bombing the military wanted no occupation, no war crimes trial, and self-disarmament as conditions of a conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay you just proved you aren’t informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's well documented that the military held out with those demands until the Emperor overrode them AFTER the Nagasaki bomb.
> 
> That you choose to ignore this, and proceed with a version of history that suits your axe to grind shows you are just as dishonest as the lefties on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong that’s just what the government told you and they always lie.
Click to expand...


No, that's what history has recorded, what the Japanese have corroborated, and what actually happened.

A little hint, if you have to lie to get your point across, your point is wanting.


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific. What in my post is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That they only asked about the Emperor's life as a negotiating point. Even up to the first bombing the military wanted no occupation, no war crimes trial, and self-disarmament as conditions of a conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay you just proved you aren’t informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's well documented that the military held out with those demands until the Emperor overrode them AFTER the Nagasaki bomb.
> 
> That you choose to ignore this, and proceed with a version of history that suits your axe to grind shows you are just as dishonest as the lefties on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong that’s just what the government told you and they always lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's what history has recorded, what the Japanese have corroborated, and what actually happened.
> 
> A little hint, if you have to lie to get your point across, your point is wanting.
Click to expand...

Please read all the links in my post #54 in this thread. If you refuse to get informed, you will be banned.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That they only asked about the Emperor's life as a negotiating point. Even up to the first bombing the military wanted no occupation, no war crimes trial, and self-disarmament as conditions of a conditional surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay you just proved you aren’t informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's well documented that the military held out with those demands until the Emperor overrode them AFTER the Nagasaki bomb.
> 
> That you choose to ignore this, and proceed with a version of history that suits your axe to grind shows you are just as dishonest as the lefties on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong that’s just what the government told you and they always lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's what history has recorded, what the Japanese have corroborated, and what actually happened.
> 
> A little hint, if you have to lie to get your point across, your point is wanting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please read all the links in my post #54 in this thread. If you refuse to get informed, you will be banned.
Click to expand...


All links from the same source. 

Those are his opinions, nothing more.


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay you just proved you aren’t informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's well documented that the military held out with those demands until the Emperor overrode them AFTER the Nagasaki bomb.
> 
> That you choose to ignore this, and proceed with a version of history that suits your axe to grind shows you are just as dishonest as the lefties on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong that’s just what the government told you and they always lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's what history has recorded, what the Japanese have corroborated, and what actually happened.
> 
> A little hint, if you have to lie to get your point across, your point is wanting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please read all the links in my post #54 in this thread. If you refuse to get informed, you will be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All links from the same source.
> 
> Those are his opinions, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Wrong dummy. All links from different historians. 

 BANNED


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's well documented that the military held out with those demands until the Emperor overrode them AFTER the Nagasaki bomb.
> 
> That you choose to ignore this, and proceed with a version of history that suits your axe to grind shows you are just as dishonest as the lefties on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong that’s just what the government told you and they always lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's what history has recorded, what the Japanese have corroborated, and what actually happened.
> 
> A little hint, if you have to lie to get your point across, your point is wanting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please read all the links in my post #54 in this thread. If you refuse to get informed, you will be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All links from the same source.
> 
> Those are his opinions, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong dummy. All links from different historians.
> 
> BANNED
Click to expand...


"Historians..."

Running away with your tail between your legs. Good Riddance to Bad rubbish.


----------



## Cosmos

gipper said:


> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
Click to expand...


The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.


----------



## gipper

Cosmos said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

Both battles were entirely unnecessary. Japan asked for surrender terms when Stalin’s Stooge was still living. He said, “unconditional surrender you slanty eyed fuckers.” This resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.   

Amazing many Americans think this acceptable.


----------



## gipper

gipper said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both battles were entirely unnecessary. Japan asked for surrender terms when Stalin’s Stooge was still living. He said, “unconditional surrender you slanty eyed fuckers.” This resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.
> 
> Amazing many Americans think this acceptable.
Click to expand...


EVEN HONORABLE.  

CRAZY!!!!


----------



## Cosmos

gipper said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both battles were entirely unnecessary. Japan asked for surrender terms when Stalin’s Stooge was still living. He said, “unconditional surrender you slanty eyed fuckers.” This resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.
> 
> Amazing many Americans think this acceptable.
Click to expand...


The bombing of Pearl Harbor was unnecessary.  After that.......well, attacking the USA has consequences.

You seem to be extremely confused.  You must be a Democrat.


----------



## Vandalshandle

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
Click to expand...


It just breaks my heart that we defeated Japan in WW2 at least 1 year sooner than an invasion would have ended the war, with casualties in the millions, counting both sides. I feel very guilty that we forced them to keep fighting even after warning them that to do so would bring about their total destruction. We should have asked them so surrender, using the word, "please".


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah... the only option is total war. LMFAO.
Click to expand...

 
Well done!  Dodging the issue!  

Come on, step up!
What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.


----------



## gipper

Vandalshandle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just breaks my heart that we defeated Japan in WW2 at least 1 year sooner than an invasion would have ended the war, with casualties in the millions, counting both sides. I feel very guilty that we forced them to keep fighting even after warning them that to do so would bring about their total destruction. We should have asked them so surrender, using the word, "please".
Click to expand...

Didn’t need to invade, unless you know that our corrupt leaders turned our nation into an imperialist nation. 

Americans think this great too. Oh the power of a statist education (aka indoctrination) should not be overlooked.


----------



## gipper

pismoe said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only acceptable way to fight a War is TOTAL War ,  ---   just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------    you sound like 'islamic state' or 'isis' as they at times look for Truces and the end of War and hostility when they are losing  .  Best thing to do when the enemy is losing is to Crush the enemy totally  Gipper ,  [no quarter for the enemy Gipper]
Click to expand...




Cosmos said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
Click to expand...




Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah... the only option is total war. LMFAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well done!  Dodging the issue!
> 
> Come on, step up!
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
Click to expand...


Hey Statists, why can’t you answer my question?  What base did the abombs fly out of?  

Was it Iwo Jima or Okinawa?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
Click to expand...

Again for the criminally STUPID, at no time did the GOVERNMENT of Japan offer to surrender. I have the documents all that happened was a couple Naval reps offered to discuss surrender, at NO TIME did the Navy CONTROL the Government during these supposed offers. And actually what they offered was a ceasefire with return to 41 start lines everywhere EXCEPT China. The links provided even show that the Army NEVER offered to surrender, you remember them right? They CONTROLLED the Government.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. at the time they were also demanding no occupation, no war crime trials held by the victors, and that they disarm themselves without outside observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be specific. What in my post is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That they only asked about the Emperor's life as a negotiating point. Even up to the first bombing the military wanted no occupation, no war crimes trial, and self-disarmament as conditions of a conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay you just proved you aren’t informed.
Click to expand...

Wrong shall I link again to the SOURCE documents?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only acceptable way to fight a War is TOTAL War ,  ---   just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------    you sound like 'islamic state' or 'isis' as they at times look for Truces and the end of War and hostility when they are losing  .  Best thing to do when the enemy is losing is to Crush the enemy totally  Gipper ,  [no quarter for the enemy Gipper]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah... the only option is total war. LMFAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well done!  Dodging the issue!
> 
> Come on, step up!
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Statists, why can’t you answer my question?  What base did the abombs fly out of?
> 
> Was it Iwo Jima or Okinawa?
Click to expand...

They need Iwo Jima for FIGHTER cover and to recover damaged bombers retard and Okinawa was a lead up to the invasion of a Home Island not fr bases to bomb from.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources for the truly IGNORANT


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only acceptable way to fight a War is TOTAL War ,  ---   just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------    you sound like 'islamic state' or 'isis' as they at times look for Truces and the end of War and hostility when they are losing  .  Best thing to do when the enemy is losing is to Crush the enemy totally  Gipper ,  [no quarter for the enemy Gipper]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do some Americans think total war is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah... the only option is total war. LMFAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well done!  Dodging the issue!
> 
> Come on, step up!
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Statists, why can’t you answer my question?  What base did the abombs fly out of?
> 
> Was it Iwo Jima or Okinawa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They need Iwo Jima for FIGHTER cover and to recover damaged bombers retard and Okinawa was a lead up to the invasion of a Home Island not fr bases to bomb from.
Click to expand...

Hey Retard, once again you prove you are uninformed. By 1945, the Japanese had little to no fighter aircraft left. US bombers often flew missions in 1945, without any fighter escort. Plus they often flew at night, when no fighter escort was needed. 

Damnit dude. Learn for once.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only acceptable way to fight a War is TOTAL War ,  ---   just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------    you sound like 'islamic state' or 'isis' as they at times look for Truces and the end of War and hostility when they are losing  .  Best thing to do when the enemy is losing is to Crush the enemy totally  Gipper ,  [no quarter for the enemy Gipper]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah... the only option is total war. LMFAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well done!  Dodging the issue!
> 
> Come on, step up!
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Statists, why can’t you answer my question?  What base did the abombs fly out of?
> 
> Was it Iwo Jima or Okinawa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They need Iwo Jima for FIGHTER cover and to recover damaged bombers retard and Okinawa was a lead up to the invasion of a Home Island not fr bases to bomb from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Retard, once again you prove you are uninformed. By 1945, the Japanese had little to no fighter aircraft left. US bombers often flew missions in 1945, without any fighter escort. Plus they often flew at night, when no fighter escort was needed.
> 
> Damnit dude. Learn for once.
Click to expand...

Dumb ass the Japanese had thousands of planes they were flying suicide missions on Okinawa with them but ya according to you they had none, right and I shoud learn history, you keep pedaling lies misinformation and stupidity. You have NO LINK to an actual offer of peace from the GOVERNMENT of Japan during WW2, because it NEVER happened.


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> Silly.
> 
> Our debate here is about Japan specifically. Prior to Truman’s war crime, Japan had no navy or air forces. Their army was essentially destroyed and their best fighting men dead.
> 
> Now compare that with the armed forces of the USA. Do you comprehend or do I need to spell it out?



Why do you find it necessary to lie about World War II?


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the criminally STUPID, at no time did the GOVERNMENT of Japan offer to surrender. I have the documents all that happened was a couple Naval reps offered to discuss surrender, at NO TIME did the Navy CONTROL the Government during these supposed offers. And actually what they offered was a ceasefire with return to 41 start lines everywhere EXCEPT China. The links provided even show that the Army NEVER offered to surrender, you remember them right? They CONTROLLED the Government.
Click to expand...

They offered to surrender several times, but with conditions. Statists like you think they must surrender unconditionally, or you will murder them. 

If only you were capable of thinking rather then robotically spouting the US government’s lies.


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly.
> 
> Our debate here is about Japan specifically. Prior to Truman’s war crime, Japan had no navy or air forces. Their army was essentially destroyed and their best fighting men dead.
> 
> Now compare that with the armed forces of the USA. Do you comprehend or do I need to spell it out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you find it necessary to lie about World War II?
Click to expand...

Was it Orwell who said truth is lies and lies are truth?  

You will do well in our Orwellian future.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa
> 
> One of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War was fought from April 1 to June 22, 1945, for the island of Okinawa. The Americans wanted the island at the southern tip of Japan to create a base for air raids on Japan as well as to “rehearse” for the planned invasion of Japan’s main islands. However, they met a fierce resistance. By June 22, the *U.S. troops suffered nearly 50,000 casualties* of which approximately one quarter were deaths. The *Japanese, on the other hand, lost about 100,000 of 110,000 men.* The largest amphibious campaign of the Pacific War also claimed heavy civilian casualties as an *estimated 100,000 civilians were killed by the end of the campaign. *According to many historians, *the Battle of Okinawa had a major influence on the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it clearly revealed that the invasion of Japan would claim huge casualties on both sides*.
> 
> List of 10 Greatest Battles of the Pacific War - History Lists
> 
> Right. The Japanese were all but helpless, only being able to inflict 50,000 American casualties in the last battle that they fought against us. I am sure that Gipper would have preferred to have had a go at them himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the criminally STUPID, at no time did the GOVERNMENT of Japan offer to surrender. I have the documents all that happened was a couple Naval reps offered to discuss surrender, at NO TIME did the Navy CONTROL the Government during these supposed offers. And actually what they offered was a ceasefire with return to 41 start lines everywhere EXCEPT China. The links provided even show that the Army NEVER offered to surrender, you remember them right? They CONTROLLED the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They offered to surrender several times, but with conditions. Statists like you think they must surrender unconditionally, or you will murder them.
> 
> If only you were capable of thinking rather then robotically spouting the US government’s lies.
Click to expand...

They, they being the naval element of the Japanese Government, an element that did NOT control the Government, offered a ceasefire a return to 41 start lines except in China and no occupation. The Army which DID control the Government NEVER offered anything, even after 2 atomic bombs all they offered was a cease fire and no occupation. And when the Emperor overruled them they staged a Coup to stop HIM.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only acceptable way to fight a War is TOTAL War ,  ---   just a comment .
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------    you sound like 'islamic state' or 'isis' as they at times look for Truces and the end of War and hostility when they are losing  .  Best thing to do when the enemy is losing is to Crush the enemy totally  Gipper ,  [no quarter for the enemy Gipper]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... the only option is total war. LMFAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well done!  Dodging the issue!
> 
> Come on, step up!
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Statists, why can’t you answer my question?  What base did the abombs fly out of?
> 
> Was it Iwo Jima or Okinawa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They need Iwo Jima for FIGHTER cover and to recover damaged bombers retard and Okinawa was a lead up to the invasion of a Home Island not fr bases to bomb from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Retard, once again you prove you are uninformed. By 1945, the Japanese had little to no fighter aircraft left. US bombers often flew missions in 1945, without any fighter escort. Plus they often flew at night, when no fighter escort was needed.
> 
> Damnit dude. Learn for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb ass the Japanese had thousands of planes they were flying suicide missions on Okinawa with them but ya according to you they had none, right and I shoud learn history, you keep pedaling lies misinformation and stupidity. You have NO LINK to an actual offer of peace from the GOVERNMENT of Japan during WW2, because it NEVER happened.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that those Kamikaze pilots NEVER posed a threat to US bombers?  I would guess not, considering your high level of your retardation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------    you sound like 'islamic state' or 'isis' as they at times look for Truces and the end of War and hostility when they are losing  .  Best thing to do when the enemy is losing is to Crush the enemy totally  Gipper ,  [no quarter for the enemy Gipper]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well done!  Dodging the issue!
> 
> Come on, step up!
> What are the options?  Another war in 20-25 years or less.  See WW-I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Statists, why can’t you answer my question?  What base did the abombs fly out of?
> 
> Was it Iwo Jima or Okinawa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They need Iwo Jima for FIGHTER cover and to recover damaged bombers retard and Okinawa was a lead up to the invasion of a Home Island not fr bases to bomb from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Retard, once again you prove you are uninformed. By 1945, the Japanese had little to no fighter aircraft left. US bombers often flew missions in 1945, without any fighter escort. Plus they often flew at night, when no fighter escort was needed.
> 
> Damnit dude. Learn for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb ass the Japanese had thousands of planes they were flying suicide missions on Okinawa with them but ya according to you they had none, right and I shoud learn history, you keep pedaling lies misinformation and stupidity. You have NO LINK to an actual offer of peace from the GOVERNMENT of Japan during WW2, because it NEVER happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you aware that those Kamikaze pilots NEVER posed a threat to US bombers?  I would guess not, considering your high level of your retardation.
Click to expand...

Unlike you I actually KNOW my history I did not learn false info and propaganda from biased sources, as for FACTS I posted SOURCE DOCUMENTS that prove you are full of SHIT.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Statists, why can’t you answer my question?  What base did the abombs fly out of?
> 
> Was it Iwo Jima or Okinawa?
> 
> 
> 
> They need Iwo Jima for FIGHTER cover and to recover damaged bombers retard and Okinawa was a lead up to the invasion of a Home Island not fr bases to bomb from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Retard, once again you prove you are uninformed. By 1945, the Japanese had little to no fighter aircraft left. US bombers often flew missions in 1945, without any fighter escort. Plus they often flew at night, when no fighter escort was needed.
> 
> Damnit dude. Learn for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb ass the Japanese had thousands of planes they were flying suicide missions on Okinawa with them but ya according to you they had none, right and I shoud learn history, you keep pedaling lies misinformation and stupidity. You have NO LINK to an actual offer of peace from the GOVERNMENT of Japan during WW2, because it NEVER happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you aware that those Kamikaze pilots NEVER posed a threat to US bombers?  I would guess not, considering your high level of your retardation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I actually KNOW my history I did not learn false info and propaganda from biased sources, as for FACTS I posted SOURCE DOCUMENTS that prove you are full of SHIT.
Click to expand...

You clearly know only what Uncle told you. Too bad. Ignorance is always a terrible thing.


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly.
> 
> Our debate here is about Japan specifically. Prior to Truman’s war crime, Japan had no navy or air forces. Their army was essentially destroyed and their best fighting men dead.
> 
> Now compare that with the armed forces of the USA. Do you comprehend or do I need to spell it out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you find it necessary to lie about World War II?
Click to expand...

Read Orwell, if you can.


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> What a terrible waste, when the Japanese government sought surrender terms well before Okinawa. They only asked for guarantees that the Emperor wouldn’t be hung.
> 
> Funny thing...after Truman incinerated thousands of defenseless women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he granted the Japanese their one and only demand. Sick fuck!
> 
> Thirdly, Okinawa was entirely unnecessary. The US air forces had been mass murdering Japanese civilians from the air for months beforehand, and could have easily continued the slaughter without Okinawa. Just another lie by the mass murdering statists.
> 
> Question for statists...was Okinawa used to launch the abombs?
> 
> Uncomfortable truths for silly murderous statists.





gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. at the time they were also demanding no occupation, no war crime trials held by the victors, and that they disarm themselves without outside observation.
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific. What in my post is wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That they only asked about the Emperor's life as a negotiating point. Even up to the first bombing the military wanted no occupation, no war crimes trial, and self-disarmament as conditions of a conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay you just proved you aren’t informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's well documented that the military held out with those demands until the Emperor overrode them AFTER the Nagasaki bomb.
> 
> That you choose to ignore this, and proceed with a version of history that suits your axe to grind shows you are just as dishonest as the lefties on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong that’s just what the government told you and they always lie.
Click to expand...


Wow, you really are either grossly uninformed OR simply a TROLL!


----------



## gipper

Hey Statists, did you know the B-29 that delivered Truman’s war crimes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, flew all the f-ing way from the Northern Mariana Islands. 

That’s strange, no?  Uncle claims all those American boys who died on Iwo Jima and Okinawa did so, so bombers could reach the home islands. 

Yep, just another lie by Uncle, but statists don’t know it.


----------



## gipper

Cosmos said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both battles were entirely unnecessary. Japan asked for surrender terms when Stalin’s Stooge was still living. He said, “unconditional surrender you slanty eyed fuckers.” This resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.
> 
> Amazing many Americans think this acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bombing of Pearl Harbor was unnecessary.  After that.......well, attacking the USA has consequences.
> 
> You seem to be extremely confused.  You must be a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Yep that is the thinking of the dumb American. You bomb a military base killing relatively few MILITARY PERSONNEL, and we will mass murder hundreds of thousands of your civilians. 

Makes sense to the dumb statist.


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both battles were entirely unnecessary. Japan asked for surrender terms when Stalin’s Stooge was still living. He said, “unconditional surrender you slanty eyed fuckers.” This resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.
> 
> Amazing many Americans think this acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EVEN HONORABLE.
> 
> CRAZY!!!!
Click to expand...


Thank you!  Proving that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

You're talking to yourself.


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both battles were entirely unnecessary. Japan asked for surrender terms when Stalin’s Stooge was still living. He said, “unconditional surrender you slanty eyed fuckers.” This resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.
> 
> Amazing many Americans think this acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EVEN HONORABLE.
> 
> CRAZY!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  Proving that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
> 
> You're talking to yourself.
Click to expand...

Trying to educate you, but I see I have failed. Overcoming statist indoctrination is a tough task. I did my best.


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both battles were entirely unnecessary. Japan asked for surrender terms when Stalin’s Stooge was still living. He said, “unconditional surrender you slanty eyed fuckers.” This resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.
> 
> Amazing many Americans think this acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EVEN HONORABLE.
> 
> CRAZY!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  Proving that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
> 
> You're talking to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trying to educate you, but I see I have failed. Overcoming statist indoctrination is a tough task. I did my best.
Click to expand...


You're simply a Troll.  Worse, you are a BORING Troll!


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  The Japanese were not defenseless, but you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Both battles were entirely unnecessary. Japan asked for surrender terms when Stalin’s Stooge was still living. He said, “unconditional surrender you slanty eyed fuckers.” This resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths on both sides.
> 
> Amazing many Americans think this acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EVEN HONORABLE.
> 
> CRAZY!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  Proving that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
> 
> You're talking to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trying to educate you, but I see I have failed. Overcoming statist indoctrination is a tough task. I did my best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're simply a Troll.  Worse, you are a BORING Troll!
Click to expand...

Yes, disputing the government’s story is trolling, but only to dumb statists.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> They need Iwo Jima for FIGHTER cover and to recover damaged bombers retard and Okinawa was a lead up to the invasion of a Home Island not fr bases to bomb from.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Retard, once again you prove you are uninformed. By 1945, the Japanese had little to no fighter aircraft left. US bombers often flew missions in 1945, without any fighter escort. Plus they often flew at night, when no fighter escort was needed.
> 
> Damnit dude. Learn for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb ass the Japanese had thousands of planes they were flying suicide missions on Okinawa with them but ya according to you they had none, right and I shoud learn history, you keep pedaling lies misinformation and stupidity. You have NO LINK to an actual offer of peace from the GOVERNMENT of Japan during WW2, because it NEVER happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you aware that those Kamikaze pilots NEVER posed a threat to US bombers?  I would guess not, considering your high level of your retardation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you I actually KNOW my history I did not learn false info and propaganda from biased sources, as for FACTS I posted SOURCE DOCUMENTS that prove you are full of SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly know only what Uncle told you. Too bad. Ignorance is always a terrible thing.
Click to expand...

I have linked to ACTUAL Government documents NOT hearsay not opinion not suspicion not supposition or guesses. The Japanese NEVER offered to surrender EVER. They made several overtures about a ceasefire return to 41 start lines no occupation of Japan. That's it and NONE of those were by the ACTUAL party in control of the Government. Even after 2 ATOMIC BOMBS the Army which controlled the Government REFUSED to surrender and when the Emperor over rode them and ordered a surrender the ARMY staged a Coup to stop THAT. All documented in actual SOURCE DOCUMENTS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Hey Statists, did you know the B-29 that delivered Truman’s war crimes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, flew all the f-ing way from the Northern Mariana Islands.
> 
> That’s strange, no?  Uncle claims all those American boys who died on Iwo Jima and Okinawa did so, so bombers could reach the home islands.
> 
> Yep, just another lie by Uncle, but statists don’t know it.


Okinawa was a precursor to the Home Island invasion had absolutely NOTHING to do with bombers or aircraft. Iwo Jima was to secure the airfields to rescue damaged aircraft returning from Bombing raids of which several landed even while the Island was contested and to provide a base for fighter coverage.


----------



## Vandalshandle

It is all a major conspiracy! The Illumine dropped atomic bombs on Japan to retaliate for sinking JFK's torpedo boat!


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Statists, did you know the B-29 that delivered Truman’s war crimes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, flew all the f-ing way from the Northern Mariana Islands.
> 
> That’s strange, no?  Uncle claims all those American boys who died on Iwo Jima and Okinawa did so, so bombers could reach the home islands.
> 
> Yep, just another lie by Uncle, but statists don’t know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Okinawa was a precursor to the Home Island invasion had absolutely NOTHING to do with bombers or aircraft. Iwo Jima was to secure the airfields to rescue damaged aircraft returning from Bombing raids of which several landed even while the Island was contested and to provide a base for fighter coverage.
Click to expand...

No need to invade. Why are you an imperialist warmonger?  

I keep blowing up your continued statist reasons for mass murdering women and children, yet you keep coming back for more.  Why?

Do you think the tremendous cost of lives and materials were worth the taking of Iwo Jima?  If so, you prove once again an inability to think. That airfield was seldom used after the terrible bloodshed. It was merely an exercise by the military brass to gain more medals, at the cost of many boy’s lives. 

The same applies to Okinawa. Total waste. Nothing was gain, other than more metals for the military brass.


----------



## Markle

Vandalshandle said:


> It is all a major conspiracy! The Illumine dropped atomic bombs on Japan to retaliate for sinking JFK's torpedo boat!



What the heck is an "Illumine"?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


Having lived in Japan and developing an understanding of Japanese culture, I believe that the U.S. put them in a position of dying or accepting extreme dishonor.  99% of Japanese people would not consider that a choice.  Honor above life EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!

They make it a point to NOT dishonor each other in society or in the workplace.  EVERYBODY knows who fucked up at work.  There's no need to call attention to it and make the fuck-up feel a sense of duty to restore his/her honor by jumping in front of a train.

Had we allowed them to have some minor concessions to allow them to keep their honor, no bombs would have been necessary.

This fundamental lack of cultural understanding has reared its ugly head other times as well:

Engineer Who Inspected Plane Before Crash Commits Suicide


That resolve is why I am glad they are now one of our best allies.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

gipper said:


> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, thus saving the lives of thousands of Americans and Japanese, but for FDR’s foolish unconditional surrender terms.


He would never let them keep their honor, so they kept fighting, against their will, because death before dishonor.


----------



## gipper

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Having lived in Japan and developing an understanding of Japanese culture, I believe that the U.S. put them in a position of dying or accepting extreme dishonor.  99% of Japanese people would not consider that a choice.  Honor above life EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!
> 
> They make it a point to NOT dishonor each other in society or in the workplace.  EVERYBODY knows who fucked up at work.  There's no need to call attention to it and make the fuck-up feel a sense of duty to restore his/her honor by jumping in front of a train.
> 
> Had we allowed them to have some minor concessions to allow them to keep their honor, no bombs would have been necessary.
> 
> This fundamental lack of cultural understanding has reared it's ugly head other times as well:
> 
> Engineer Who Inspected Plane Before Crash Commits Suicide
> 
> 
> That resolve is why I am glad they are now one of our best allies.
Click to expand...

Agreed. 

By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. Truman said fuck you, mass murdered thousands of women and children, and then said okay you can keep your Emperor. So much for unconditional surrender. 

Truman’s actions were the epitome of a war crime.


----------



## gipper

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan would have surrendered in 1944, thus saving the lives of thousands of Americans and Japanese, but for FDR’s foolish unconditional surrender terms.
> 
> 
> 
> He would never let them keep their honor, so they kept fighting, against their will, because death before dishonor.
Click to expand...

The asshole FDR purposely required unconditional surrender, because he knew the a Japanese would never accept this. He wanted to destroy their nation. The war criminal Truman, was a racist pig. He too wanted to wipe out the Japanese people.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Cosmos said:


> The bombing of Pearl Harbor was unnecessary. After that.......well, attacking the USA has consequences.
> 
> You seem to be extremely confused. You must be a Democrat.


I think we can safely say that they had paid the price for their attack long before the bombs were dropped. 

They WANTED to surrender, and would have accepted mass public executions as one of the terms, as long as they were allowed to keep their honor.  

FDR offered them NOTHING but unconditional surrender, so they did the only thing that would maintain their honor.   Keep fighting.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

gipper said:


> The war criminal Truman, was a racist pig. He too wanted to wipe out the Japanese people.


He also wanted to test his new weapon on some yellow people that he believed Americans wouldn't give a shit about.


----------



## gipper

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bombing of Pearl Harbor was unnecessary. After that.......well, attacking the USA has consequences.
> 
> You seem to be extremely confused. You must be a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can safely say that they had paid the price for their attack long before the bombs were dropped.
> 
> They WANTED to surrender, and would have accepted mass public executions as one of the terms, as long as they were allowed to keep their honor.
> 
> FDR offered them NOTHING but unconditional surrender, so they did the only thing that would maintain their honor.   Keep fighting.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

What you have stated in this post in factual, yet most Americans will dispute it. They have no idea that the Japanese wanted to surrender, long before Truman did his dirty deed. As we have seen by many of the posts in this thread from statists, they are clueless on this simple fact.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Having lived in Japan and developing an understanding of Japanese culture, I believe that the U.S. put them in a position of dying or accepting extreme dishonor.  99% of Japanese people would not consider that a choice.  Honor above life EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!
> 
> They make it a point to NOT dishonor each other in society or in the workplace.  EVERYBODY knows who fucked up at work.  There's no need to call attention to it and make the fuck-up feel a sense of duty to restore his/her honor by jumping in front of a train.
> 
> Had we allowed them to have some minor concessions to allow them to keep their honor, no bombs would have been necessary.
> 
> This fundamental lack of cultural understanding has reared it's ugly head other times as well:
> 
> Engineer Who Inspected Plane Before Crash Commits Suicide
> 
> 
> That resolve is why I am glad they are now one of our best allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. Truman said fuck you, mass murdered thousands of women and children, and then said okay you can keep your Emperor. So much for unconditional surrender.
> 
> Truman’s actions were the epitome of a war crime.
Click to expand...

That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.


----------



## Markle

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war criminal Truman, was a racist pig. He too wanted to wipe out the Japanese people.
> 
> 
> 
> He also wanted to test his new weapon on some yellow people that he believed Americans wouldn't give a shit about.
Click to expand...


The bombs saved millions of Japanese lives.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Having lived in Japan and developing an understanding of Japanese culture, I believe that the U.S. put them in a position of dying or accepting extreme dishonor.  99% of Japanese people would not consider that a choice.  Honor above life EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!
> 
> They make it a point to NOT dishonor each other in society or in the workplace.  EVERYBODY knows who fucked up at work.  There's no need to call attention to it and make the fuck-up feel a sense of duty to restore his/her honor by jumping in front of a train.
> 
> Had we allowed them to have some minor concessions to allow them to keep their honor, no bombs would have been necessary.
> 
> This fundamental lack of cultural understanding has reared it's ugly head other times as well:
> 
> Engineer Who Inspected Plane Before Crash Commits Suicide
> 
> 
> That resolve is why I am glad they are now one of our best allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. Truman said fuck you, mass murdered thousands of women and children, and then said okay you can keep your Emperor. So much for unconditional surrender.
> 
> Truman’s actions were the epitome of a war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.
Click to expand...

All Truman needed to do was accept their surrender terms, which only asked that the US leave the Emperor alone. Then no need to drop those bombs. Truman dropped the bombs then left the Emperor alone. 

Does that make sense to you?


----------



## Cosmos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bombing of Pearl Harbor was unnecessary. After that.......well, attacking the USA has consequences.
> 
> You seem to be extremely confused. You must be a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can safely say that they had paid the price for their attack long before the bombs were dropped.
> 
> They WANTED to surrender, and would have accepted mass public executions as one of the terms, as long as they were allowed to keep their honor.
> 
> FDR offered them NOTHING but unconditional surrender, so they did the only thing that would maintain their honor.   Keep fighting.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No Japanese units surrendered.  Their preferred way to be defeated was annihilation. It was their own sick culture of no surrender that left Truman with no choice but to use the atomic bomb.  It was the obvious correct decision.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Having lived in Japan and developing an understanding of Japanese culture, I believe that the U.S. put them in a position of dying or accepting extreme dishonor.  99% of Japanese people would not consider that a choice.  Honor above life EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!
> 
> They make it a point to NOT dishonor each other in society or in the workplace.  EVERYBODY knows who fucked up at work.  There's no need to call attention to it and make the fuck-up feel a sense of duty to restore his/her honor by jumping in front of a train.
> 
> Had we allowed them to have some minor concessions to allow them to keep their honor, no bombs would have been necessary.
> 
> This fundamental lack of cultural understanding has reared it's ugly head other times as well:
> 
> Engineer Who Inspected Plane Before Crash Commits Suicide
> 
> 
> That resolve is why I am glad they are now one of our best allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. Truman said fuck you, mass murdered thousands of women and children, and then said okay you can keep your Emperor. So much for unconditional surrender.
> 
> Truman’s actions were the epitome of a war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Truman needed to do was accept their surrender terms, which only asked that the US leave the Emperor alone. Then no need to drop those bombs. Truman dropped the bombs then left the Emperor alone.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
Click to expand...

You are a bald faced liar that is NOT what they offered they demanded a ceasefire a return to 41 start lines no occupation and no concessions in China.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Having lived in Japan and developing an understanding of Japanese culture, I believe that the U.S. put them in a position of dying or accepting extreme dishonor.  99% of Japanese people would not consider that a choice.  Honor above life EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!
> 
> They make it a point to NOT dishonor each other in society or in the workplace.  EVERYBODY knows who fucked up at work.  There's no need to call attention to it and make the fuck-up feel a sense of duty to restore his/her honor by jumping in front of a train.
> 
> Had we allowed them to have some minor concessions to allow them to keep their honor, no bombs would have been necessary.
> 
> This fundamental lack of cultural understanding has reared it's ugly head other times as well:
> 
> Engineer Who Inspected Plane Before Crash Commits Suicide
> 
> 
> That resolve is why I am glad they are now one of our best allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. Truman said fuck you, mass murdered thousands of women and children, and then said okay you can keep your Emperor. So much for unconditional surrender.
> 
> Truman’s actions were the epitome of a war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Truman needed to do was accept their surrender terms, which only asked that the US leave the Emperor alone. Then no need to drop those bombs. Truman dropped the bombs then left the Emperor alone.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar that is NOT what they offered they demanded a ceasefire a return to 41 start lines no occupation and no concessions in China.
Click to expand...

Good god you’re slow.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having lived in Japan and developing an understanding of Japanese culture, I believe that the U.S. put them in a position of dying or accepting extreme dishonor.  99% of Japanese people would not consider that a choice.  Honor above life EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!
> 
> They make it a point to NOT dishonor each other in society or in the workplace.  EVERYBODY knows who fucked up at work.  There's no need to call attention to it and make the fuck-up feel a sense of duty to restore his/her honor by jumping in front of a train.
> 
> Had we allowed them to have some minor concessions to allow them to keep their honor, no bombs would have been necessary.
> 
> This fundamental lack of cultural understanding has reared it's ugly head other times as well:
> 
> Engineer Who Inspected Plane Before Crash Commits Suicide
> 
> 
> That resolve is why I am glad they are now one of our best allies.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. Truman said fuck you, mass murdered thousands of women and children, and then said okay you can keep your Emperor. So much for unconditional surrender.
> 
> Truman’s actions were the epitome of a war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Truman needed to do was accept their surrender terms, which only asked that the US leave the Emperor alone. Then no need to drop those bombs. Truman dropped the bombs then left the Emperor alone.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar that is NOT what they offered they demanded a ceasefire a return to 41 start lines no occupation and no concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good god you’re slow.
Click to expand...

I have the ACTUAL Japanese Government communications and have linked to them, what do you have? The Japanese Government did NOT just say don't hang the emperor you lying piece of Human excrement.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. Truman said fuck you, mass murdered thousands of women and children, and then said okay you can keep your Emperor. So much for unconditional surrender.
> 
> Truman’s actions were the epitome of a war crime.
> 
> 
> 
> That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Truman needed to do was accept their surrender terms, which only asked that the US leave the Emperor alone. Then no need to drop those bombs. Truman dropped the bombs then left the Emperor alone.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar that is NOT what they offered they demanded a ceasefire a return to 41 start lines no occupation and no concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good god you’re slow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the ACTUAL Japanese Government communications and have linked to them, what do you have? The Japanese Government did NOT just say don't hang the emperor you lying piece of Human excrement.
Click to expand...

You idiot. I have posted this several times. By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. This is a fact. Accept it you dumbass statist.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.
> 
> 
> 
> All Truman needed to do was accept their surrender terms, which only asked that the US leave the Emperor alone. Then no need to drop those bombs. Truman dropped the bombs then left the Emperor alone.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar that is NOT what they offered they demanded a ceasefire a return to 41 start lines no occupation and no concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good god you’re slow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the ACTUAL Japanese Government communications and have linked to them, what do you have? The Japanese Government did NOT just say don't hang the emperor you lying piece of Human excrement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You idiot. I have posted this several times. By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. This is a fact. Accept it you dumbass statist.
Click to expand...

You are LYING. I have DIRECT link to ACTUAL communications from the Japanese Government and they NEVER made such an offer. I repeat link us to where you CLAIM this came from. The Japanese Government never made that demand alone even after the bombs were dropped. And after the Emperor surrendered the Army tried a COUP to stop him from surrendering. All documented in my link by SOURCE DOCUMENTS.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Having lived in Japan and developing an understanding of Japanese culture, I believe that the U.S. put them in a position of dying or accepting extreme dishonor.  99% of Japanese people would not consider that a choice.  Honor above life EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!
> 
> They make it a point to NOT dishonor each other in society or in the workplace.  EVERYBODY knows who fucked up at work.  There's no need to call attention to it and make the fuck-up feel a sense of duty to restore his/her honor by jumping in front of a train.
> 
> Had we allowed them to have some minor concessions to allow them to keep their honor, no bombs would have been necessary.
> 
> This fundamental lack of cultural understanding has reared it's ugly head other times as well:
> 
> Engineer Who Inspected Plane Before Crash Commits Suicide
> 
> 
> That resolve is why I am glad they are now one of our best allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. Truman said fuck you, mass murdered thousands of women and children, and then said okay you can keep your Emperor. So much for unconditional surrender.
> 
> Truman’s actions were the epitome of a war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Truman needed to do was accept their surrender terms, which only asked that the US leave the Emperor alone. Then no need to drop those bombs. Truman dropped the bombs then left the Emperor alone.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar that is NOT what they offered they demanded a ceasefire a return to 41 start lines no occupation and no concessions in China.
Click to expand...



Wrong, rain man.  You are going to keep repeating whatever it is the medicine is essentially forcing you to keep repeating, but mountains and mountains of evidence has been presented that very different outcomes were available. Maybe you feel guilty, maybe you’re just too stupid to think beyond one simple idea, or maybe at your age you just got little birdies circling and circling inside your head. In any case it was  not, no matter how guilty it makes people feel to think otherwise, necessary to annihilate so many innocent civilians including women and children and the elderly. What happened happened, and cannot be undone, but the excuse of having no choice or saving so many lives is completely false.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having lived in Japan and developing an understanding of Japanese culture, I believe that the U.S. put them in a position of dying or accepting extreme dishonor.  99% of Japanese people would not consider that a choice.  Honor above life EVERY FUCKING TIME!!!
> 
> They make it a point to NOT dishonor each other in society or in the workplace.  EVERYBODY knows who fucked up at work.  There's no need to call attention to it and make the fuck-up feel a sense of duty to restore his/her honor by jumping in front of a train.
> 
> Had we allowed them to have some minor concessions to allow them to keep their honor, no bombs would have been necessary.
> 
> This fundamental lack of cultural understanding has reared it's ugly head other times as well:
> 
> Engineer Who Inspected Plane Before Crash Commits Suicide
> 
> 
> That resolve is why I am glad they are now one of our best allies.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. Truman said fuck you, mass murdered thousands of women and children, and then said okay you can keep your Emperor. So much for unconditional surrender.
> 
> Truman’s actions were the epitome of a war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Truman needed to do was accept their surrender terms, which only asked that the US leave the Emperor alone. Then no need to drop those bombs. Truman dropped the bombs then left the Emperor alone.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar that is NOT what they offered they demanded a ceasefire a return to 41 start lines no occupation and no concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, rain man.  You are going to keep repeating whatever it is the medicine is essentially forcing you to keep repeating, but mountains and mountains of evidence has been presented that very different outcomes were available. Maybe you feel guilty, maybe you’re just too stupid to think beyond one simple idea, or maybe at your age you just got little birdies circling and circling inside your head. In any case it was  not, no matter how guilty it makes people feel to think otherwise, necessary to annihilate so many innocent civilians including women and children and the elderly. What happened happened, and cannot be undone, but the excuse of having no choice or saving so many lives is completely false.
Click to expand...

And yet you nor Gipper can actually link to a real source. I have the ACTUAL Government documents from both the US and Japan you have NOTHING.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> By July 1945, all they asked was don’t hang the Emperor. Truman said fuck you, mass murdered thousands of women and children, and then said okay you can keep your Emperor. So much for unconditional surrender.
> 
> Truman’s actions were the epitome of a war crime.
> 
> 
> 
> That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Truman needed to do was accept their surrender terms, which only asked that the US leave the Emperor alone. Then no need to drop those bombs. Truman dropped the bombs then left the Emperor alone.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar that is NOT what they offered they demanded a ceasefire a return to 41 start lines no occupation and no concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, rain man.  You are going to keep repeating whatever it is the medicine is essentially forcing you to keep repeating, but mountains and mountains of evidence has been presented that very different outcomes were available. Maybe you feel guilty, maybe you’re just too stupid to think beyond one simple idea, or maybe at your age you just got little birdies circling and circling inside your head. In any case it was  not, no matter how guilty it makes people feel to think otherwise, necessary to annihilate so many innocent civilians including women and children and the elderly. What happened happened, and cannot be undone, but the excuse of having no choice or saving so many lives is completely false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you nor Gipper can actually link to a real source. I have the ACTUAL Government documents from both the US and Japan you have NOTHING.
Click to expand...

You are such a duped statist that you are unable to understand how stupid your post is.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That simply is NOT true The Japanese Army demanded that to end the war all they would accept was a cease fire return to 41 start lines except no concessions in China, no occupation and for the Allies to go away. They repeated this demand after the first atomic bomb and then refused to surrender after the second atomic bomb, I linked to the ACTUAL Japanese documents from them. You can lie all you want about what they really wanted I have the ACTUAL documents and what they ACTUALLY offered.
> 
> 
> 
> All Truman needed to do was accept their surrender terms, which only asked that the US leave the Emperor alone. Then no need to drop those bombs. Truman dropped the bombs then left the Emperor alone.
> 
> Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a bald faced liar that is NOT what they offered they demanded a ceasefire a return to 41 start lines no occupation and no concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, rain man.  You are going to keep repeating whatever it is the medicine is essentially forcing you to keep repeating, but mountains and mountains of evidence has been presented that very different outcomes were available. Maybe you feel guilty, maybe you’re just too stupid to think beyond one simple idea, or maybe at your age you just got little birdies circling and circling inside your head. In any case it was  not, no matter how guilty it makes people feel to think otherwise, necessary to annihilate so many innocent civilians including women and children and the elderly. What happened happened, and cannot be undone, but the excuse of having no choice or saving so many lives is completely false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you nor Gipper can actually link to a real source. I have the ACTUAL Government documents from both the US and Japan you have NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are such a duped statist that you are unable to understand how stupid your post is.
Click to expand...

And yet no proof none what so ever.....


----------



## Unkotare

Time for Wapner!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Time for either of you to actually show proof of your claims. You two have made up a story and backed it with nothing but hot air. None of your claims have a basis in fact as evidenced by your inability to link to a single verifiable source for your claims.


----------



## Unkotare

Very good driver...


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Time for either of you to actually show proof of your claims. You two have made up a story and backed it with nothing but hot air. None of your claims have a basis in fact as evidenced by your inability to link to a single verifiable source for your claims.


The following statements are lies, but statists don’t know it.

Wars are fought against evil.
Wars are fought in defense.
Wars are waged out of generosity.
Wars are unavoidable.
Warriors are heroes.
War makers have noble motives.
Wars are prolonged for the good of the soldiers.
Wars are fought on battlefields.
Wars are won by enlarging them.
War news comes from disinterested observers.
War brings security.
War is sustainable.
War can be both carefully planned for and avoided.
From...
]

Please read it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Still waiting for a single link to a verifiable source that shows these attempts by Japan to surrender with only one condition that being the emperor is not hung.


----------



## westwall

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com







Annnnd there is ample evidence that the Japanese were going to fight the Marines on the beaches with their civilian population in an attempt to bleed the invasion forces.  They were creating pole bayonets to arm the civilians and there was even a coup attempt to try and prevent the surrender.  You can "reconsider" all you wish, but those are unarguable facts.  Facts trump opinions every day of the week.








"This is an exceedingly rare WWII Japanese pole bayonet. Although not designed to be attached to the rifle, these were made to be lashed onto bamboo poles for the defense of the main island of Japan against the Allied invasion. This bayonet is complete with wooden scabbard. Slab sided blade is in great condition. Markings looks like a Jinsen Rikugun Zoheisho Arsenal and an unknown star inside of a flower." 

Item Detail - VERY RARE WWII JAPANESE LAST DITCH POLE BAYONET IN GREAT SHAPE


----------



## gipper

westwall said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annnnd there is ample evidence that the Japanese were going to fight the Marines on the beaches with their civilian population in an attempt to bleed the invasion forces.  They were creating pole bayonets to arm the civilians and there was even a coup attempt to try and prevent the surrender.  You can "reconsider" all you wish, but those are unarguable facts.  Facts trump opinions every day of the week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This is an exceedingly rare WWII Japanese pole bayonet. Although not designed to be attached to the rifle, these were made to be lashed onto bamboo poles for the defense of the main island of Japan against the Allied invasion. This bayonet is complete with wooden scabbard. Slab sided blade is in great condition. Markings looks like a Jinsen Rikugun Zoheisho Arsenal and an unknown star inside of a flower."
> 
> Item Detail - VERY RARE WWII JAPANESE LAST DITCH POLE BAYONET IN GREAT SHAPE
Click to expand...

No need to invade, unless you are an imperialist. They wanted surrender long before Okinawa. Smart people would accept their surrender and leave. Imagine all the lives saved.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Still waiting for a single link to a verifiable source that shows these attempts by Japan to surrender with only one condition that being the emperor is not hung.


No need to wait. I did it in the OP, but your lack of intelligence forces you to deny all proof and only accept what Uncle tells you. So sorry. I really hate ignorance.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annnnd there is ample evidence that the Japanese were going to fight the Marines on the beaches with their civilian population in an attempt to bleed the invasion forces.  They were creating pole bayonets to arm the civilians and there was even a coup attempt to try and prevent the surrender.  You can "reconsider" all you wish, but those are unarguable facts.  Facts trump opinions every day of the week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This is an exceedingly rare WWII Japanese pole bayonet. Although not designed to be attached to the rifle, these were made to be lashed onto bamboo poles for the defense of the main island of Japan against the Allied invasion. This bayonet is complete with wooden scabbard. Slab sided blade is in great condition. Markings looks like a Jinsen Rikugun Zoheisho Arsenal and an unknown star inside of a flower."
> 
> Item Detail - VERY RARE WWII JAPANESE LAST DITCH POLE BAYONET IN GREAT SHAPE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to invade, unless you are an imperialist. They wanted surrender long before Okinawa. Smart people would accept their surrender and leave. Imagine all the lives saved.
Click to expand...


And imagine having to fight them all over again 20 years later.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a single link to a verifiable source that shows these attempts by Japan to surrender with only one condition that being the emperor is not hung.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to wait. I did it in the OP, but your lack of intelligence forces you to deny all proof and only accept what Uncle tells you. So sorry. I really hate ignorance.
Click to expand...


LOL. "Proof"

Still ignoring me, snowflake?


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Still waiting for a single link to a verifiable source that shows these attempts by Japan to surrender with only one condition that being the emperor is not hung.


No need to wait. I did it in the op long ago and in other threads you and I have crossed paths. Sadly, You can’t handle the truth.


----------



## gipper

martybegan said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a single link to a verifiable source that shows these attempts by Japan to surrender with only one condition that being the emperor is not hung.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to wait. I did it in the OP, but your lack of intelligence forces you to deny all proof and only accept what Uncle tells you. So sorry. I really hate ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. "Proof"
> 
> Still ignoring me, snowflake?
Click to expand...

You were BANNED.  LEAVE NOW.


----------



## martybegan

gipper said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a single link to a verifiable source that shows these attempts by Japan to surrender with only one condition that being the emperor is not hung.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to wait. I did it in the OP, but your lack of intelligence forces you to deny all proof and only accept what Uncle tells you. So sorry. I really hate ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. "Proof"
> 
> Still ignoring me, snowflake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were BANNED.  LEAVE NOW.
Click to expand...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The original link in the opening post does NOT show what you claim. nor is it verifiable nor valid.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

a Book with NO actual link to any ACTUAL evidence as usual. Again I have link to ACTUAL source documents not fevered dreams of wanna be revisionists.


----------



## airplanemechanic

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
Click to expand...


They were so ready to surrender it took TWO nuclear weapon detonations to get them to surrender?

Quit rewriting history. 3000 Americans lost their lives at Pearl Harbor. They were innocent too. Fuck Japan. I still hate those fucking slant eyed bastards. They awoke a sleeping giant.

We fucked them up. Go 'murica!!!!


----------



## Unkotare

airplanemechanic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were so ready to surrender it took TWO nuclear weapon detonations to get them to surrender?
> 
> Quit rewriting history. 3000 Americans lost their lives at Pearl Harbor. They were innocent too. Fuck Japan. I still hate those fucking slant eyed bastards. They awoke a sleeping giant.
> 
> We fucked them up. Go 'murica!!!!
Click to expand...



YOU didn’t do anything, boy. Learn how to drink before trying too hard.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
Click to expand...

If true, why were the Japanese trying to create the same weapon of mass destruction, and
a defenseless nation, ready to surrender, should not bomb or  go to war with other nations.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If true, why were the Japanese trying to create the same weapon of mass destruction, and
> a defenseless nation, ready to surrender, should not bomb or  go to war with other nations.
Click to expand...

What?


----------



## Camp

If you, your spouse, your parent,  your sibling, your child, your neighbor, your friend, a school mate or anyone you might know was scheduled and preparing for the invasion of Japan you were probably thrilled and glad the bombs were dropped and used to force Japan into surrender. Horrible battles against the Japanese, especially the recent high casualty ones at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Kamikaze attacks on US Sailors and the knowledge of the coming casualties among those fathers, brothers, sons, neighbors, etc. with a Japanese invasion made atomic bombings welcome by a grateful American population.

​


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> If you, your spouse, your parent,  your sibling, your child, your neighbor, your friend, a school mate or anyone you might know was scheduled and preparing for the invasion of Japan you were probably thrilled and glad the bombs were dropped and used to force Japan into surrender. Horrible battles against the Japanese, especially the recent high casualty ones at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Kamikaze attacks on US Sailors and the knowledge of the coming casualties among those fathers, brothers, sons, neighbors, etc. with a Japanese invasion made atomic bombings welcome by a grateful American population.
> 
> ​


BS. Why are statists such disgusting imperialists?

THERE WAS NO NEED TO INVADE

BTW my father was in southern France, preparing for the imperialist invasion of Japan.

If it weren’t for American statists, the Ruling Class wouldn’t so easily get away with mass murder.


----------



## pismoe

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you, your spouse, your parent,  your sibling, your child, your neighbor, your friend, a school mate or anyone you might know was scheduled and preparing for the invasion of Japan you were probably thrilled and glad the bombs were dropped and used to force Japan into surrender. Horrible battles against the Japanese, especially the recent high casualty ones at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Kamikaze attacks on US Sailors and the knowledge of the coming casualties among those fathers, brothers, sons, neighbors, etc. with a Japanese invasion made atomic bombings welcome by a grateful American population.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> BS. Why are statists such disgusting imperialists?
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO INVADE
> 
> BTW my father was in southern France, preparing for the imperialist invasion of Japan.
> 
> If it weren’t for American statists, the Ruling Class wouldn’t so easily get away with mass murder.
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------   my Uncle Micky is still in a French Cemetary .   He wasn't worried about invading 'japan' .


----------



## pismoe

need to invade 'japan' was simply to humiliate and reform , intimidate and put them under Americas thumb and i said that earlier in this thread .    Its the BEST way or tactic that the USA  seems to have forgotten since we built the 'Highway of Death' on the 'iraqi' army in 91 or 92   Gipper ,


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If true, why were the Japanese trying to create the same weapon of mass destruction, and
> a defenseless nation, ready to surrender, should not bomb or  go to war with other nations.
Click to expand...

So?  Wouldn’t you if a blood thirsty asshole like FDR, was trying to murder your entire nation?  WTF is wrong with you?

Statism warps the mind


----------



## gipper

pismoe said:


> need to invade 'japan' was simply to humiliate and reform , intimidate and put them under Americas thumb and i said that earlier in this thread .    Its the BEST way or tactic that the USA  seems to have forgotten since we built the 'Highway of Death' on the 'iraqi' army in 91 or 92   Gipper ,


Yes the USA is an imperialist power and has been for a long time, but statists don’t know it.


----------



## pismoe

i don't know or recognize 'imperialist' , i see the bombing of 'japan' simply as a FULL and total defeat of 'japan and i think it was needed .  I say that ALL Wars should be fought in the same way as 'japan' was defeated rather than fecking around with the enemy the way that is been being done these last 17 years in the middle east .    Seems to me that MUCH of the Genius of the WW2 Generation War Fighting has been lost with the current USA Military .      i blame ALL the 'bush's' and 'colon powell'   Gipper .


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> If you, your spouse, your parent,  your sibling, your child, your neighbor, your friend, a school mate or anyone you might know was scheduled and preparing for the invasion of Japan you were probably thrilled and glad the bombs were dropped and used to force Japan into surrender. Horrible battles against the Japanese, especially the recent high casualty ones at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Kamikaze attacks on US Sailors and the knowledge of the coming casualties among those fathers, brothers, sons, neighbors, etc. with a Japanese invasion made atomic bombings welcome by a grateful American population.
> 
> ​




Iwo and Okinawa both happened AFTER fdr chose to ignore the detailed information from MacArthur about overtures for surrender.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you, your spouse, your parent,  your sibling, your child, your neighbor, your friend, a school mate or anyone you might know was scheduled and preparing for the invasion of Japan you were probably thrilled and glad the bombs were dropped and used to force Japan into surrender. Horrible battles against the Japanese, especially the recent high casualty ones at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Kamikaze attacks on US Sailors and the knowledge of the coming casualties among those fathers, brothers, sons, neighbors, etc. with a Japanese invasion made atomic bombings welcome by a grateful American population.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iwo and Okinawa both happened AFTER fdr chose to ignore the detailed information from MacArthur about overtures for surrender.
Click to expand...

Provide a verifiable link to these supposed peace overtures. Something from the Government will do as I have done. Then explain how your buddy Gipper claims they offered to surrender with the only request being don't hang the Emperor.


----------



## pismoe

the only way to agree to a surrender is UNCONDITIONAL with NO preconditions .  Feck that 'emperor or gods' head , his head was ours .  -----------------   Just a general comment .


----------



## Unkotare

Cosmos said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  .....
Click to expand...



After fdr said “fu” to the idea of peace.


----------



## Unkotare

pismoe said:


> the only way to agree to a surrender is UNCONDITIONAL with NO preconditions .  Feck that 'emperor or gods' head , his head was ours .  -----------------   Just a general comment .





The terms offered were exactly the ones we agreed to after Truman got the blood he was after.


----------



## regent

Won't be long on these boards until we discover it was really the Americans that bombed Pearl Harbor.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

regent said:


> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.


Except that an invasion might not have been necessary.


----------



## Cosmos

Unkotare said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After fdr said “fu” to the idea of peace.
Click to expand...


Sneak attacks on US Naval bases while peace negotiations are ongoing have consequences.  I would say overall the Japanese came out of WWII, which they caused, far better than they deserve.  By rights we should all have Japanese household slaves.


----------



## gipper

Cosmos said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After fdr said “fu” to the idea of peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sneak attacks on US Naval bases while peace negotiations are ongoing have consequences.  I would say overall the Japanese came out of WWII, which they caused, far better than they deserve.  By rights we should all have Japanese household slaves.
Click to expand...

You’re nuts. 

If you ever attain some level of intelligence, you will realize that citizens of a tyrannical government have no say or rights. To mass murder these citizens for the acts of their government, is a war crime deserving immediate execution.


----------



## The Irish Ram

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
Click to expand...


They weren't ready to surrender. Astoundingly, a second bomb was necessary to stop them from killing more Americans. <*That* was the objective, *not* sparing as many Japanese as we could.  

Mass murder was the death of a thousand + Americans at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese didn't get to choose the method of retaliation.  We finished what they started.   Feel sorry for those families who were destroyed by an *unprovoked *attack on our country.


----------



## gipper

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that an invasion might not have been necessary.
Click to expand...

The only reason to invade, was to conquer and subjugate. Imperial powers do this sort of thing, but American statists are impervious to this fact.


----------



## gipper

The Irish Ram said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They weren't ready to surrender. Astoundingly, a second bomb was necessary to stop them from killing more Americans. <*That* was the objective, *not* sparing as many Japanese as we could.
> 
> Mass murder was the death of a thousand + Americans at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese didn't get to choose the method of retaliation.  We finished what they started.   Feel sorry for those families who were destroyed by an *unprovoked *attack on our country.
Click to expand...

They offered to surrender several times, well before August 1945. FDR’s murderous demand for unconditional surrender, lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.


----------



## Cosmos

gipper said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After fdr said “fu” to the idea of peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sneak attacks on US Naval bases while peace negotiations are ongoing have consequences.  I would say overall the Japanese came out of WWII, which they caused, far better than they deserve.  By rights we should all have Japanese household slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re nuts.
> 
> If you ever attain some level of intelligence, you will realize that citizens of a tyrannical government have no say or rights. To mass murder these citizens for the acts of their government, is a war crime deserving immediate execution.
Click to expand...


Like I've said. The Japanese got off easy.  The nuclear weapons saved more of their lives than American lives.  Hell, if we really wanted to hurt them we could have walked away and let the Soviet Union have them.  All this leftist revisionism about the nuclear weapons use is sheer stupidity every time it comes up.  You bedwetters need to grow up.


----------



## gipper

Cosmos said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After fdr said “fu” to the idea of peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sneak attacks on US Naval bases while peace negotiations are ongoing have consequences.  I would say overall the Japanese came out of WWII, which they caused, far better than they deserve.  By rights we should all have Japanese household slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re nuts.
> 
> If you ever attain some level of intelligence, you will realize that citizens of a tyrannical government have no say or rights. To mass murder these citizens for the acts of their government, is a war crime deserving immediate execution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I've said. The Japanese got off easy.  The nuclear weapons saved more of their lives than American lives.  Hell, if we really wanted to hurt them we could have walked away and let the Soviet Union have them.  All this leftist revisionism about the nuclear weapons use is sheer stupidity every time it comes up.  You bedwetters need to grow up.
Click to expand...

BS


----------



## The Irish Ram

gipper said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They weren't ready to surrender. Astoundingly, a second bomb was necessary to stop them from killing more Americans. <*That* was the objective, *not* sparing as many Japanese as we could.
> 
> Mass murder was the death of a thousand + Americans at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese didn't get to choose the method of retaliation.  We finished what they started.   Feel sorry for those families who were destroyed by an *unprovoked *attack on our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They offered to surrender several times, well before August 1945. FDR’s murderous demand for unconditional surrender, lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
Click to expand...


On their own terms.  If you kill me, I don't think you get to determine your fate.  Neither did they...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They weren't ready to surrender. Astoundingly, a second bomb was necessary to stop them from killing more Americans. <*That* was the objective, *not* sparing as many Japanese as we could.
> 
> Mass murder was the death of a thousand + Americans at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese didn't get to choose the method of retaliation.  We finished what they started.   Feel sorry for those families who were destroyed by an *unprovoked *attack on our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They offered to surrender several times, well before August 1945. FDR’s murderous demand for unconditional surrender, lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
Click to expand...

And you have YET to provide a LINK to any offer of surrender from the Government of Japan.


----------



## Unkotare

Cosmos said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After fdr said “fu” to the idea of peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sneak attacks on US Naval bases while peace negotiations are ongoing have consequences.  I would say overall the Japanese came out of WWII, which they caused, far better than they deserve.  By rights we should all have Japanese household slaves.
Click to expand...



A disgracefully un- American thing to say.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAnotherNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan knew of & expected serious retaliation for Pearl Harbor and I surely wouldn't call them defenseless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think anyone expected such destruction
> 
> 
> 
> By 1945, they were a defenseless nation. Please keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were fought in 1945.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After fdr said “fu” to the idea of peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sneak attacks on US Naval bases while peace negotiations are ongoing have consequences.  I would say overall the Japanese came out of WWII, which they caused, far better than they deserve.  By rights we should all have Japanese household slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A disgracefully un- American thing to say.
Click to expand...

And yet you can not ACTUALLY link to any peace offer made by the Government of Japan. Go figure.


----------



## gipper

The Irish Ram said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They weren't ready to surrender. Astoundingly, a second bomb was necessary to stop them from killing more Americans. <*That* was the objective, *not* sparing as many Japanese as we could.
> 
> Mass murder was the death of a thousand + Americans at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese didn't get to choose the method of retaliation.  We finished what they started.   Feel sorry for those families who were destroyed by an *unprovoked *attack on our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They offered to surrender several times, well before August 1945. FDR’s murderous demand for unconditional surrender, lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On their own terms.  If you kill me, I don't think you get to determine your fate.  Neither did they...
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s the American Way. You attack my military base and I will burn down all your cities and mass murder your women and children.


----------



## Cosmos

gipper said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They weren't ready to surrender. Astoundingly, a second bomb was necessary to stop them from killing more Americans. <*That* was the objective, *not* sparing as many Japanese as we could.
> 
> Mass murder was the death of a thousand + Americans at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese didn't get to choose the method of retaliation.  We finished what they started.   Feel sorry for those families who were destroyed by an *unprovoked *attack on our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They offered to surrender several times, well before August 1945. FDR’s murderous demand for unconditional surrender, lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On their own terms.  If you kill me, I don't think you get to determine your fate.  Neither did they...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that’s the American Way. You attack my military base and I will burn down all your cities and mass murder your women and children.
Click to expand...


The Japanese fought every battle to the last man and preferred suicide to surrender.  So they brought on this needless destruction themselves.  Get over it.


----------



## The Irish Ram

gipper said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They weren't ready to surrender. Astoundingly, a second bomb was necessary to stop them from killing more Americans. <*That* was the objective, *not* sparing as many Japanese as we could.
> 
> Mass murder was the death of a thousand + Americans at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese didn't get to choose the method of retaliation.  We finished what they started.   Feel sorry for those families who were destroyed by an *unprovoked *attack on our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They offered to surrender several times, well before August 1945. FDR’s murderous demand for unconditional surrender, lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On their own terms.  If you kill me, I don't think you get to determine your fate.  Neither did they...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that’s the American Way. You attack my military base and I will burn down all your cities and mass murder your women and children.
Click to expand...



Goes like this:
You declare war on the United States and attack us, we will kick your ass.


----------



## gipper

The Irish Ram said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't ready to surrender. Astoundingly, a second bomb was necessary to stop them from killing more Americans. <*That* was the objective, *not* sparing as many Japanese as we could.
> 
> Mass murder was the death of a thousand + Americans at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese didn't get to choose the method of retaliation.  We finished what they started.   Feel sorry for those families who were destroyed by an *unprovoked *attack on our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They offered to surrender several times, well before August 1945. FDR’s murderous demand for unconditional surrender, lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On their own terms.  If you kill me, I don't think you get to determine your fate.  Neither did they...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that’s the American Way. You attack my military base and I will burn down all your cities and mass murder your women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Goes like this:
> You declare war on the United States and attack us, we will kick your ass.
Click to expand...

Yes, Americans are blood thirsty. 

A tyrannical government in which it’s people have no say, attacks the US. The US then mass murders those people. Americans do love total war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't ready to surrender. Astoundingly, a second bomb was necessary to stop them from killing more Americans. <*That* was the objective, *not* sparing as many Japanese as we could.
> 
> Mass murder was the death of a thousand + Americans at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese didn't get to choose the method of retaliation.  We finished what they started.   Feel sorry for those families who were destroyed by an *unprovoked *attack on our country.
> 
> 
> 
> They offered to surrender several times, well before August 1945. FDR’s murderous demand for unconditional surrender, lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On their own terms.  If you kill me, I don't think you get to determine your fate.  Neither did they...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that’s the American Way. You attack my military base and I will burn down all your cities and mass murder your women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Goes like this:
> You declare war on the United States and attack us, we will kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Americans are blood thirsty.
> 
> A tyrannical government in which it’s people have no say, attacks the US. The US then mass murders those people. Americans do love total war.
Click to expand...

The citizens WILLINGLY OBEYED every order volunteered by the millions and committed mas suicide at the bequest of that Government. And were preparing to human wave assault landing beaches with bamboo spears. All because they WILLINGLY obeyed the Government.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If true, why were the Japanese trying to create the same weapon of mass destruction, and
> a defenseless nation, ready to surrender, should not bomb or  go to war with other nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  Wouldn’t you if a blood thirsty asshole like FDR, was trying to murder your entire nation?  WTF is wrong with you?
> I the
> Statism warps the mind
Click to expand...




gipper said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't ready to surrender. Astoundingly, a second bomb was necessary to stop them from killing more Americans. <*That* was the objective, *not* sparing as many Japanese as we could.
> 
> Mass murder was the death of a thousand + Americans at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese didn't get to choose the method of retaliation.  We finished what they started.   Feel sorry for those families who were destroyed by an *unprovoked *attack on our country.
> 
> 
> 
> They offered to surrender several times, well before August 1945. FDR’s murderous demand for unconditional surrender, lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On their own terms.  If you kill me, I don't think you get to determine your fate.  Neither did they...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that’s the American Way. You attack my military base and I will burn down all your cities and mass murder your women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Goes like this:
> You declare war on the United States and attack us, we will kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Americans are blood thirsty.
> 
> A tyrannical government in which it’s people have no say, attacks the US. The US then mass murders those people. Americans do love total war.
Click to expand...

That's why America created the Kamikaze units because they love total war. America also created the "If you surrender you are not  a soldier" concept. Blood thirsty savages eh what?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If true, why were the Japanese trying to create the same weapon of mass destruction, and
> a defenseless nation, ready to surrender, should not bomb or  go to war with other nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  Wouldn’t you if a blood thirsty asshole like FDR, was trying to murder your entire nation?  WTF is wrong with you?
> I the
> Statism warps the mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They offered to surrender several times, well before August 1945. FDR’s murderous demand for unconditional surrender, lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On their own terms.  If you kill me, I don't think you get to determine your fate.  Neither did they...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that’s the American Way. You attack my military base and I will burn down all your cities and mass murder your women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Goes like this:
> You declare war on the United States and attack us, we will kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Americans are blood thirsty.
> 
> A tyrannical government in which it’s people have no say, attacks the US. The US then mass murders those people. Americans do love total war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why America created the Kamikaze units because they love total war. America also created the "If you surrender you are not  a soldier" concept. Blood thirsty savages eh what?
Click to expand...

Dumb as usual. The Japanese resorted to kamikaze attacks because all their experienced pilots were dead, and the US government would not accept their surrender terms.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst American value was using a weapon of mass destruction on a defenseless nation, ready to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If true, why were the Japanese trying to create the same weapon of mass destruction, and
> a defenseless nation, ready to surrender, should not bomb or  go to war with other nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  Wouldn’t you if a blood thirsty asshole like FDR, was trying to murder your entire nation?  WTF is wrong with you?
> I the
> Statism warps the mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> On their own terms.  If you kill me, I don't think you get to determine your fate.  Neither did they...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that’s the American Way. You attack my military base and I will burn down all your cities and mass murder your women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Goes like this:
> You declare war on the United States and attack us, we will kick your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Americans are blood thirsty.
> 
> A tyrannical government in which it’s people have no say, attacks the US. The US then mass murders those people. Americans do love total war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why America created the Kamikaze units because they love total war. America also created the "If you surrender you are not  a soldier" concept. Blood thirsty savages eh what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb as usual. The Japanese resorted to kamikaze attacks because all their experienced pilots were dead, and the US government would not accept their surrender terms.
Click to expand...

Moron the Government of Japan at NO TIME ever offered to surrender. You have no link no document NOTHING to support your claim except the fevered imagination of writers 30 years after the fact and they can not link to or provide a shred of evidence to support their claim either.

The claim comes from the fact that there was a peace group in the Japanese Government from the Navy. They were a MINORITY and never controlled the Government but even they never offered to surrender all they ever offered was CEASE FIRE return to 41 start ,lines no concessions in China, no disarmament and no occupation. After 2 atomic bombs the Japanese Government REFUSED to surrender and the Emperor had to over ride them and then the ARMY attempted a COUP to stop that.


----------



## Unkotare

Confidential Documents released by the CIA Historical Review Program:



Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Confidential Documents released by the CIA Historical Review Program:
> 
> 
> 
> Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency


Again all you have are feelers from a Group NOT directly connected to the Government, further it has several bald faced lies in it, the NAVY did NOT control the Government the Army did. The peace group was a Minority in the Government and had no authority to negotiate anything at all. Further as noted in the last bit the AR MY which did CONTROL the Government was DEAD set against surrender and the ONLY thing that changed that was the Emperor ordering a surrender. And even AFTER the Emperor surrendered the Army staged a COUP to stop that.


----------



## Unkotare

Rain man  You need to visit the CIA and give them a good talking to.  Maybe repeat the same thing over and over and over again until you get water boarded?


----------



## Unkotare

Rain Man will scream and bash his head against the door of his cell, but the reality is that there existed a possibility, maybe just a possibility, of a negotiated peace before all the terrible bloodletting of Iwo and Okinawa, to say nothing of the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  But the  bloodthirsty racist FDR had absolutely no interest in peace, he was out for blood and he would have it no matter what.


----------



## HenryBHough

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Except that an invasion might not have been necessary.



And pigs *might* also fly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Rain Man will scream and bash his head against the door of his cell, but the reality is that there existed a possibility, maybe just a possibility, of a negotiated peace before all the terrible bloodletting of Iwo and Okinawa, to say nothing of the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  But the  bloodthirsty racist FDR had absolutely no interest in peace, he was out for blood and he would have it no matter what.


Nothing you have posted shows any inclination by the Japanese Government to surrender NOTHING, you have a small peace group in the Japanese Government that had no authority no power talking about something they could not do even your own links prove that you retard.


----------



## regent

So was that what this was all about; just another anti-FDR post?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Confidential Documents released by the CIA Historical Review Program:
> 
> 
> 
> Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency


.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confidential Documents released by the CIA Historical Review Program:
> 
> 
> 
> Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That does not say what you claim it says. Retard.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Rain Man will scream and bash his head against the door of his cell, but the reality is that there existed a possibility, maybe just a possibility, of a negotiated peace before all the terrible bloodletting of Iwo and Okinawa, to say nothing of the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  But the  bloodthirsty racist FDR had absolutely no interest in peace, he was out for blood and he would have it no matter what.


FDR was dead and buried four months before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rain Man will scream and bash his head against the door of his cell, but the reality is that there existed a possibility, maybe just a possibility, of a negotiated peace before all the terrible bloodletting of Iwo and Okinawa, to say nothing of the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  But the  bloodthirsty racist FDR had absolutely no interest in peace, he was out for blood and he would have it no matter what.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was dead and buried four months before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...





Thanks Captain Obvious.


----------



## Markle

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that an invasion might not have been necessary.
Click to expand...


Was an invasion of Germany necessary?  In your opinion.


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> Yeah that’s the American Way. You attack my military base and I will burn down all your cities and mass murder your women and children.



You're simply a Troll.


----------



## WheelieAddict

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Markle said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that an invasion might not have been necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was an invasion of Germany necessary?  In your opinion.
Click to expand...


Red Herring  logical fallacy. This is about Japan

False Equivalency logical fallacy. Europe and the Pacific were entirely different situation

A question for you: Would the US have used the bomb on Germany if we had it sooner, instead of invading ? Why or why not?


----------



## regent

The Germans were a different foe than Japan. It seems the Germans, when faced with an impossible situation would surrender. Not so with the Japanese. A Japanese soldier when faced with capture would often give his life to kill an enemy rather than surrender. They were also  expecting many Japanese civilians to fight on. Once American soldiers realized this, they changed their tactics.


----------



## gipper

WheelieAddict said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?
Click to expand...

Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.
Click to expand...

War is hell. We should pass laws abolishing all conflicts, the sad thing is that most nations make wars according to their own well being.


----------



## Blackrook

America was fighting a war for survival unlike any war ever fought before or since.  We are not in a position to judge the generation who fought that war, until we face a crisis of equal proportions.


----------



## WheelieAddict

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.
Click to expand...

I can't defend a horrible act of war, no  one should especially with hindsight. 

I'd still say there is quite a difference between a tough call on a bombing you know will kill people while wanting to reduce the death toll of your own while in a war, and a systemic plan of ethnic cleansing/genocide. One evil is far worse than the other imho. 

The leaders of the United States wanted to end the war without more casualties on their side. The leaders of Nazi Germany started a war with intent of eliminating classes and races of people by the tens of millions.

If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## gipper

WheelieAddict said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't defend a horrible act of war, no  one should especially with hindsight.
> 
> I'd still say there is quite a difference between a tough call on a bombing you know will kill people while wanting to reduce the death toll of your own while in a war, and a systemic plan of ethnic cleansing/genocide. One evil is far worse than the other imho.
> 
> The leaders of the United States wanted to end the war without more casualties on their side. The leaders of Nazi Germany started a war with intent of eliminating classes and races of people by the tens of millions.
> 
> If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.


----------



## gipper

Blackrook said:


> America was fighting a war for survival unlike any war ever fought before or since.  We are not in a position to judge the generation who fought that war, until we face a crisis of equal proportions.


BS. We never should have entered WWII. Had we not had a criminal in FDR as POTUS, we might have avoided that war entirely and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> War is hell. We should pass laws abolishing all conflicts, the sad thing is that most nations make wars according to their own well being.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. All wars are banker’s war. War is always about the health of the State.


----------



## WheelieAddict

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't defend a horrible act of war, no  one should especially with hindsight.
> 
> I'd still say there is quite a difference between a tough call on a bombing you know will kill people while wanting to reduce the death toll of your own while in a war, and a systemic plan of ethnic cleansing/genocide. One evil is far worse than the other imho.
> 
> The leaders of the United States wanted to end the war without more casualties on their side. The leaders of Nazi Germany started a war with intent of eliminating classes and races of people by the tens of millions.
> 
> If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.
Click to expand...

What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

WheelieAddict said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't defend a horrible act of war, no  one should especially with hindsight.
> 
> I'd still say there is quite a difference between a tough call on a bombing you know will kill people while wanting to reduce the death toll of your own while in a war, and a systemic plan of ethnic cleansing/genocide. One evil is far worse than the other imho.
> 
> The leaders of the United States wanted to end the war without more casualties on their side. The leaders of Nazi Germany started a war with intent of eliminating classes and races of people by the tens of millions.
> 
> If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!
Click to expand...

He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.


----------



## Muhammed

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


Democrats are just plain evil.


----------



## WheelieAddict

RetiredGySgt said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't defend a horrible act of war, no  one should especially with hindsight.
> 
> I'd still say there is quite a difference between a tough call on a bombing you know will kill people while wanting to reduce the death toll of your own while in a war, and a systemic plan of ethnic cleansing/genocide. One evil is far worse than the other imho.
> 
> The leaders of the United States wanted to end the war without more casualties on their side. The leaders of Nazi Germany started a war with intent of eliminating classes and races of people by the tens of millions.
> 
> If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.
Click to expand...

Excellent post, thank you.


----------



## gipper

WheelieAddict said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't defend a horrible act of war, no  one should especially with hindsight.
> 
> I'd still say there is quite a difference between a tough call on a bombing you know will kill people while wanting to reduce the death toll of your own while in a war, and a systemic plan of ethnic cleansing/genocide. One evil is far worse than the other imho.
> 
> The leaders of the United States wanted to end the war without more casualties on their side. The leaders of Nazi Germany started a war with intent of eliminating classes and races of people by the tens of millions.
> 
> If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
Click to expand...

LOL 

They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force. 

THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't defend a horrible act of war, no  one should especially with hindsight.
> 
> I'd still say there is quite a difference between a tough call on a bombing you know will kill people while wanting to reduce the death toll of your own while in a war, and a systemic plan of ethnic cleansing/genocide. One evil is far worse than the other imho.
> 
> The leaders of the United States wanted to end the war without more casualties on their side. The leaders of Nazi Germany started a war with intent of eliminating classes and races of people by the tens of millions.
> 
> If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> 
> 
> That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
Click to expand...


Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't defend a horrible act of war, no  one should especially with hindsight.
> 
> I'd still say there is quite a difference between a tough call on a bombing you know will kill people while wanting to reduce the death toll of your own while in a war, and a systemic plan of ethnic cleansing/genocide. One evil is far worse than the other imho.
> 
> The leaders of the United States wanted to end the war without more casualties on their side. The leaders of Nazi Germany started a war with intent of eliminating classes and races of people by the tens of millions.
> 
> If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.
Click to expand...

sure they did--that's why they surrendered long before 15 Aug 1945


----------



## harmonica

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
Click to expand...

he's living in fairytale-make -believe land


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
Click to expand...

Done it a dozen times over the years here. Search my posts and you will be enlightened, but only if you can accept the truth. 

It amazes me how small minded some Americans are. They just accept their lying government’s word.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
Click to expand...

...and you have some nerve asking me for links, when I have been trying to educate you for a decade now. Do you come to this forum NEW every day?


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!
> 
> 
> 
> He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Done it a dozen times over the years here. Search my posts and you will be enlightened, but only if you can accept the truth.
> 
> It amazes me how small minded some Americans are. They just accept their lying government’s word.
Click to expand...

Just admit these are conspiracy theories rolling around in your delusional mind and you are unable to provide any real or reliable links to your preposterous claims designed to bad mouth and bash America and some American leaders you hate. 

America decided that with the development of a superweapon, the atomic bomb, they would not risk losing one more American life, and certainly not hundreds of thousands or a million defeating the enemy that began the war in a surprise attack.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!
> 
> 
> 
> He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you have some nerve asking me for links, when I have been trying to educate you for a decade now. Do you come to this forum NEW every day?
Click to expand...

You have NEVER .linked to anything except a book that is not proof of anything. At least Unk linked to a verifiable source document even if it does not say what he claims it says.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Done it a dozen times over the years here. Search my posts and you will be enlightened, but only if you can accept the truth.
> 
> It amazes me how small minded some Americans are. They just accept their lying government’s word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just admit these are conspiracy theories rolling around in your delusional mind and you are unable to provide any real or reliable links to your preposterous claims designed to bad mouth and bash America and some American leaders you hate.
> 
> America decided that with the development of a superweapon, the atomic bomb, they would not risk losing one more American life, and certainly not hundreds of thousands or a million defeating the enemy that began the war in a surprise attack.
Click to expand...

See?  You consider the truth a conspiracy theory. sad. Very sad.


----------



## Moonglow

Hindsight is 20/20...Now impress us and predict the future..


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> He originally c;laimed that all the Japanese Government ask for was a promise that we would not hang the Emperor. Of course that is a bald faced lie. And when called on it he has stopped claiming it. What they are talking about him and Unk is an attempt by the Japanese Navy, which did not control the Government, to float an idea of a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, no concessions in China, no occupation and no disarmament. At no time did the ACTUAL government of Japan offer to surrender, not even after 2 ATOMIC bombs. The Emperor had to over rule the army which controlled the Government order a surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you have some nerve asking me for links, when I have been trying to educate you for a decade now. Do you come to this forum NEW every day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER .linked to anything except a book that is not proof of anything. At least Unk linked to a verifiable source document even if it does not say what he claims it says.
Click to expand...

Linked dozens and dozens and dozens of times. The proof is easy to find, but when you are dumb, statist, and a pussy, the truth is too much for you to accept.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you have some nerve asking me for links, when I have been trying to educate you for a decade now. Do you come to this forum NEW every day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER .linked to anything except a book that is not proof of anything. At least Unk linked to a verifiable source document even if it does not say what he claims it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Linked dozens and dozens and dozens of times. The proof is easy to find, but when you are dumb, statist, and a pussy, the truth is too much for you to accept.
Click to expand...

You have NEVER linked to anything other then a book with no evidence no citations no source documents just hearsay. Meanwhile I linked to ACTUAL source documents from Japan and the US. Unk did too..... of course his link does not support his claim at all but at least he found a source that is verifiable and fact based.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you have some nerve asking me for links, when I have been trying to educate you for a decade now. Do you come to this forum NEW every day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER .linked to anything except a book that is not proof of anything. At least Unk linked to a verifiable source document even if it does not say what he claims it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Linked dozens and dozens and dozens of times. The proof is easy to find, but when you are dumb, statist, and a pussy, the truth is too much for you to accept.
Click to expand...

If reliable realistic scholarly and historically accepted links are so easy to find why don't you post them?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you have some nerve asking me for links, when I have been trying to educate you for a decade now. Do you come to this forum NEW every day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER .linked to anything except a book that is not proof of anything. At least Unk linked to a verifiable source document even if it does not say what he claims it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Linked dozens and dozens and dozens of times. The proof is easy to find, but when you are dumb, statist, and a pussy, the truth is too much for you to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If reliable realistic scholarly and historically accepted links are so easy to find why don't you post them?
Click to expand...

He can NOT, he linked to a book a while back one written to make money that had no references to anything other then the comments of certain Generals after the war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

By the way he also claimed that Japan offered to surrender with the ONLY demand being we not hang the Emperor.


----------



## regent

If we can't figure out today how Japan surrendered, how could they have figured it out in 1945? With numerous Japanese organizations requesting surrender terms it must have been a difficult period. The real answer was when the emperor decided it was enough then surrender began.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> By the way he also claimed that Japan offered to surrender with the ONLY demand being we not hang the Emperor.


That’s right and you not knowing it, just proves what a dumbass you are.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> They initially thought FDR was not serious about his murderous unconditional surrender requirement. When they put out feelers threw third parties asking for surrender terms IN 1943, FDR responded with fuck you. They continued asking for surrender terms in 44 and 45. Only to get the same response. Naturally, they concluded that FDR and Truman wanted to exterminate all of Japan. Thus resulting in the despite and suicidal efforts of the army and Air Force.
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you have some nerve asking me for links, when I have been trying to educate you for a decade now. Do you come to this forum NEW every day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER .linked to anything except a book that is not proof of anything. At least Unk linked to a verifiable source document even if it does not say what he claims it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Linked dozens and dozens and dozens of times. The proof is easy to find, but when you are dumb, statist, and a pussy, the truth is too much for you to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If reliable realistic scholarly and historically accepted links are so easy to find why don't you post them?
Click to expand...

Read the OP dumbass.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> If we can't figure out today how Japan surrendered, how could they have figured it out in 1945? With numerous Japanese organizations requesting surrender terms it must have been a difficult period. The real answer was when the emperor decided it was enough then surrender began.


We know how they surrendered. Truman mass murdered them unnecessarily, then agreed to their only condition. That the emperor be spared.


----------



## HenryBHough

The war is over.

As usual, Democrats, your side lost.

Get over it.


----------



## Andylusion

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com



No, I disagree with all of this.

In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.

If you exist in a society, you are supporting the war effort.   Throughout all human history, the way that an enemy is defeated is by killing 'the man behind the man, with the gun'.

This is one of the reasons that we have had so many long drawn out combat zones in the last couple of decades.

Until you wipe out the people that are supporting the war effort, the war will continue.

This is why the war in Vietnam never ended, while we were there.   We killed the vietcong, and the North Vietnamese troops, but never attacked the people that were feeding, funding, supplying, and replacing all the troops we killed.

So the war just never ended.   If the US military had been unshackled, we would have easily... EASILY wiped out north Vietnam.   Walk in the park.

Same with Syria today, and the Ukraine.

Until one side starts wiping out the people of those countries, neither of those wars will end.   As long as the man, behind man with gun, continues to feed the man with the gun, fund the man with the gun, supply the man with the gun.... then there will always be a man with a gun shooting at you.

What do you think Sherman's march to the sea was all about?   You had to wipe out the people that were supplying the war effort.   Until the public says they have had enough, and agree to end the conflict, the the conflict doesn't end.

*And by the way........*

I get a little irritated with people that focus on the atom bomb.    Does everyone not know what we were doing before dropping that bomb?

We were fire-bombing.   Do all of you know what fire-bombing is?

So I assume everyone is aware of Paradise California, the town that was wiped out by a raging wild fire inferno, that killed 86 people, and had these chilling pictures of devastation



The difference is, that was an almost rural hill-side community.   What if the same thing happened in the dead center of a major metropolitan city?




Tokyo ^

In world war 2, bombs dropped on London, caused a fire storm.  When the temperatures get hot enough, just like a wild fire in California, the fire creates its own wind, that fans the flames, increasing heat and fire, which is how wild fire can burn 5,000 acres in 3 hours, like what happened in California.

Well, the powers that be realized this was a great way to do major damage, and specifically set out to create bombs that had the hottest flames, and the highest chance of catching the surrounding building and anything else, on fire.

What was created was the fire-bombs of WW2, and one of the biggest targets hit was Tokyo.




The piles of ash you are looking at, isn't some remote hill side community... it is Tokyo.   The numbers of dead, are still unknown to this day.  Estimates are over hundred thousand at least.

The atomic bomb drop on Hiroshima, only killed 80 thousand.   And many were instantly vaporized, not set ablaze in a massive inferno.

By far, the fire bombings across Japan were far more terrifying than the atom bombs.   They caused far more devastation, and cause vastly more suffering and pain to the people who lived threw it, and those who didn't.

And oddly enough, it also harmed our troops far more.   The smell of burnt human flesh, was so bad, that pilots got sick from the smell of burnt people, from just being around their planes at the air base, days after the attack had happened.   I've heard that some vet pilots, never had a cook out, or open fire again for the rest of their lives, because the smell of smoke, brought back the smell of burnt flesh of those people in Tokyo.

Everyone focuses on the atom bomb.   People seem to forget that one of the reasons we dropped that big bomb, because we were so horrified at the firebombings, and we wanted a way to push this war until it ended.

My opinion to this day is.... it was the right move.  Not a good move.... there are no 'good moves' in war.   But it was the right move.    Those bombs convinced the Japanese people, and the Japanese government, to move towards surrender, and finally ending at least some of the horrors of WW2.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way he also claimed that Japan offered to surrender with the ONLY demand being we not hang the Emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s right and you not knowing it, just proves what a dumbass you are.
Click to expand...

RETARD it NEVER happened. Go ahead link to your source for this ridiculous claim. Even after 2 atomic Bombs the Army would not surrender you dumb ass. and when the Emperor surrendered anyway the Army staged a Coup to stop him.


----------



## Faun

Muhammed said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are just plain evil.
Click to expand...

Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and turned America into a global super power.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a reason why you do not provide a link to back up your wild claims about Japan being a peace-seeking nation led by reasonable good and civilized people seeking while America was led by demonic evil warmongers? Just asking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and you have some nerve asking me for links, when I have been trying to educate you for a decade now. Do you come to this forum NEW every day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER .linked to anything except a book that is not proof of anything. At least Unk linked to a verifiable source document even if it does not say what he claims it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Linked dozens and dozens and dozens of times. The proof is easy to find, but when you are dumb, statist, and a pussy, the truth is too much for you to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If reliable realistic scholarly and historically accepted links are so easy to find why don't you post them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the OP dumbass.
Click to expand...

Your OP link is a speculative opinion published by an extremely right-wing partisan entity and would never be accepted as a historically relevant work by any recognized scholarly group such as a college thesis board.  Your entire thread is based on unprovable speculation and opinions. Your response to critics who disagree with your opinion is to call them dumb asses. 

Thread fail. Accurate history is not based on speculative opinions and partisan revisionist theories.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and you have some nerve asking me for links, when I have been trying to educate you for a decade now. Do you come to this forum NEW every day?
> 
> 
> 
> You have NEVER .linked to anything except a book that is not proof of anything. At least Unk linked to a verifiable source document even if it does not say what he claims it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Linked dozens and dozens and dozens of times. The proof is easy to find, but when you are dumb, statist, and a pussy, the truth is too much for you to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If reliable realistic scholarly and historically accepted links are so easy to find why don't you post them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the OP dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your OP link is a speculative opinion published by an extremely right-wing partisan entity and would never be accepted as a historically relevant work by any recognized scholarly group such as a college thesis board.  Your entire thread is based on unprovable speculation and opinions. Your response to critics who disagree with your opinion is to call them dumb asses.
> 
> Thread fail. Accurate history is not based on speculative opinions and partisan revisionist theories.
Click to expand...

That’s what you always say. Anything that conflicts with the State’s position, is conspiracy theory or speculation. Then you demand proof when it has been already given to you. 

Who’s dumber than a statist? 


Answer: no one.


----------



## gipper

Faun said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are just plain evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and turned America into a global super power.
Click to expand...

Yet they occupied half of Europe and all of Japan. Amazingly, the US still has troops stationed in both places(and a hundred other countries). Yet equally amazing, statists don’t think the USA is an Imperial power. 

Nothing is dumber than a statist.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way he also claimed that Japan offered to surrender with the ONLY demand being we not hang the Emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s right and you not knowing it, just proves what a dumbass you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it NEVER happened. Go ahead link to your source for this ridiculous claim. Even after 2 atomic Bombs the Army would not surrender you dumb ass. and when the Emperor surrendered anyway the Army staged a Coup to stop him.
Click to expand...

Linked many times but you being a pussy, can’t accept the truth.


----------



## Faun

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are just plain evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and turned America into a global super power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet they occupied half of Europe and all of Japan. Amazingly, the US still has troops stationed in both places(and a hundred other countries). Yet equally amazing, statists don’t think the USA is an Imperial power.
> 
> Nothing is dumber than a statist.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

You say that as though it refuted the reality that Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and made America a global super power. If that’s a problem for ya, too fucking bad.


----------



## gipper

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are just plain evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and turned America into a global super power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet they occupied half of Europe and all of Japan. Amazingly, the US still has troops stationed in both places(and a hundred other countries). Yet equally amazing, statists don’t think the USA is an Imperial power.
> 
> Nothing is dumber than a statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You say that as though it refuted the reality that Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and made America a global super power. If that’s a problem for ya, too fucking bad.
Click to expand...

Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.


----------



## Faun

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are just plain evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and turned America into a global super power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet they occupied half of Europe and all of Japan. Amazingly, the US still has troops stationed in both places(and a hundred other countries). Yet equally amazing, statists don’t think the USA is an Imperial power.
> 
> Nothing is dumber than a statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You say that as though it refuted the reality that Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and made America a global super power. If that’s a problem for ya, too fucking bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.
Click to expand...

I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.


----------



## gipper

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are just plain evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and turned America into a global super power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet they occupied half of Europe and all of Japan. Amazingly, the US still has troops stationed in both places(and a hundred other countries). Yet equally amazing, statists don’t think the USA is an Imperial power.
> 
> Nothing is dumber than a statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You say that as though it refuted the reality that Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and made America a global super power. If that’s a problem for ya, too fucking bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.
Click to expand...

Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR. 

Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.


----------



## Faun

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and turned America into a global super power.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they occupied half of Europe and all of Japan. Amazingly, the US still has troops stationed in both places(and a hundred other countries). Yet equally amazing, statists don’t think the USA is an Imperial power.
> 
> Nothing is dumber than a statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You say that as though it refuted the reality that Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and made America a global super power. If that’s a problem for ya, too fucking bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.
> 
> Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.

Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.


----------



## gipper

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they occupied half of Europe and all of Japan. Amazingly, the US still has troops stationed in both places(and a hundred other countries). Yet equally amazing, statists don’t think the USA is an Imperial power.
> 
> Nothing is dumber than a statist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You say that as though it refuted the reality that Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and made America a global super power. If that’s a problem for ya, too fucking bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.
> 
> Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.
> 
> Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.
Click to expand...


For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.


----------



## Faun

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You say that as though it refuted the reality that Democrats defeated the Imperialists and the Nazi’s and made America a global super power. If that’s a problem for ya, too fucking bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.
> 
> Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.
> 
> Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.


----------



## gipper

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.
> 
> Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.
> 
> Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The Germans would have lost to the Soviets, without any US involvement.


----------



## Faun

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.
> 
> 
> 
> Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.
> 
> Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.
> 
> Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. The Germans would have lost to the Soviets, without any US involvement.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

If that were true, they wouldn’t have been able to get near Moscow. Now you’re just making shit up to fit your bullshit revisionist narrative.


----------



## gipper

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.
> 
> Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.
> 
> Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. The Germans would have lost to the Soviets, without any US involvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> If that were true, they wouldn’t have been able to get near Moscow. Now you’re just making shit up to fit your bullshit revisionist narrative.
Click to expand...

Proving you don’t know history too.


----------



## Faun

gipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.
> 
> Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. The Germans would have lost to the Soviets, without any US involvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> If that were true, they wouldn’t have been able to get near Moscow. Now you’re just making shit up to fit your bullshit revisionist narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving you don’t know history too.
Click to expand...

Right backatcha.


----------



## Toronado3800

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com



Some random thoughts while I'm distracted.

Japan screwed up surrendering.  

We COULD have avoided dropping the bombs.

It sure sent a message to Stalin.

Wonder how many cold war era lives dropping them bombs saved.

Man, that's a cold hard decision.  I might have used one on Berlin in August of 45 (Yup, I know the surrender date, my judgement of Western Europeans is harsher for some reason).  Maybe the other on Hiroshima.  I dunno. Its a nightmare scenario.


----------



## regent

WWII is unique in that it was the first war in which new types of weapons were introduced. I wonder if Neanderthal had the same complaints about wooden clubs?


----------



## mikegriffith1

RetiredGySgt said:


> Revisionist clap trap, even after 2 BOMBS the Government REFUSED to surrender and attempted a Coup when the Emperor did surrender.



Then General Eisenhower, Admiral Halsey, Admiral King, Admiral Leahy, General MacArthur, General Clarke, and many others were "revisionists."

Hiroshima: Quotes

You can repeat the official myth about the atomic bomb's role in Japan's surrender a hundred times, but it will still be a myth. The Japanese "government" did not refuse to surrender after the two nukes. The "government" was split between those who had been trying to surrender for weeks with the sole condition that the emperor not be deposed, between those who wanted to surrender with four conditions, and between those who opposed any and all surrender terms, and at every turn Truman did nothing but help the hardliners' cause by refusing to merely give an assurance about the emperor's status in unconditional surrender.

And it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, not the nukes, that finally enabled the moderates to get "the government" to surrender. The prime minister couldn't even get an agreement to convene the Supreme War Council after Hiroshima, but when the Soviets invaded two days later, he had no problem getting the council to convene, which led to the surrender decision hours later. The Japanese government did not get scientific confirmation that Hiroshima had in fact been nuked until 11 August, five days after the fact, and the government was misled into believing that the Nagasaki bombing had caused minimal damage because the city official who reported to the government had only seen part of the damage when he reported to Tokyo.

If Truman had simply done what many/most of his advisers had repeatedly told him to do in the weeks leading up to Hiroshima and had informed the Japanese that unconditional surrender did not mean deposing the emperor, the hardliners would have lost their main argument and the moderates would have been able to carry the day and end the war before 6 August 1945.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The Government did NOT surrender dumb ass, the Emperor did. And then the Army staged a Coup to stop that.


----------



## ThirdTerm

Cold War politics played a role, too. Soviet troops would have taken Tokyo easily within weeks because the northern half of Japan was sparsely populated and largely defenseless. The atomic bombs were dropped to prevent a Soviet takeover of Japan to some extent and it was much easier to invade the Japanese archipelago from the north. The second largest Japanese island of Hokkaido was originally planned by the Soviets to be part of the territory taken. But the Soviets were held off due to apprehension of the United States' new position as an atomic power. In this scenario similar to Nazi Germany's surrender, Japan would have been divided into Communist East Japan and American-controlled West Japan and the emperor could have committed suicide in the underground bunker of the Palace. In the worst case scenario, Japan might have been entirely taken by the Soviet Union, while the American troops were stuck in Okinawa. 



> Stalin revealed his intentions even more clearly in his August 17 directive to General Kuz´ma Derevianko, who was appointed Soviet military representative to General Douglas MacArthur’s Allied headquarters in Manila. Stalin instructed Derevianko to present Soviet demands to include the Kurils and the northern part of Hokkaido in the Soviet occupation zone. In addition, Derevianko was to demand the creation of a Soviet occupation zone for stationing Soviet troops in Tokyo.75
> 
> Stalin’s proposal to include northern Hokkaido in the Soviet occupation zone was not a diplomatic ploy. He was dead serious about capturing Hokkaido. It should be recalled that he had remained non-committal regarding Hokkaido, when the Politburo debated this issue on June 26-27. Shortly before he wrote his August 16 letter to Truman, he ordered Vasilevskii to implement the Hokkaido and southern Kuril operation. On August 18 Vasilevskii, in turn, ordered the commander of the First Far Eastern Front “to occupy the northern half of Hokkaido from Kushiro to Rumoi and the southern part of the Kuril Islands” by September 1. For this operation three divisions of the 87th Rifle Corps would be deployed: two divisions for the Hokkaido operation, and one division for the southern Kuril operation.77
> 
> Soviet policy toward Japan during World War II


----------



## Picaro

Faun said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the US is a global superpower, but the people have gained nothing from this. The elites have benefited greatly. The people lose their rights gradually as the politicians impose ever greater restrictions, ultimately leading to a police state. Unending war aboard always results in serfdom at home, but somehow statists don’t know this fundamental historical FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you would have preferred the Nazis had taken over Europe, and then expanded beyond that, but that’s only because you’re fucked in the head. If you don’t like being part of a super power, you’re always welcome to move to Guatemala.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another fallacy pushed by statists. They think Hitler intended to conquer the whole world, yet couldn’t even get past the USSR.
> 
> Statists require a boogie man to continue growing the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, Hitler came within miles of Moscow. What led to Hitler’s defeat was having to utilize resources to fight on his west, because the U.S. joined the war, that he needed to defeat the Communists on his east. Without the U.S., Britain was facing certain defeat and Hitler was able to focus on fighting the Soviets. The entry of the U.S. forced him to reduce his efforts in fighting towards Moscow.
> 
> Your entire premise on everything you’ve stated in this thread is based on revising what we know historically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For slow thinking Statists...getting close to Moscow, is not conquering the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Moron, it shows the Germans had the ability to advance to Moscow. That changed when the U.S. entered the war and Germany had to move resources out of the Soviet Union to fight us on their west.
Click to expand...


Actually it was British aid that stopped the loss of Moscow, particularly some 125 tanks that allowed the Soviets to launch some winter counter-offensives, along with other aid. The British also provided aviation fuel boosters , without which most of the Soviet air force was grounded  or barely able to get off the ground.

The Soviets would never have defeated Germany without Allied aid, massive amounts of it. They stopped the 'blitzkrieg', because of the massive and deep mine fields, but could never have launched the Kursk offensive and would have been in a distinctly defensive posture, if not having to sue for peace terms, for the foreseeable future if left on their own.


----------



## Picaro

ThirdTerm said:


> Cold War politics played a role, too. Soviet troops would have taken Tokyo easily within weeks because the northern half of Japan was sparsely populated and largely defenseless. The atomic bombs were dropped to prevent a Soviet takeover of Japan to some extent and it was much easier to invade the Japanese archipelago from the north. The second largest Japanese island of Hokkaido was originally planned by the Soviets to be part of the territory taken. But the Soviets were held off due to apprehension of the United States' new position as an atomic power. In this scenario similar to Nazi Germany's surrender, Japan would have been divided into Communist East Japan and American-controlled West Japan and the emperor could have committed suicide in the underground bunker of the Palace. In the worst case scenario, Japan might have been entirely taken by the Soviet Union, while the American troops were stuck in Okinawa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin revealed his intentions even more clearly in his August 17 directive to General Kuz´ma Derevianko, who was appointed Soviet military representative to General Douglas MacArthur’s Allied headquarters in Manila. Stalin instructed Derevianko to present Soviet demands to include the Kurils and the northern part of Hokkaido in the Soviet occupation zone. In addition, Derevianko was to demand the creation of a Soviet occupation zone for stationing Soviet troops in Tokyo.75
> 
> Stalin’s proposal to include northern Hokkaido in the Soviet occupation zone was not a diplomatic ploy. He was dead serious about capturing Hokkaido. It should be recalled that he had remained non-committal regarding Hokkaido, when the Politburo debated this issue on June 26-27. Shortly before he wrote his August 16 letter to Truman, he ordered Vasilevskii to implement the Hokkaido and southern Kuril operation. On August 18 Vasilevskii, in turn, ordered the commander of the First Far Eastern Front “to occupy the northern half of Hokkaido from Kushiro to Rumoi and the southern part of the Kuril Islands” by September 1. For this operation three divisions of the 87th Rifle Corps would be deployed: two divisions for the Hokkaido operation, and one division for the southern Kuril operation.77
> 
> Soviet policy toward Japan during World War II
Click to expand...



Exactly. Glad to see someone else who knows this and the Geo-politics of the era.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Andylusion said:


> In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.


This is the standard by which you wish to live?   I hope you have no small children.


----------



## gipper

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the standard by which you wish to live?   I hope you have no small children.
Click to expand...

Many Americans think this way because they don’t think it will ever happen to them. Never considering the consequences.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:

* It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).

Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).

Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).

* Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,

The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
* General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,

We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
* General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,

No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
* Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).

* The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).

* To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):

-- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,

Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
-- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.

-- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.

-- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.

-- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.

-- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.

-- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.

-- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.

-- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.

-- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.

-- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.

-- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,

After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
-- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.

-- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.

-- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.

By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

And yet after 2 atomic Bombs the Government REFUSED to surrender and when the Emperor DID surrender the Government attempted a coup to stop it.


----------



## Picaro

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the standard by which you wish to live?   I hope you have no small children.
Click to expand...


Actually that was the standard of warfare Lincoln used and many others came to copy in WW II; it's not a 'standard' it is what 'total war' means;Germany adopted it in WW I with the bombings of London and again in WW II, so did the Japanese in their invasions throughout the early part of the Century before they allied with Germany, and it is the kind of warfare they would have used on us. I have zero sympathy for the Japanese or the Germans or the Soviets; they made their beds and reaped what they sowed.

It's just bizarre that all the sniveling and whining and twisted 'morality' going on here is directed at the U.S. for some reason; I guess that is what happens when ideological usefulness trumps historical realities these days.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.


There it is, but don’t expect the statists to learn. They never do. 

Apparently the mass murdering of defenseless civilians, is okay in their minds. 

The brainwashing of Americans by the State’s education system, is difficult to overcome for some Americans.  They choose to live a life in ignorance.


----------



## gipper

Picaro said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the standard by which you wish to live?   I hope you have no small children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that was the standard of warfare Lincoln used and many others came to copy in WW II; it's not a 'standard' it is what 'total war' means;Germany adopted it in WW I with the bombings of London and again in WW II, so did the Japanese in their invasions throughout the early part of the Century before they allied with Germany, and it is the kind of warfare they would have used on us. I have zero sympathy for the Japanese or the Germans or the Soviets; they made their beds and reaped what they sowed.
> 
> It's just bizarre that all the sniveling and whining and twisted 'morality' going on here is directed at the U.S. for some reason; I guess that is what happens when ideological usefulness trumps historical realities these days.
Click to expand...

Yeah what’s the big deal anyway? Mass murdering the defenseless is just good tactics in war...but only if done to my enemy.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.


is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the standard by which you wish to live?   I hope you have no small children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that was the standard of warfare Lincoln used and many others came to copy in WW II; it's not a 'standard' it is what 'total war' means;Germany adopted it in WW I with the bombings of London and again in WW II, so did the Japanese in their invasions throughout the early part of the Century before they allied with Germany, and it is the kind of warfare they would have used on us. I have zero sympathy for the Japanese or the Germans or the Soviets; they made their beds and reaped what they sowed.
> 
> It's just bizarre that all the sniveling and whining and twisted 'morality' going on here is directed at the U.S. for some reason; I guess that is what happens when ideological usefulness trumps historical realities these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah what’s the big deal anyway? Mass murdering the defenseless is just good tactics in war...but only if done to my enemy.
Click to expand...


Killing one's enemy before they can kill them typically separates the winners from the losers.


----------



## gipper

harmonica said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?
Click to expand...

They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.


----------



## gipper

K9Buck said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the standard by which you wish to live?   I hope you have no small children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that was the standard of warfare Lincoln used and many others came to copy in WW II; it's not a 'standard' it is what 'total war' means;Germany adopted it in WW I with the bombings of London and again in WW II, so did the Japanese in their invasions throughout the early part of the Century before they allied with Germany, and it is the kind of warfare they would have used on us. I have zero sympathy for the Japanese or the Germans or the Soviets; they made their beds and reaped what they sowed.
> 
> It's just bizarre that all the sniveling and whining and twisted 'morality' going on here is directed at the U.S. for some reason; I guess that is what happens when ideological usefulness trumps historical realities these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah what’s the big deal anyway? Mass murdering the defenseless is just good tactics in war...but only if done to my enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing one's enemy before they can kill them typically separates the winners from the losers.
Click to expand...

There it is again. Kill kill kill...lots of women and children. It’s good for business.


----------



## K9Buck

mikegriffith1 said:


> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.



Great post!  However, had the U.S. not used the bombs and the war continued past August, 1945, it's possible even more Japanese would have died from starvation and disease alone.  

I also have to wonder if Truman wanted to put on a display for Stalin to demonstrate that we really had acquired a nuclear weapons capability.


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.
Click to expand...

please link reputable sites on how they tried to surrender 
you are full of shit


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the standard by which you wish to live?   I hope you have no small children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that was the standard of warfare Lincoln used and many others came to copy in WW II; it's not a 'standard' it is what 'total war' means;Germany adopted it in WW I with the bombings of London and again in WW II, so did the Japanese in their invasions throughout the early part of the Century before they allied with Germany, and it is the kind of warfare they would have used on us. I have zero sympathy for the Japanese or the Germans or the Soviets; they made their beds and reaped what they sowed.
> 
> It's just bizarre that all the sniveling and whining and twisted 'morality' going on here is directed at the U.S. for some reason; I guess that is what happens when ideological usefulness trumps historical realities these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah what’s the big deal anyway? Mass murdering the defenseless is just good tactics in war...but only if done to my enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing one's enemy before they can kill them typically separates the winners from the losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There it is again. Kill kill kill...lots of women and children. It’s good for business.
Click to expand...


You seem a little emotional.


----------



## harmonica

K9Buck said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great post!  However, had the U.S. not used the bombs and the war continued past August, 1945, it's possible even more Japanese would have died from starvation and disease alone.
> 
> I also have to wonder if Truman wanted to put on a display for Stalin to demonstrate that we really had acquired a nuclear weapons capability.
Click to expand...

it's not a great post 
MacArthur fk up many times before that
Ike screwed up before also
Montgomery screwed up
just because they are generals, doesn't mean they are perfect


----------



## harmonica

K9Buck said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great post!  However, had the U.S. not used the bombs and the war continued past August, 1945, it's possible even more Japanese would have died from starvation and disease alone.
> 
> I also have to wonder if Truman wanted to put on a display for Stalin to demonstrate that we really had acquired a nuclear weapons capability.
Click to expand...

.....plus the generals didn't think the Japanese would attack Pearl--they were a little wrong on that


----------



## gipper

harmonica said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and yourespond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please link reputable sites on how they tried to surrender
> you are full of shit
Click to expand...


You just proved you’re uninformed. Get informed.


----------



## gipper

K9Buck said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the standard by which you wish to live?   I hope you have no small children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that was the standard of warfare Lincoln used and many others came to copy in WW II; it's not a 'standard' it is what 'total war' means;Germany adopted it in WW I with the bombings of London and again in WW II, so did the Japanese in their invasions throughout the early part of the Century before they allied with Germany, and it is the kind of warfare they would have used on us. I have zero sympathy for the Japanese or the Germans or the Soviets; they made their beds and reaped what they sowed.
> 
> It's just bizarre that all the sniveling and whining and twisted 'morality' going on here is directed at the U.S. for some reason; I guess that is what happens when ideological usefulness trumps historical realities these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah what’s the big deal anyway? Mass murdering the defenseless is just good tactics in war...but only if done to my enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing one's enemy before they can kill them typically separates the winners from the losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There it is again. Kill kill kill...lots of women and children. It’s good for business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem a little emotional.
Click to expand...

Yeah one shouldn’t be concerned about the mass murder of innocent civilians. I mean like...who cares man. Smoke another joint.


----------



## K9Buck

harmonica said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great post!  However, had the U.S. not used the bombs and the war continued past August, 1945, it's possible even more Japanese would have died from starvation and disease alone.
> 
> I also have to wonder if Truman wanted to put on a display for Stalin to demonstrate that we really had acquired a nuclear weapons capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's not a great post
> MacArthur fk up many times before that
> Ike screwed up before also
> Montgomery screwed up
> just because they are generals, doesn't mean they are perfect
Click to expand...


I recently read a book about MacArthur and what happened during his reign as supreme commander in Japan.  What was posted above fits with what I read.  I happen to believe that dropping the bombs probably DID save lives, as well as serve as a deterrent to Stalin.  To argue otherwise is purely and highly speculative.


----------



## K9Buck

gipper said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that was the standard of warfare Lincoln used and many others came to copy in WW II; it's not a 'standard' it is what 'total war' means;Germany adopted it in WW I with the bombings of London and again in WW II, so did the Japanese in their invasions throughout the early part of the Century before they allied with Germany, and it is the kind of warfare they would have used on us. I have zero sympathy for the Japanese or the Germans or the Soviets; they made their beds and reaped what they sowed.
> 
> It's just bizarre that all the sniveling and whining and twisted 'morality' going on here is directed at the U.S. for some reason; I guess that is what happens when ideological usefulness trumps historical realities these days.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah what’s the big deal anyway? Mass murdering the defenseless is just good tactics in war...but only if done to my enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing one's enemy before they can kill them typically separates the winners from the losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There it is again. Kill kill kill...lots of women and children. It’s good for business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem a little emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah one shouldn’t be concerned about the mass murder of innocent civilians. I mean like...who cares man. Smoke another joint.
Click to expand...


Yea man.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

regent said:


> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.



But Eisenhower said the invasion did not need to happen


Ike rounded up all the illegals on ships and sent them to south Mexico 

Ike said beware of the military industrialist complex


Ike was saying NO to globalists insane Greed


----------



## K9Buck

GreenAndBlue said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Eisenhower said the invasion did not need to happen
> 
> 
> Ike rounded up all the illegals on ships and sent them to south Mexico
> 
> Ike said beware of the military industrialist complex
> 
> 
> Ike was saying NO to globalists insane Greed
Click to expand...


Good men can disagree, right?


----------



## GreenAndBlue

China had lost over 20 million to Japan and was also getting ready to attack Japan as America had Japan where it could not come out to harm

Russia and China lost over 20 million each in the fight against Germany and Japan

America lost half a million


----------



## GreenAndBlue

and we see now how the deep
State is now destroying America

America's IQs of its voters have dropped like a rock to record low IQs which elects crooks

Only crooks want low IQ voters

All nations should now be scared of America's lying government who rigs their elections against their voters


----------



## GreenAndBlue

What made America delay to enter world war 11

Was it the Catholics of northeast us?

Since Italy Catholics joined hitler?

Japan was slaughtering China and Korea in 1937

Hitler was slaughtering Europe in 1939

America did not enter until they were forced to by Japan's attack on pearl 
Harbour at the end of 1941

Who caused America to delay ???

Was it the northeast Catholics ?? Or northeast greedy globalists waiting until  other nations became weaker??

Was this behind Ike's warning to America ?

Beware of the military industrial complex   maybe he was also warning about globalists !!!!!?? 

It seems the New York Times was hiding the Jewish death camps in Germany according to Mark levin 

Today the same New York Times is hiding the deep states crookedness


----------



## Picaro

GreenAndBlue said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Eisenhower said the invasion did not need to happen
> 
> 
> Ike rounded up all the illegals on ships and sent them to south Mexico
> 
> Ike said beware of the military industrialist complex
> 
> 
> Ike was saying NO to globalists insane Greed
Click to expand...


Yes, well, Ike waited until he was retired to get all philosophical n stuff, nerve when it would have made a difference.. He made many errors in judgement himself, among all those good ones he also made, like stopping our advance in 1945 right where he said he we should stop in 1942, in his original plan that got him the big command leaping over many others. He shortsightedly forced Israel and France to give up the Suez Canal, among other things, fearful of angering insane Arabs, but it turns out it doesn't matter what one does, they're crazed morons and will invent something to get angry over anyway, no matter what; many other Presidents have made the same kinds of errors since.


----------



## Picaro

GreenAndBlue said:


> What made America delay to enter world war 11
> 
> Was it the Catholics of northeast us?
> 
> Since Italy Catholics joined hitler?
> 
> Japan was slaughtering China and Korea in 1937
> 
> Hitler was slaughtering Europe in 1939
> 
> America did not enter until they were forced to by Japan's attack on pearl
> Harbour at the end of 1941
> 
> Who caused America to delay ???
> 
> Was it the northeast Catholics ?? Or northeast greedy globalists waiting until  other nations became weaker??
> 
> Was this behind Ike's warning to America ?
> 
> Beware of the military industrial complex   maybe he was also warning about globalists !!!!!??
> 
> It seems the New York Times was hiding the Jewish death camps in Germany according to Mark levin
> 
> Today the same New York Times is hiding the deep states crookedness



A coalition of Republican isolationists and both Democrat and Republican admirers of Hitler, formed in an anti-FDR club of idiots and hacks is what delayed us. We should have shut Japan down when they invaded China. Hitler should have been shut down in 1938. Mostly it was rich guys who didn't want to pay taxes to support a strong military; they were happy hiding out on their fortified estates and hiding behind private armies after the Depression they caused, so they weren't at all concerned about the outside world.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.
Click to expand...

There is NO record ANYWHERE of the Government of Japan EVER offering to surrender before the Emperor did after 2 Atomic Bombs.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Picaro said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Eisenhower said the invasion did not need to happen
> 
> 
> Ike rounded up all the illegals on ships and sent them to south Mexico
> 
> Ike said beware of the military industrialist complex
> 
> 
> Ike was saying NO to globalists insane Greed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, well, Ike waited until he was retired to get all philosophical n stuff, nerve when it would have made a difference.. He made many errors in judgement himself, among all those good ones he also made, like stopping our advance in 1945 right where he said he we should stop in 1942, in his original plan that got him the big command leaping over many others. He shortsightedly forced Israel and France to give up the Suez Canal, among other things, fearful of angering insane Arabs, but it turns out it doesn't matter what one does, they're crazed morons and will invent something to get angry over anyway, no matter what; many other Presidents have made the same kinds of errors since.
Click to expand...


No
Ike already gave his opinion saying it was not needed because.jspan was weak and could not come out of its island to harm Americans 

So the reason to nuke Japan was bogus and another admiral said the same thing as Ike 

This action got Russia scared of us and they got their nukes 2 years later

If America had not shown they had the nukes less chance for a nuke war


 Einstein explained this well and regretted writing FDR to do the Manhattan project to get the nuke bomb 

This clearly was lies.  

This was not to save American lives as Ike explained because all we had to do is wait a couple more months


----------



## GreenAndBlue

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO record ANYWHERE of the Government of Japan EVER offering to surrender before the Emperor did after 2 Atomic Bombs.
Click to expand...



There is record of Russia and China both about to attack Japan on the other side

So it was a lie. To say America nukked Japan to save American lives


----------



## GreenAndBlue

In 1945, not many Americans seemed to be thinking things through.  Those cold statistics and that war-time hatred made using the bomb easy to rationalize. Leo Szilard was one of those few, when he worried that using it without any warning would hurt America’s moral standing in the world.  In the years that followed, some Americans who were intimately involved with the atomic bombs did start to think things through. Admiral Leahy, President Roosevelt’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his memoir:

_It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender… My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children._


----------



## Andylusion

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a world war, there is no such thing as a non-combatant.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the standard by which you wish to live?   I hope you have no small children.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter if it is "my standard" or "the standard" or anything.

Facts are facts.   If you support the people who go to war, you are a target.

The terrorists know this.   You support a system they hate... you are part of that system.  They will have no problem causing death and destruction, including you, your children, or the elderly, or anyone.

The bottom line is, if there is a World War 3, which there will be I am convinced... the side which is willing to harm the most people to achieve victory, will win.

Doesn't matter if I say "it's my standard" or not.  You act like if you refuse to believe reality, that somehow that will change the outcome.  Like if you magically believe that children are non-combatants, that magically no enemy to the US will try and kill them.

Don't live in a fantasy world.   It only harms you. Not me.


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and yourespond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please link reputable sites on how they tried to surrender
> you are full of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved you’re uninformed. Get informed.
Click to expand...

wow--that's a lot of links/etc 
hahahahahhahahah


----------



## harmonica

for all who mentioned Ike/MacArthur/etc and what they *THOUGHT *[and I won't get into the many details/etc ]
--MacArthur was caught with his pants down HOURS after he was notified of the Pearl attack
--Mac at first wanted to fight a forward battle, but then changed his mind in the Philippines, thereby losing much supplies

----the Big one--here is the big one to shoot down anything anyone has said about Mac and what he THOUGHT about the Japanese surrendering:
....Mac created one of the biggest US military disasters ever by thinking he had the Korean War won....
..the Chinese kicked A$$ to many units in their First Offensive--except the Marines
..all intelligence/evidence/etc said the Chinese would intervene if we crossed the 38th
..the Chinese even said so themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...so the Chinese had already kicked a$$ in their First Offensive and dumbshit Mac kept wanting to STRING OUT/DIVIDE his forces !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--everyone except the Marines--who were the only unit to not get their a$$ kicked because they ''disobeyed'' Mac...Gen. Smith knew Mac's orders were stupid....but a whole Corps was thrown off the peninsula

....so you can't listen to what he had to say about a Japanese surrender
he has proven to be a dumbass


----------



## harmonica

GreenAndBlue said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO record ANYWHERE of the Government of Japan EVER offering to surrender before the Emperor did after 2 Atomic Bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is record of Russia and China both about to attack Japan on the other side
> 
> So it was a lie. To say America nukked Japan to save American lives
Click to expand...

yes, the bombs did save lives 
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives


----------



## mikegriffith1

This is one of those issues where there is a large gap between the consensus among scholars and the common view among the general public. This gap was highlighted in 1995 when the Smithsonian Institution prepared to put on an exhibit about the Enola Gay as part of a larger exhibit to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII. When veterans groups obtained a copy of the script that was to accompany the Enola Gay exhibit, they angrily condemned it, even though it was accurate and represented the broad consensus among historians. So fierce was the pushback against the exhibit and its script that the Smithsonian agreed to markedly revise the script and to remove images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims from the exhibit. What follows is the letter written by over 50 historians who protested the errors and omissions in the watered-down/revised script/exhibit text:

Mr. I. Michael Heyman
Secretary
The Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D.C. 20560

July 31, 1995

Dear Secretary Heyman:

Testifying before a House subcommittee on March 10, 1995, you promised that when you finally unveiled the Enola Gay exhibit, "I am just going to report the facts."[1]

Unfortunately, the Enola Gay exhibit contains a text which goes far beyond the facts. The critical label at the heart of the exhibit makes the following assertions:

* The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "destroyed much of the two cities and caused many tens of thousands of deaths." This substantially understates the widely accepted figure that at least 200,000 men, women and children were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Official Japanese records calculate a figure of more than 200,000 deaths--the vast majority of victims being women, children and elderly men.)[2]

* "However," claims the Smithsonian, "the use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands." Presented as fact, this sentence is actually a highly contentious interpretation. For example, an April 30, 1946 study by the War Department's Military Intelligence Division concluded, "The war would almost certainly have terminated when Russia entered the war against Japan."[3] (The Soviet entry into the war on August 8th is not even mentioned in the exhibit as a major factor in the Japanese surrender.) And it is also a fact that even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed, the Japanese still insisted that Emperor Hirohito be allowed to remain emperor as a condition of surrender. Only when that assurance was given did the Japanese agree to surrender. This was precisely the clarification of surrender terms that many of Truman's own top advisors had urged on him in the months prior to Hiroshima. This, too, is a widely known fact.[4]

* The Smithsonian's label also takes the highly partisan view that, "It was thought highly unlikely that Japan, while in a very weakened military condition, would have surrendered unconditionally without such an invasion." Nowhere in the exhibit is this interpretation balanced by other views. Visitors to the exhibit will not learn that many U.S. leaders--including Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower[5], Admiral William D. Leahy[6], War Secretary Henry L. Stimson[7], Acting Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew[8] and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy[9]--thought it highly probable that the Japanese would surrender well before the earliest possible invasion, scheduled for November 1945. It is spurious to assert as fact that obliterating Hiroshima in August was needed to obviate an invasion in November. This is interpretation--the very thing you said would be banned from the exhibit.

* In yet another label, the Smithsonian asserts as fact that "Special leaflets were then dropped on Japanese cities three days before a bombing raid to warn civilians to evacuate." The very next sentence refers to the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, implying that the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima were given a warning. In fact, no evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was "that we could not give the Japanese any warning."[10]

* In a 16-minute video film in which the crew of the Enola Gay are allowed to speak at length about why they believe the atomic bombings were justified, pilot Col. Paul Tibbits asserts that Hiroshima was "definitely a military objective." Nowhere in the exhibit is this false assertion balanced by contrary information. Hiroshima was chosen as a target precisely because it had been very low on the previous spring's campaign of conventional bombing, and therefore was a pristine target on which to measure the destructive powers of the atomic bomb.[11] Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio. James Conant, a member of the Interim Committee that advised President Truman, defined the target for the bomb as a "vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."[12] There were indeed military factories in Hiroshima, but they lay on the outskirts of the city. Nevertheless, the Enola Gay bombardier's instructions were to target the bomb on the center of this civilian city.

The few words in the exhibit that attempt to provide some historical context for viewing the Enola Gay amount to a highly unbalanced and one-sided presentation of a largely discredited post-war justification of the atomic bombings.

Such errors of fact and such tendentious interpretation in the exhibit are no doubt partly the result of your decision earlier this year to take this exhibit out of the hands of professional curators and your own board of historical advisors. Accepting your stated concerns for accuracy, we trust that you will therefore adjust the exhibit, either to eliminate the highly contentious interpretations, or at the very least, balance them with other interpretations that can be easily drawn from the attached footnotes.

Sincerely,

Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin
Co-chairs of the Historians' Committee for Open Debate on Hiroshima

(see the attached sheet for additional signatories)


References

1. "Enola Gay Exhibit to 'Report the Facts,'" Washington Times, March 11, 1995.

2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings, (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p. 364.

3. "Memorandum for Chief, Strategic Policy Section, S&P Group, OPD, Subject: Use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan," April 30, 1946, ABC 471.6 Atom (17 August 1945) Sec 7, Entry 421, Record Group 165, National Archives.

4. Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era: A Diplomatic Record of Forty Years 1904-1945, Vol. II (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1952), pp. 1406-1442; U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Japan's Struggle to End the War (Washington, July 1946); Gar Alperovitz, "Hiroshima: Historians Reassess," Foreign Policy, Summer 1995, pp. 15-34; and, Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and the Origins of the Arms Race, rev. ed. (New York, Random House, 1987), p. 225.

5. See "Notes on talk with President Eisenhower," April 6, 1960, War Department Notes envelope, Box 66, Herbert Feis Papers, Library of Congress Manuscript Division; and, Gen. Andrew Goodpaster, "Memorandum of Conference with the President, April 6, 1960," April 11, 1960, "Staff Notes--April 1960," Folder 2, DDE Diary Series, Box 49, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library; and also, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.), pp. 312-313.

6. William D. Leahy, I Was There: The Personal Story of the Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, Based on His Notes and Diaries Made at the Time, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950), p. 441. See also his private diary (in particular the June 18, 1945 entry) available at the Library of Congress Manuscript Division.

7. Henry L. Stimson and McGeorge Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947, 1948), pp. 628-629.

8. Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era, pp. 1406-1442; Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, p. 225.

9. See John J. McCloy interview with Fred Freed for NBC White Paper, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb," (interview conducted sometime between May 1964 and February 1965), Roll 1, p. 11, File 50A, Box SP2, McCloy Papers, Amherst College Archives.

10. Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed, see Appendix L, "Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, May 31, 1945," p. 302.

11. The papers of Gen. Leslie R. Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, are filled with his statements to the effect that he wanted a virgin target large enough so that the effects of the bomb would not dissipate by the time they reached the edge of the city. See for example the letter from Groves to John A. Shane, 12/27/60 on target selection, in the Groves Papers, Record Group 200, National Archives. See also, Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, pp. 229-230.

12. Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed, see Appendix L, "Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, May 31, 1945," p. 302.

Source: Hiroshima: Historians' Letter to the Smithsonian


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).
> 
> Stephen Ambrose states that Eisenhower advised Truman against dropping the A-bomb on Japan (_Eisenhower, Volume 1: Soldier General of the Army, _pp. 425-426).
> 
> * Somewhat surprisingly, General MacArthur likewise opposed using nukes on Japan. Numerous sources, including MacArthur’s pilot, confirm this. When Norman Cousins interviewed MacArthur, he was surprised to learn that MacArthur was never consulted about using the atomic bomb on Japan and that MacArthur “saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.” Added Cousins,
> 
> The war might have ended weeks earlier, he [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. (_The Pathology of Power, _p. 71)​
> * General Carter Clarke, who was in charge of preparing MAGIC summaries in 1945 and who served on General Marshall’s staff, stated,
> 
> We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and then we didn’t need to do it [use the atomic bomb], and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew that we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. (Clarke interview with Dr. Forrest Pogue, July 6, 1959, p. 29, Pogue Papers, GCMRL; Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 359; see also Hiroshima: Quotes)​
> * General George C. Kinney, commander of the Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific, when asked in a 1969 interview if the decision to use the atomic bomb was militarily and politically wise, he said,
> 
> No! I think we had the Japanese licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit. (Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 336)​
> * Not everyone turned a blind eye to the immorality of our fire-bombing of Japanese cities. For example, General Bonner Fellers, who served on MacArthur’s staff, stated in a June 1945 memorandum that LeMay’s fire-bombing raids on Japanese cities were “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history” (John Dower, _War Without Mercy, _p. 41).
> 
> * The fact that by early 1945 Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks is shown by the fact that by June 1945 we were losing only 0.003 of our bombers in air raids on Japan—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers was being shot down (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 176).
> 
> * To give you some idea of Japan’s prostrate state by July 1945, consider these facts (all of these facts are discussed in Ham’s book, among other sources):
> 
> -- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted,
> 
> Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​
> -- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.
> 
> -- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.
> 
> -- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.
> 
> -- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.
> 
> -- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.
> 
> -- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.
> 
> -- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore _ceased_.
> 
> -- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. The majority of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.
> 
> -- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.
> 
> -- By June 1945, the Japanese naval surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,
> 
> After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze airforce and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​
> -- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.
> 
> -- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.
> 
> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” _Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded_:
> 
> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​
> There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Truman had listed to the majority of the senior officials who were advising him, instead of listening to his Japanophobic Secretary of State James Byrnes, the Pacific War could have been ended weeks earlier and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared. Even Churchill tried to persuade Truman to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't listen because Byrnes screamed against it, and this refusal greatly aided the cause of Japan's hardliners and hamstrung the moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they surrendered prior to Aug 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times before Truman committed his war crime,but apparently those times don’t count to stupid statists because they wanted certain conditions. Like please don’t hang the Emperor, which Truman agreed to AFTER he emulated Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO record ANYWHERE of the Government of Japan EVER offering to surrender before the Emperor did after 2 Atomic Bombs.
Click to expand...

True. There is no record that you will accept. LOL. Sadly, you are the typical dumb American. 

Truman should have been hung at Nuremberg, along side the Nazis. 

Truman was told by Stalin, who the Japanese had approached, that they wanted peace. Truman wrote it in his notes...
Truman Library: Notes by Harry S. Truman on the Potsdam Conference, July 18, 1945. Truman Papers, President's Secretary's File. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Ross.

Another great example comes from General Douglas MacArthur, who sent a 40-page memorandum to President Roosevelt that clearly outlines five different surrender overtures from high ranking Japanese officials. This memo was also revealed on the front page of the _Chicago Tribune_ and the _Washington Times_ on August 19th, 1945.

Again, the memo unequivocally states that the Japanese were offering to surrender. What is even more eye-opening is the fact that the surrender terms were practically identical to what was ultimately accepted by the Americans after the bomb had dropped. The memo (source) stated these terms:


Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war
Release of all prisoners of war and internees
Surrender of designated war criminals
Japan also made multiple attempts to end the war through Sweden and Portugal, who were neutral at the time. They also approached Soviet Russia’s leaders *“with a view of terminating the war if possible by September.” *(source)

American intelligence agencies, with the full knowledge of President Roosevelt’s and President Truman’s administrations, were fully aware of Japan’s search for ways to honorably surrender months before Truman gave the fateful order to incinerate Hiroshima.

Japan was working on peace negotiations through its ambassador in Moscow as early as April of 1945, with surrender feelers from Japan occurring as far back as 1944. Truman knew of these developments because the US had broken the Japanese code even before Pearl Harbor, and all of Japan’s military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted. On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo wrote: “Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty, including the deposing of Emperor Hirohito) is the only obstacle to peace.”

Truman’s advisors knew about these efforts, and the war could have ended through diplomacy by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor (who was regarded as a deity in Japan). That reasonable concession was 
– seemingly illogically – refused by the USin their demands for unconditional surrender, which was first demanded at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill and then reiterated at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill and Stalin. Still, the Japanese continued searching for an honorable peace through negotiations
similarly, Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

*It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan … The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.*(source)


On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a *“toy and they wanted to try it out…”* He further stated that *“the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment” *and that it was*“a mistake to ever drop it.” *(source)

*“The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that (quite apart from the inaccuracy of this figure, as noted by Samuel Walker) most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.” – *Gar Alperovitz, University of Maryland Professor of Political Economy, former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Spec


----------



## elektra

Revisionist history, how sad. Yes, Americans prisoners of the japanese should of died. How dare the Americans, end this 4 year war! With the Russians entering the war Japan would of surrendered in months, we think. And who cares if Pappy Boyington or Louie Zaparino died of torture. You had to kill Japanese civilians. Japanese civilians that worked in the shipyards repairing war ships. It is not as if they were actually firing guns.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Again, the memo unequivocally states that the Japanese were offering to surrender. What is even more eye-opening is the fact that the surrender terms were practically identical to what was ultimately accepted by the Americans after the bomb had dropped. The memo (source) stated these terms:



HA, Ha, ha. Why did Japan not surrender? Because they were not beaten sufficiently to surrender. They tried to surrender to who at this point? And when we demanded that Japan surrender before the bomb was dropped, did they? No! 

Yes, very funny indeed, Japan was going to surrender but did not surrender?


----------



## Picaro

GreenAndBlue said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best American value is that many Americans didn't die in  the invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Eisenhower said the invasion did not need to happen
> 
> 
> Ike rounded up all the illegals on ships and sent them to south Mexico
> 
> Ike said beware of the military industrialist complex
> 
> 
> Ike was saying NO to globalists insane Greed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, well, Ike waited until he was retired to get all philosophical n stuff, nerve when it would have made a difference.. He made many errors in judgement himself, among all those good ones he also made, like stopping our advance in 1945 right where he said he we should stop in 1942, in his original plan that got him the big command leaping over many others. He shortsightedly forced Israel and France to give up the Suez Canal, among other things, fearful of angering insane Arabs, but it turns out it doesn't matter what one does, they're crazed morons and will invent something to get angry over anyway, no matter what; many other Presidents have made the same kinds of errors since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> Ike already gave his opinion saying it was not needed because.jspan was weak and could not come out of its island to harm Americans
> 
> So the reason to nuke Japan was bogus and another admiral said the same thing as Ike
> 
> This action got Russia scared of us and they got their nukes 2 years later
> 
> If America had not shown they had the nukes less chance for a nuke war
> 
> 
> Einstein explained this well and regretted writing FDR to do the Manhattan project to get the nuke bomb
> 
> This clearly was lies.
> 
> This was not to save American lives as Ike explained because all we had to do is wait a couple more months
Click to expand...


there is nothing magical about Ike's political opinions, for one, and for two, many disagreed with him as well; this is much like the claim of 'most of the Founders were Deists n stuff'm wehn actually almost none of them were, outside of a couple of famous ones, who hardly carried more weight at the time than the other 75 'Founders', or 225, depending on how one defines 'Founders'.  My father, getting ready in the Philippines for the invasion of the Japanese islands, certainly thinks it saved lives, as did all of my uncles, and millions of others. Nor was there anything wrong with using them to discourage Soviet aims, either.


----------



## Picaro

elektra said:


> Revisionist history, how sad. Yes, Americans prisoners of the japanese should of died. How dare the Americans, end this 4 year war! With the Russians entering the war Japan would of surrendered in months, we think. And who cares if Pappy Boyington or Louie Zaparino died of torture. You had to kill Japanese civilians. Japanese civilians that worked in the shipyards repairing war ships. It is not as if they were actually firing guns.



Even the Japanese in the U.S. were fanatically proud of all Japan was doing all through the century, until the bombing of Pearl, sent aid packages, and held celebratory marches whenever a Japanese victory was announced. 

these clowns are merely just making up rubbish in order to bash Democrats; too bad reading Ann Coulter's historical fictions has become a form of mental illness.


----------



## Picaro

harmonica said:


> for all who mentioned Ike/MacArthur/etc and what they *THOUGHT *[and I won't get into the many details/etc ]
> --MacArthur was caught with his pants down HOURS after he was notified of the Pearl attack
> --Mac at first wanted to fight a forward battle, but then changed his mind in the Philippines, thereby losing much supplies
> 
> ----the Big one--here is the big one to shoot down anything anyone has said about Mac and what he THOUGHT about the Japanese surrendering:
> ....Mac created one of the biggest US military disasters ever by thinking he had the Korean War won....
> ..the Chinese kicked A$$ to many units in their First Offensive--except the Marines
> ..all intelligence/evidence/etc said the Chinese would intervene if we crossed the 38th
> ..the Chinese even said so themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...so the Chinese had already kicked a$$ in their First Offensive and dumbshit Mac kept wanting to STRING OUT/DIVIDE his forces !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--everyone except the Marines--who were the only unit to not get their a$$ kicked because they ''disobeyed'' Mac...Gen. Smith knew Mac's orders were stupid....but a whole Corps was thrown off the peninsula
> 
> ....so you can't listen to what he had to say about a Japanese surrender
> he has proven to be a dumbass



MacArthur was not a great general; it was his staff who made him look good, and nothing he did himself. he was typical political appointee and 'good ole boy ' networker. Mommy and her connections got him his appointments. so was Patton an 'old boy', but Patton left his personal ambitions at home and supported promoting Eisenhower over the 'good ole boy' network to a top command based on Ike's tactical and managerial skills, a man MacArthur hated, as he did anyone more talented than he was.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the memo unequivocally states that the Japanese were offering to surrender. What is even more eye-opening is the fact that the surrender terms were practically identical to what was ultimately accepted by the Americans after the bomb had dropped. The memo (source) stated these terms:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HA, Ha, ha. Why did Japan not surrender? Because they were not beaten sufficiently to surrender. They tried to surrender to who at this point? And when we demanded that Japan surrender before the bomb was dropped, did they? No!
> 
> Yes, very funny indeed, Japan was going to surrender but did not surrender?
Click to expand...

You are uninformed, but sadly most Americans are on this issue.  The statist education is tough to overcome.

Go here: The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

Please read to column posted in the OP.  Then go to post #54 and read ALL the columns posted.  Then go to posts 668 and 669.  

Ignorance of history is a terrible thing.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Rather than quote and respond to every argument, I'll just present some facts in the form of bullets:
> 
> * It is well documented that General Eisenhower opposed using nukes on Japan, partly because he was aware of the intelligence that indicated that Japan was already soundly beaten and that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. In his memoir, Eisenhower stated that he told Secretary of War Stimson that using the atomic bomb on Japan was “completely unnecessary” (_Mandate for Change, _pp. 312-313).
> 
> Eisenhower’s son later recalled that before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, his father told him, “I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it” (Interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, Eisenhower Library; Summary: Section C).


This is pretty good revisionist history that is easily proved as myth. 

As we know, only a few people knew the bomb was being developed. Truman did not know of the bomb as vice president. If Truman had no idea the bomb was being developed, because it was that good of a secret, did a general such as Eisenhower know more than the vice president? 

Facts are facts, Truman was told by Stimson, after Roosevelt died. 

Eisenhower was not told. 

So how is it that Eisenhower can make the claim that he advised against using a secret a weapon he knew nothing about? 

According to this post, and whatever source is used, Eisenhower even told his son about this Top Secret Weapon, even though the Vice President was never told? 

I guess that means we should of prosecuted Eisenhower for mishandling of Top Secret information during war, punishment, death? Live in prison? Eisenhower, risked all this? Or are these simply stories after everyone dies?

I guess I could quote Eisenhower's books, which I own, which contradicts all this, as well. 

So, what is it, Eisenhower is a traitor during wartime, exposing Top Secret weapons existence, as a highly decorated General. Or this is all politics and revisionist history, told after everyone dies?


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> You are uninformed, but sadly most Americans are on this issue.  The statist education is tough to overcome.
> 
> Go here: The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan
> 
> Please read to column posted in the OP.  Then go to post #54 and read ALL the columns posted.  Then go to posts 668 and 669.
> 
> Ignorance of history is a terrible thing.


How about I just go to my library of books written by all the key players in this?
You can go to google and nitpick history, I will use my books.

Sorry, but I do not need to give life to your other thread. Truman simply used the biggest piece of artillery we had at the time. If I can paraphrase truman.

Okinawa, over 12,000 americans killed
Okinawa, over 100,000 japanese soldiers killed
Okinawa, over 120,000 japanese civilians killed

and you think ending the war dropping two, simple, bombs was wrong? 
you think less people would of died invading the mainland?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the memo unequivocally states that the Japanese were offering to surrender. What is even more eye-opening is the fact that the surrender terms were practically identical to what was ultimately accepted by the Americans after the bomb had dropped. The memo (source) stated these terms:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HA, Ha, ha. Why did Japan not surrender? Because they were not beaten sufficiently to surrender. They tried to surrender to who at this point? And when we demanded that Japan surrender before the bomb was dropped, did they? No!
> 
> Yes, very funny indeed, Japan was going to surrender but did not surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are uninformed, but sadly most Americans are on this issue.  The statist education is tough to overcome.
> 
> Go here: The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan
> 
> Please read to column posted in the OP.  Then go to post #54 and read ALL the columns posted.  Then go to posts 668 and 669.
> 
> Ignorance of history is a terrible thing.
Click to expand...

They wanted to surrender, but they were bound by honor and Truman et al were not willing let them keep honor.

It's sad.


----------



## elektra

> Japan also made multiple attempts to end the war through Sweden



Really, I did not know Sweden was fighting the war with Japan? 
Seems kind of stupid, does it not, when you could actually end the fighting by surrendering to those who you are fighting!


----------



## elektra

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> They wanted to surrender, but they were bound by honor and Truman et al were not willing let them keep honor.
> 
> It's sad.


You have to do better than that, who wanted to surrender? How did they try to surrender? And you do know that in Japanese culture there was no honor in surrendering, under any circumstances. Your comment does not stand up to the facts of history.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Japan also made multiple attempts to end the war through Sweden and Portugal, who were neutral at the time. They also approached Soviet Russia’s leaders *“with a view of terminating the war if possible by September.” *(source)



General Eisenhower was never the Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces! He was the commander of Europe, nothing more. I detected this glaring lie in about 10 seconds, as it is in the first paragraph of your link. 

Yes, it is lie. When one takes the time to create a webpage, cherry pick information, a present it to the public online, it is not simply a mistake. It is an outright lie. The author of your revisionist history is hoping that all who read his crap are ignorant of history. 

Your source is useless, it is tainted, it is biased, it is lies and propaganda. It is how they begin the rant, most likely how they end the rant. 

We can not intelligently discuss your comments until you can provide a source without lies.



> General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Logic would say Ike did know and did disagree

His famous speech to the nation after leaving office was

Beware of the military industrial complex !!!!!

That proves he knew and was against it


----------



## elektra

GreenAndBlue said:


> Logic would say Ike did know and did disagree
> 
> His famous speech to the nation after leaving office was
> 
> Beware of the military industrial complex !!!!!
> 
> That proves he knew and was against it


Logic says ike knew cause of a speech? I say the contradictions in his story, zero collaberation proves otherwise.


----------



## xband

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com



Truman was a short man and I met him in The Truman Presidential Library in 1963, Dad asked why did you fire MacArthur and he said because he failed to obey the Commander in Chief, Mom asked why did you drop the bomb and he said to save American lives. Then he came to me wanting to know what I think and I was dumbfounded and said nothing, Truman said study History and then he went to my little sister who started crying and he comforted her. I shook hands with the man!


----------



## mikegriffith1

The claim that Hiroshima was a military target is indefensible, if not a bit obscene. The fact that Truman initially claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base" and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians" suggests that Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima and/or that he was deluding himself about what he had done.

Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.​
On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city" and escaped serious damage.[4] The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."[5] Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​
The atomic bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.[10] The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was typical:​
"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."[11] (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/...against-japan/)​


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> The claim that Hiroshima was a military target is indefensible, if not a bit obscene. The fact that Truman initially claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base" and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians" suggests that Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima and/or that he was deluding himself about what he had done.
> 
> Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:
> 
> This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.​
> On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city" and escaped serious damage.[4] The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."[5] Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​
> The atomic bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.[10] The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was typical:​
> "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."[11] (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/...against-japan/)​


Ralph Raico is one of the best Americans to ever live.  He was a genius. It was a terribly sad day when this great man died. If only all Americans read his works, we would be a much better country. 

Yes, when Truman claimed Hiroshima was a military base, he clearly lied. Thus exposing his war crime. He should have been hung at Nuremberg.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> The claim that Hiroshima was a military target is indefensible, if not a bit obscene. The fact that Truman initially claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base" and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians" suggests that Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima and/or that he was deluding himself about what he had done.
> 
> Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:
> 
> This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.​
> On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city" and escaped serious damage.[4] The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."[5] Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​
> The atomic bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.[10] The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was typical:​
> "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."[11] (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/...against-japan/)​


Yet, 20,000 japanese soldiers died in the atomic blast?. Japan's 5th division and 2nd army headquarters where destroyed, unuseable. It was also a port and a communications center. More so seeings how tokoyo was largely destroyed. And yes, we bombed the center, not the outskirts, knowing that was the best way to wipe the entire city off the map. 

As far as what you posted about what the "leaders" said, I say rubbish. Not one leader stated, to not drop the bomb, before it was dropped. Not one. If you think so, go ahead a post whatever you find. But remember, none of these people knew of the bomb. So you best find proof of stimson telling them and post that as well.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Einstein said the biggest mistake he ever made was writing that letter to Roosevelt. He said he wished someone had chopped off his fingers so he couldn't write that letter that got the Manhattan project started and the bomb

The way America delayed to enter the world had the other nations thinking America was either on the side of hitler or was trying to weaken the world so that they would have more influence 

Russia lost over 20 million and China lost over 20 million and America half a million

Many nations became really scared of America and of war and worked things to get ready for the next one

China had abortions in such a way to increase their male and female ratio. So that they could lose 200 million men if needed in the next war


Today America's deep state has been caught cheating their own voters and today the world is very afraid 

Trump is trying to stop the crooked deep state in order to avoid world war 111

Trump wants the other nations to progress too but not cheat America's progress

Trump may be the worlds last chance to avoid world war 111


----------



## GreenAndBlue

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that Hiroshima was a military target is indefensible, if not a bit obscene. The fact that Truman initially claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base" and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians" suggests that Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima and/or that he was deluding himself about what he had done.
> 
> Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:
> 
> This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.​
> On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city" and escaped serious damage.[4] The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."[5] Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​
> The atomic bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.[10] The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was typical:​
> "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."[11] (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/...against-japan/)​
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, 20,000 japanese soldiers died in the atomic blast?. Japan's 5th division and 2nd army headquarters where destroyed, unuseable. It was also a port and a communications center. More so seeings how tokoyo was largely destroyed. And yes, we bombed the center, not the outskirts, knowing that was the best way to wipe the entire city off the map.
> 
> As far as what you posted about what the "leaders" said, I say rubbish. Not one leader stated, to not drop the bomb, before it was dropped. Not one. If you think so, go ahead a post whatever you find. But remember, none of these people knew of the bomb. So you best find proof of stimson telling them and post that as well.
Click to expand...



Ike's talk to America after leaving office proves he knew and was against it


Beware of the military industrial complex

He was military and him saying that shows he sees insane greed is involved     That proves he was against it and even said it.  Because here he is saying the military complex has insane greed


----------



## GreenAndBlue

elektra said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic would say Ike did know and did disagree
> 
> His famous speech to the nation after leaving office was
> 
> Beware of the military industrial complex !!!!!
> 
> That proves he knew and was against it
> 
> 
> 
> Logic says ike knew cause of a speech? I say the contradictions in his story, zero collaberation proves otherwise.
Click to expand...


Ike was military and was trained to take orders 

When Truman decided to drop the bomb Ike knew enough to know that something big was gonna happen. 

But being military and made to obey he did not broadcast going against his commander in chief 

So you wanted evidence of military men going against their chief is silly 

Ike did broadcast that this insane greed was harmful with his speach to America

Beware of the military industrial complex !!

With that broadcast he was not going against orders of his commander in chief. He was the commander in chief !!


----------



## Picaro

GreenAndBlue said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that Hiroshima was a military target is indefensible, if not a bit obscene. The fact that Truman initially claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base" and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians" suggests that Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima and/or that he was deluding himself about what he had done.
> 
> Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:
> 
> This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.​
> On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city" and escaped serious damage.[4] The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."[5] Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​
> The atomic bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.[10] The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was typical:​
> "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."[11] (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/...against-japan/)​
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, 20,000 japanese soldiers died in the atomic blast?. Japan's 5th division and 2nd army headquarters where destroyed, unuseable. It was also a port and a communications center. More so seeings how tokoyo was largely destroyed. And yes, we bombed the center, not the outskirts, knowing that was the best way to wipe the entire city off the map.
> 
> As far as what you posted about what the "leaders" said, I say rubbish. Not one leader stated, to not drop the bomb, before it was dropped. Not one. If you think so, go ahead a post whatever you find. But remember, none of these people knew of the bomb. So you best find proof of stimson telling them and post that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ike's talk to America after leaving office proves he knew and was against it
> 
> 
> Beware of the military industrial complex
> 
> He was military and him saying that shows he sees insane greed is involved     That proves he was against it and even said it.  Because here he is saying the military complex has insane greed
Click to expand...


Yes, like I already pointed out, Ike didn't say squat until after he was out of office, so his 'speech' has little relevance and did no good. He waited until it was safe for him to do do so. He didn't do much about it as Pres, and went on to get involved in Viet Nam, Africa, the ME, and South America, with mixed results. Spending was a domestic issue, and has nothing to do with strategy re Japan 15 years after the war was over.


----------



## Picaro

GreenAndBlue said:


> Einstein said the biggest mistake he ever made was writing that letter to Roosevelt. He said he wished someone had chopped off his fingers so he couldn't write that letter that got the Manhattan project started and the bomb
> 
> The way America delayed to enter the world had the other nations thinking America was either on the side of hitler or was trying to weaken the world so that they would have more influence
> 
> Russia lost over 20 million and China lost over 20 million and America half a million
> 
> Many nations became really scared of America and of war and worked things to get ready for the next one
> 
> China had abortions in such a way to increase their male and female ratio. So that they could lose 200 million men if needed in the next war
> 
> 
> Today America's deep state has been caught cheating their own voters and today the world is very afraid
> 
> Trump is trying to stop the crooked deep state in order to avoid world war 111
> 
> Trump wants the other nations to progress too but not cheat America's progress
> 
> Trump may be the worlds last chance to avoid world war 111



FDR and Truman were better geo-political strategists than Einstein, who had no clue what he was talking about, just parroting the usual commie 'peace at any price' nonsense popular with left wingers. Fact.


----------



## gipper

Picaro said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein said the biggest mistake he ever made was writing that letter to Roosevelt. He said he wished someone had chopped off his fingers so he couldn't write that letter that got the Manhattan project started and the bomb
> 
> The way America delayed to enter the world had the other nations thinking America was either on the side of hitler or was trying to weaken the world so that they would have more influence
> 
> Russia lost over 20 million and China lost over 20 million and America half a million
> 
> Many nations became really scared of America and of war and worked things to get ready for the next one
> 
> China had abortions in such a way to increase their male and female ratio. So that they could lose 200 million men if needed in the next war
> 
> 
> Today America's deep state has been caught cheating their own voters and today the world is very afraid
> 
> Trump is trying to stop the crooked deep state in order to avoid world war 111
> 
> Trump wants the other nations to progress too but not cheat America's progress
> 
> Trump may be the worlds last chance to avoid world war 111
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR and Truman were better geo-political strategists than Einstein, who had no clue what he was talking about, just parroting the usual commie 'peace at any price' nonsense popular with left wingers. Fact.
Click to expand...

LOL. FDR and Truman were criminals.


----------



## elektra

GreenAndBlue said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logic would say Ike did know and did disagree
> 
> His famous speech to the nation after leaving office was
> 
> Beware of the military industrial complex !!!!!
> 
> That proves he knew and was against it
> 
> 
> 
> Logic says ike knew cause of a speech? I say the contradictions in his story, zero collaberation proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ike was military and was trained to take orders
> 
> When Truman decided to drop the bomb Ike knew enough to know that something big was gonna happen.
> 
> But being military and made to obey he did not broadcast going against his commander in chief
> 
> So you wanted evidence of military men going against their chief is silly
> 
> Ike did broadcast that this insane greed was harmful with his speach to America
> 
> Beware of the military industrial complex !!
> 
> With that broadcast he was not going against orders of his commander in chief. He was the commander in chief !!
Click to expand...

Ike? Against the bomb based on a speech. Right. Stimson never told Ike about the bomb. It is a shame we did not have one to drop on berlin, maybe then we would of found out what Ike thought. Politics after the face is just that. Politics.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Picaro said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that Hiroshima was a military target is indefensible, if not a bit obscene. The fact that Truman initially claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base" and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians" suggests that Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima and/or that he was deluding himself about what he had done.
> 
> Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:
> 
> This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.​
> On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city" and escaped serious damage.[4] The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."[5] Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​
> The atomic bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.[10] The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was typical:​
> "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."[11] (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/...against-japan/)​
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, 20,000 japanese soldiers died in the atomic blast?. Japan's 5th division and 2nd army headquarters where destroyed, unuseable. It was also a port and a communications center. More so seeings how tokoyo was largely destroyed. And yes, we bombed the center, not the outskirts, knowing that was the best way to wipe the entire city off the map.
> 
> As far as what you posted about what the "leaders" said, I say rubbish. Not one leader stated, to not drop the bomb, before it was dropped. Not one. If you think so, go ahead a post whatever you find. But remember, none of these people knew of the bomb. So you best find proof of stimson telling them and post that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ike's talk to America after leaving office proves he knew and was against it
> 
> 
> Beware of the military industrial complex
> 
> He was military and him saying that shows he sees insane greed is involved     That proves he was against it and even said it.  Because here he is saying the military complex has insane greed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like I already pointed out, Ike didn't say squat until after he was out of office, so his 'speech' has little relevance and did no good. He waited until it was safe for him to do do so. He didn't do much about it as Pres, and went on to get involved in Viet Nam, Africa, the ME, and South America, with mixed results. Spending was a domestic issue, and has nothing to do with strategy re Japan 15 years after the war was over.
Click to expand...


Again Ike was military trained to obey orders even when disagreeing 

If he had broadcast his disagreeing that would harm all military forever

He finally broadcast his disagreement by that speach and he was the commander in chief. 

That speach was proof Ike was against it and just did not broadcast it because he was military


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> LOL. FDR and Truman were criminals.


Only from the perspective of enemies of the USA


----------



## GreenAndBlue

If Ike had broadcast his disagreeing with his superior he would have harmed the whole priniciple of obeying higher rank

And doing so would make all
Military efforts weaker

Very silly and with low logic not to understand Ike


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Picaro said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein said the biggest mistake he ever made was writing that letter to Roosevelt. He said he wished someone had chopped off his fingers so he couldn't write that letter that got the Manhattan project started and the bomb
> 
> The way America delayed to enter the world had the other nations thinking America was either on the side of hitler or was trying to weaken the world so that they would have more influence
> 
> Russia lost over 20 million and China lost over 20 million and America half a million
> 
> Many nations became really scared of America and of war and worked things to get ready for the next one
> 
> China had abortions in such a way to increase their male and female ratio. So that they could lose 200 million men if needed in the next war
> 
> 
> Today America's deep state has been caught cheating their own voters and today the world is very afraid
> 
> Trump is trying to stop the crooked deep state in order to avoid world war 111
> 
> Trump wants the other nations to progress too but not cheat America's progress
> 
> Trump may be the worlds last chance to avoid world war 111
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR and Truman were better geo-political strategists than Einstein, who had no clue what he was talking about, just parroting the usual commie 'peace at any price' nonsense popular with left wingers. Fact.
Click to expand...



Einstein was a genius in cause and effect

Einstein wanted the bomb at first because he knew Germany may get it first   So he got the bomb started 

But then when Germany was beat and Japan controlled could not come out of their island   Einstein was horrified

Einstein the best at cause and effect. He then knew there will now be a nuke race and in time nukes will be used since America did that

Russia was next in inventing the nuke bomb America dropping the bomb when not needed made them very scared of us same with China

And now we have a nuke race 


Might does make right until bad decisions comes to give the might makes right to others

Einstein understood clearly that cause and effect


----------



## GreenAndBlue

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. FDR and Truman were criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Only from the perspective of enemies of the USA
Click to expand...


Bad decisions are the enemy of America 

Nukking kids and women is nearly as bad as abortion destroying nations


----------



## elektra

GreenAndBlue said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. FDR and Truman were criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Only from the perspective of enemies of the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad decisions are the enemy of America
> 
> Nukking kids and women is nearly as bad as abortion destroying nations
Click to expand...

Losing wars is good? Losing American's lives is good? It is sad that the Japs lost a war they started. It is also sad that nobody was more brutal than the japanese in that war that they started.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Japan was indeed more brutal and close to hitler. 

Japan was slaughtering peaceful China in 1937. We did not help until
Japan forced us with the peal harbor attack 

Our entering the war late May have been a greed issue


----------



## elektra

GreenAndBlue said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein said the biggest mistake he ever made was writing that letter to Roosevelt. He said he wished someone had chopped off his fingers so he couldn't write that letter that got the Manhattan project started and the bomb
> 
> The way America delayed to enter the world had the other nations thinking America was either on the side of hitler or was trying to weaken the world so that they would have more influence
> 
> Russia lost over 20 million and China lost over 20 million and America half a million
> 
> Many nations became really scared of America and of war and worked things to get ready for the next one
> 
> China had abortions in such a way to increase their male and female ratio. So that they could lose 200 million men if needed in the next war
> 
> 
> Today America's deep state has been caught cheating their own voters and today the world is very afraid
> 
> Trump is trying to stop the crooked deep state in order to avoid world war 111
> 
> Trump wants the other nations to progress too but not cheat America's progress
> 
> Trump may be the worlds last chance to avoid world war 111
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR and Truman were better geo-political strategists than Einstein, who had no clue what he was talking about, just parroting the usual commie 'peace at any price' nonsense popular with left wingers. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein was a genius in cause and effect
> 
> Einstein wanted the bomb at first because he knew Germany may get it first   So he got the bomb started
> 
> But then when Germany was beat and Japan controlled could not come out of their island   Einstein was horrified
> 
> Einstein the best at cause and effect. He then knew there will now be a nuke race and in time nukes will be used since America did that
> 
> Russia was next in inventing the nuke bomb America dropping the bomb when not needed made them very scared of us same with China
> 
> And now we have a nuke race
> 
> 
> Might does make right until bad decisions comes to give the might makes right to others
> 
> Einstein understood clearly that cause and effect
Click to expand...

2nd guessing history is always a fool's errand. If Einstien was a genius, then why did he not know Germany would not develop the bomb? Why did Einstien send this letter if he knew it would start an arms race? Because it was the right thing to do at the time. 

We ended a brutal war we did not start, as fast as we could. Right thing to do at the right time.

Everything you suggest simply results in more americans and japanese dying.

Yet, you think you are less barbaric, longer war, more dead, is ok?


----------



## elektra

GreenAndBlue said:


> Japan was indeed more brutal and close to hitler.
> 
> Japan was slaughtering peaceful China in 1937. We did not help until
> Japan forced us with the peal harbor attack
> 
> Our entering the war late May have been a greed issue


Yes, of course, everyone is greedy, but you.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

We entered the war late

We rushed to drop the bomb on Japan when we had them beat

We did two contradictory things here


Did we delay entering the war to save American lives?

If so why did we rush defeated Japan to also save American lives 

No logic at all with that

Logic would say America was using insane greed with their decisions


----------



## GreenAndBlue

We delayed to weaken the world for insane greed 

Then we rushed for insane greed

That's how logic can see this issue 

And in long term we lose with a world nuke race and making the whole world scared of us


----------



## elektra

GreenAndBlue said:


> We entered the war late
> 
> We rushed to drop the bomb on Japan when we had them beat
> 
> We did two contradictory things here
> 
> 
> Did we delay entering the war to save American lives?
> 
> If so why did we rush defeated Japan to also save American lives
> 
> No logic at all with that
> 
> Logic would say America was using insane greed with their decisions


Japan was not defeated. They were very much killing americans. Not to mention, those defeated japs were still killing POW's. Torturing and killing. How does someone who is defeated still have power to kill? To sink ships? They were defeated when they surrendered.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Trump can help stop this greed damage


----------



## elektra

GreenAndBlue said:


> We delayed to weaken the world for insane greed
> 
> Then we rushed for insane greed
> 
> That's how logic can see this issue
> 
> And in long term we lose with a world nuke race and making the whole world scared of us


Greed? No proof. Ike's speech dont prove greed. We provided weapons and money. That was a drain on our treasury. A drain on our nation. Hardly the act of greed.


----------



## elektra

I am happy to see nobody can argue the facts I have posted.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Einstein knew cause and effect 

Cause and effect makes correct predictions 

Now the world has nukes because of trumans actions 

America  now will have to go bankrupt in trying to defend from so much world hate

Abortion and America dropping the nuke bomb biggest human mistakes ever

China has used abortion to get ready for world war 111. They can afford now to lose 200 million men 

That is cause and effect


----------



## GreenAndBlue

elektra said:


> I am happy to see nobody can argue the facts I have posted.


 
Wrong you got the facts but your logic too low to know what a fact is


----------



## elektra

GreenAndBlue said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to see nobody can argue the facts I have posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong you got the facts but your logic too low to know what a fact is
Click to expand...

Prove it


----------



## GreenAndBlue

America 

Withdrew from Vietnam

And could not stop n Korea in the Korean War

Because now other nations has the nukes

That is cause and effect of the bad decision to start the nuke race

We could not best n Vietnam or n Korea because of trumans bad decision


----------



## GreenAndBlue

America started the nuke race

And made us not win the Vietnam and Korea wars


----------



## GreenAndBlue

elektra said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to see nobody can argue the facts I have posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong you got the facts but your logic too low to know what a fact is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it
Click to expand...



It's already proven. Your low logic is simply blind to know what proof and facts are


----------



## GreenAndBlue

And now America will have to defend from all the world   Since nukes can be sent here

That will bankrupt America and cause chaos and a crazy nation

That is the cause and effect of dropping that bomb


----------



## GreenAndBlue

China was using abortion as self defense to prepare for war

America uses abortion for greed and brings a weaker nation with a big imbalance of young to old


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Einstein the expert on cause and effect

Saw first the problem in Germany and got out in 1933. Other Jews saw too late because of lower logic

So Einstein had prophet ability to know what is a fact and what is proof

He can predict the future with that ability 

And he wished someone would have chopped his fingers off for writing that letter to FDR for the bomb to be invented before Germany 

Our budget deficit will have our nation in chaos

That budget deficit can bring us to be like venezuela


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Because we dropped that bomb we cannot do as our founders said 

Which is not being involved in foreign affairs

Now we must and more and more we must watch EACH nation


----------



## harmonica

GreenAndBlue said:


> America started the nuke race
> 
> And made us not win the Vietnam and Korea wars


I've been over this many times
Vietnam was unwinnable --I can go into detail
.....we did ''win'' in Korea--Truman's objective was to keep S Korea/eject the NK's from South Korea
...and considering UN forces were hanging on to the peninsula with a finger tip at Pusan--we did win
etc etc 
...most wars are not total victories


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. FDR and Truman were criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Only from the perspective of enemies of the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad decisions are the enemy of America
> 
> Nukking kids and women is nearly as bad as abortion destroying nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Losing wars is good? Losing American's lives is good? It is sad that the Japs lost a war they started. It is also sad that nobody was more brutal than the japanese in that war that they started.
Click to expand...


 Americans know that Imperial Japan was extremely brutal to those they captured and conquered. Yet some of these Americans somehow don’t consider the mass murder of defenseless civilian Japanese by the air forces of the USA, extremely brutal. 

The hypocrisy is enormous.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Americans know that Imperial Japan was extremely brutal to those they captured and conquered. Yet some of these Americans somehow don’t consider the mass murder of defenseless civilian Japanese by the air forces of the USA, extremely brutal.
> 
> The hypocrisy is enormous.


What is enormous, is your ignorance. Defenseless woman and children? They had the entire Japanese Military protecting them. Ignorance or stupidity, it has to be stupidity if during a discussion of war one does not realize who the military protects.

And, just so you know you are wrong, how about telling us the which air force unit dropped the bomb. I will give you a hint, it was the army!


----------



## elektra

GreenAndBlue said:


> It's already proven. Your low logic is simply blind to know what proof and facts are


That simply shows you can not support your opinion. Feelings you can argue, which is what you are doing. But facts, you have not provided facts, I am here pointing that out.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans know that Imperial Japan was extremely brutal to those they captured and conquered. Yet some of these Americans somehow don’t consider the mass murder of defenseless civilian Japanese by the air forces of the USA, extremely brutal.
> 
> The hypocrisy is enormous.
> 
> 
> 
> What is enormous, is your ignorance. Defenseless woman and children? They had the entire Japanese Military protecting them. Ignorance or stupidity, it has to be stupidity if during a discussion of war one does not realize who the military protects.
> 
> And, just so you know you are wrong, how about telling us the which air force unit dropped the bomb. I will give you a hint, it was the army!
Click to expand...

Yes Americans love total war, but not on them.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

elektra said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already proven. Your low logic is simply blind to know what proof and facts are
> 
> 
> 
> That simply shows you can not support your opinion. Feelings you can argue, which is what you are doing. But facts, you have not provided facts, I am here pointing that out.
Click to expand...


Wrong

Ike s speach is facts

Your low logic cannot see it as fact

You cannot see einsteins cause and effect shows proof and fact when he predicts correctly

You just cannot understand what is s fact

You would say when looking across the field to a tree  fact is nothing in front of the tree

But facts show many things in front of the tree

Ike could not make that talk without being in disagreement That's a fact

Since he was military he didn't broadcast his disagreement


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Ike's warning of the military industrial complex was proof he disagreed with the military complex nuke bomb dropped when did not have to


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Ike went on national television to warn us about the military complex

He knew how wrong dropping the bomb  that strong warning proves he was against dropping that bomb


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Military man IKE goes after the deep states greed here

How insane greed makes harmful decisions   Like the rush to make Japan surrender before Russia and China could attack to not allow China or Russia to get part of Japan

China lost over 20 million to Japan 

Fairness would say they needed to control
Jspan just as much as America who lost only half a million

So the insane greed came to nuke kids to end the war before China and Russia could come in on the other side 

Here is Ike's warning about this insane greed

//////


----------



## GreenAndBlue

Let's just trace this outrageous harmful decision by Thurman

By keeping the nuke invention hid

America would not have fought a standstill war in Korea or Vietnam


Castro would not have gotten more support to take over Cuba by not seeing how America nukked women and babies 

The bay of pigs was lost by John Kennedy because of soviets copying and getting nukes

They even had a lot more nukes ready to fire on America from Cuba if we invaded

Kennedy thought Cuba and Russia was bluffing but did back down when they saw some nukes there

20 yrs later. Kennedys sec of defense went to Cuba for a fact fining tour

He found out Cuba had much more nukes ready to fire at America than they thought 

So America was stopped from beating Cuba because of their nuke drop on Japan. Because Russia also got the nukes

All that shows how harmful the dropping of the bomb was


----------



## RetiredGySgt

GreenAndBlue said:


> Let's just trace this outrageous harmful decision by Thurman
> 
> By keeping the nuke invention hid
> 
> America would not have fought a standstill war in Korea or Vietnam
> 
> 
> Castro would not have gotten more support to take over Cuba by not seeing how America nukked women and babies
> 
> The bay of pigs was lost by John Kennedy because of soviets copying and getting nukes
> 
> They even had a lot more nukes ready to fire on America from Cuba if we invaded
> 
> Kennedy thought Cuba and Russia was bluffing but did back down when they saw some nukes there
> 
> 20 yrs later. Kennedys sec of defense went to Cuba for a fact fining tour
> 
> He found out Cuba had much more nukes ready to fire at America than they thought
> 
> So America was stopped from beating Cuba because of their nuke drop on Japan. Because Russia also got the nukes
> 
> All that shows how harmful the dropping of the bomb was


The Soviets got the bomb because of spies from our program dropping the bomb had nothing to do with you dumb ass. Cuba was stopped from having the bomb by Kennedy that was the whole point of almost going to war with the Soviets, god you guys don't know history at all.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Patriotism is not blindly defending immoral actions performed by the government. Patriotism is not arguing that anyone who disagrees with the nuking of Japan is somehow dishonoring the American military personnel who served in the Pacific War, as if those personnel were the ones who decided to drop napalm on dozens of Japanese cities and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Just exactly how many Japanese women and children had to be fire-bombed and nuked to make up for the 2,335 people killed and the 1,143 people wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack? 100,000? 200,000? 400,000? About 220,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of whom were women and children. At the very least, another 150,000 people--mostly women and children--were killed in the 66 cities that we fire-bombed with napalm before we used nukes.

One of the most comprehensive, thorough rebuttals to the Truman-Stimson-Byrnes defense of FDR and Truman's conduct of the war, Truman's use of nukes, and the prosecution of 28 Japanese government and military leaders in the Tokyo war crimes trial is Dr. Keiichiro Kobori's 1995 book _The Tokyo Trials: The Unheard Defense, _which is available for free reading and/or download at the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact:

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/66_S4.pdf


----------



## Markle

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Red Herring logical fallacy. This is about Japan
> 
> False Equivalency logical fallacy. Europe and the Pacific were entirely different situation
> 
> A question for you: Would the US have used the bomb on Germany if we had it sooner, instead of invading ? Why or why not?



You bailed on answering my question, likewise!  

Other than the extermination of the Jews, which the allies did not believe at the time, what was Germany doing that Japan was not?


----------



## Markle

WheelieAddict said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> Compares with Nazi Germany? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Mass murder is mass murder whether in a gas chamber or by fire bombing and a-bombing cities full of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't defend a horrible act of war, no  one should especially with hindsight.
> 
> I'd still say there is quite a difference between a tough call on a bombing you know will kill people while wanting to reduce the death toll of your own while in a war, and a systemic plan of ethnic cleansing/genocide. One evil is far worse than the other imho.
> 
> The leaders of the United States wanted to end the war without more casualties on their side. The leaders of Nazi Germany started a war with intent of eliminating classes and races of people by the tens of millions.
> 
> If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is logical, but wrong in this instance. Japan sought surrender terms well before Truman committed his criminal act. Logic would dictate that you accept their surrender, ending the slaughter and destruction.  Sadly, logic was not implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? "surrender terms" does not equal surrender. They didn't surrender even after the first bomb was dropped!
Click to expand...


But, they did after the second.  Undoubtedly they believed that the next two or three would be dropped on Tokyo.  They had to believe that the first two were warning shots.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

What other harm to America did the dropping of nukes do to America 

Castro 90 miles off Florida was free to poison many other nations 

Venezuela was one 

If Russia did not also rush to invent the nuke bomb  we would have had Cuba as a us state 

America letting the world know it can be done now has several nations that can blackmail America 

Outrageous harmful decision to drop the nuke bombs on kids and women

Those pics has gone all over the world to bring hate on America


----------



## GreenAndBlue

RetiredGySgt said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just trace this outrageous harmful decision by Thurman
> 
> By keeping the nuke invention hid
> 
> America would not have fought a standstill war in Korea or Vietnam
> 
> 
> Castro would not have gotten more support to take over Cuba by not seeing how America nukked women and babies
> 
> The bay of pigs was lost by John Kennedy because of soviets copying and getting nukes
> 
> They even had a lot more nukes ready to fire on America from Cuba if we invaded
> 
> Kennedy thought Cuba and Russia was bluffing but did back down when they saw some nukes there
> 
> 20 yrs later. Kennedys sec of defense went to Cuba for a fact fining tour
> 
> He found out Cuba had much more nukes ready to fire at America than they thought
> 
> So America was stopped from beating Cuba because of their nuke drop on Japan. Because Russia also got the nukes
> 
> All that shows how harmful the dropping of the bomb was
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets got the bomb because of spies from our program dropping the bomb had nothing to do with you dumb ass. Cuba was stopped from having the bomb by Kennedy that was the whole point of almost going to war with the Soviets, god you guys don't know history at all.
Click to expand...


Wrong dropping the bomb had everything to do with it

That brought the anger and panic to spy like crazy and build them too

We have lost Cuba because of that act of trumans as well as leaving viet nam and Korea without winning

Russia became equal to us when they got the nukes 

And that stopped us in many ways


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. FDR and Truman were criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Only from the perspective of enemies of the USA
Click to expand...

Yes these enemies are statist Americans.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> Patriotism is not blindly defending immoral actions performed by the government. Patriotism is not arguing that anyone who disagrees with the nuking of Japan is somehow dishonoring the American military personnel who served in the Pacific War, as if those personnel were the ones who decided to drop napalm on dozens of Japanese cities and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Just exactly how many Japanese women and children had to be fire-bombed and nuked to make up for the 2,335 people killed and the 1,143 people wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack? 100,000? 200,000? 400,000? About 220,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of whom were women and children. At the very least, another 150,000 people--mostly women and children--were killed in the 66 cities that we fire-bombed with napalm before we used nukes.
> 
> One of the most comprehensive, thorough rebuttals to the Truman-Stimson-Byrnes defense of FDR and Truman's conduct of the war, Truman's use of nukes, and the prosecution of 28 Japanese government and military leaders in the Tokyo war crimes trial is Dr. Keiichiro Kobori's 1995 book _The Tokyo Trials: The Unheard Defense, _which is available for free reading and/or download at the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact:
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/66_S4.pdf


As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriotism is not blindly defending immoral actions performed by the government. Patriotism is not arguing that anyone who disagrees with the nuking of Japan is somehow dishonoring the American military personnel who served in the Pacific War, as if those personnel were the ones who decided to drop napalm on dozens of Japanese cities and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Just exactly how many Japanese women and children had to be fire-bombed and nuked to make up for the 2,335 people killed and the 1,143 people wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack? 100,000? 200,000? 400,000? About 220,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of whom were women and children. At the very least, another 150,000 people--mostly women and children--were killed in the 66 cities that we fire-bombed with napalm before we used nukes.
> 
> One of the most comprehensive, thorough rebuttals to the Truman-Stimson-Byrnes defense of FDR and Truman's conduct of the war, Truman's use of nukes, and the prosecution of 28 Japanese government and military leaders in the Tokyo war crimes trial is Dr. Keiichiro Kobori's 1995 book _The Tokyo Trials: The Unheard Defense, _which is available for free reading and/or download at the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact:
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/66_S4.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of statist?


----------



## mikegriffith1

And then there's Unit 731, the Japanese army "medical" facility where cruel medical experiments were carried out on Chinese, Koreans, and a few American POWs.

I would make two points about Unit 731:

1. The experiments done at Unit 731 were immoral and cruel, and every "researcher" who conducted them should have been shot or hung, along with the army officers who ordered the experiments. _But, do you know why most of the researchers were not tried for war crimes? Because our government granted them immunity in exchange for the information they had gathered_. In fact, the only researchers who were prosecuted were the ones who were caught by the Soviets.

2. Sadly, because of our own immoral and cruel medical experiments, our government had little moral authority to be judging the people involved with Unit 731. As has been known and well documented for at least 25 years now, during WW II and afterward, our government conducted illegal, immoral, and inhumane medical experiments, especially involving radiation, without the subjects knowledge or consent. The federal government ended up having to pay big chunks of money to settle lawsuits that resulted from these experiments once they became known.

For example, scientists connected with the Manhattan Project injected unwitting patients with radioactive material in order to study the effects. One of those subjects was the mother of a U.S. Army soldier serving in Europe. When her son found out about the experiment, he said, "I was over there fighting the Germans, who were conducting these horrific medical experiments, at the same time my own country was conducting them on my mother" (Gerald DeGroot, _The Bomb: A Life_, New York: Random House, 2011, p. 276).

At prisons in Oregon and Washington, our military arranged for inmates to have their testicles exposed to x-rays in order to determine how much radiation would cause sterility (DeGroot, p. 276). In some cases, we marched American soldiers through nuclear test sites soon after a nuke had been exploded there. In order to study the effects of syphilis, our military studied black soldiers at Tuskegee who had syphilis without telling them that we could cure the syphilis with penicillin--we let the syphilis progress without curing it.

If you want to read about our immoral radiation-related medical experiments, read Pulitzer-Prize-winning author Eileen Welsome's book _The Plutonium Files: America's Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War_. Welsome starts with medical experiments done during WW II and then proceeds from there.

If you want some online reading on our secret medical experiments during the war and afterward, here are some:

United States Human Radiation Experiments

https://www.amazon.com/Plutonium-Fil.../dp/0385319541

 (interview with Eileen Welsome)

http://www.imarcresearch.com/blog/bi...on-Experiments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethi...#United_States

https://www.revealnews.org/article/u...r-recognition/


"I'm Not Afraid of the A-Bomb": An Army Captain Tries to Dispel Fears about Radioactivity

Nearly all Americans were appalled when they found out about these immoral medical experiments. They had no idea they were being done. Similarly, nearly all Japanese citizens were shocked when they learned about the horrible medical experiments done at Unit 731. They had no idea they were being done, nor did the top leaders in the Japanese government know about these experiments until after the war--some senior officers in the Japanese army knew about them, but no one in the cabinet or in the imperial court was aware of them until after the war.

And if we want to talk about the treatment of prisoners, I suggest a good starting point would be John Dower's award-winning book _War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War._


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriotism is not blindly defending immoral actions performed by the government. Patriotism is not arguing that anyone who disagrees with the nuking of Japan is somehow dishonoring the American military personnel who served in the Pacific War, as if those personnel were the ones who decided to drop napalm on dozens of Japanese cities and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Just exactly how many Japanese women and children had to be fire-bombed and nuked to make up for the 2,335 people killed and the 1,143 people wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack? 100,000? 200,000? 400,000? About 220,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of whom were women and children. At the very least, another 150,000 people--mostly women and children--were killed in the 66 cities that we fire-bombed with napalm before we used nukes.
> 
> One of the most comprehensive, thorough rebuttals to the Truman-Stimson-Byrnes defense of FDR and Truman's conduct of the war, Truman's use of nukes, and the prosecution of 28 Japanese government and military leaders in the Tokyo war crimes trial is Dr. Keiichiro Kobori's 1995 book _The Tokyo Trials: The Unheard Defense, _which is available for free reading and/or download at the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact:
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/66_S4.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your definition of statist?
Click to expand...

You


----------



## Picaro

gipper said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein said the biggest mistake he ever made was writing that letter to Roosevelt. He said he wished someone had chopped off his fingers so he couldn't write that letter that got the Manhattan project started and the bomb
> 
> The way America delayed to enter the world had the other nations thinking America was either on the side of hitler or was trying to weaken the world so that they would have more influence
> 
> Russia lost over 20 million and China lost over 20 million and America half a million
> 
> Many nations became really scared of America and of war and worked things to get ready for the next one
> 
> China had abortions in such a way to increase their male and female ratio. So that they could lose 200 million men if needed in the next war
> 
> 
> Today America's deep state has been caught cheating their own voters and today the world is very afraid
> 
> Trump is trying to stop the crooked deep state in order to avoid world war 111
> 
> Trump wants the other nations to progress too but not cheat America's progress
> 
> Trump may be the worlds last chance to avoid world war 111
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR and Truman were better geo-political strategists than Einstein, who had no clue what he was talking about, just parroting the usual commie 'peace at any price' nonsense popular with left wingers. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. FDR and Truman were criminals.
Click to expand...



According to you. You aren't a credible source for facts. Einstein was a postal worker, and had little to no knowledge of politics, much as you don't.


----------



## Picaro

GreenAndBlue said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein said the biggest mistake he ever made was writing that letter to Roosevelt. He said he wished someone had chopped off his fingers so he couldn't write that letter that got the Manhattan project started and the bomb
> 
> The way America delayed to enter the world had the other nations thinking America was either on the side of hitler or was trying to weaken the world so that they would have more influence
> 
> Russia lost over 20 million and China lost over 20 million and America half a million
> 
> Many nations became really scared of America and of war and worked things to get ready for the next one
> 
> China had abortions in such a way to increase their male and female ratio. So that they could lose 200 million men if needed in the next war
> 
> 
> Today America's deep state has been caught cheating their own voters and today the world is very afraid
> 
> Trump is trying to stop the crooked deep state in order to avoid world war 111
> 
> Trump wants the other nations to progress too but not cheat America's progress
> 
> Trump may be the worlds last chance to avoid world war 111
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR and Truman were better geo-political strategists than Einstein, who had no clue what he was talking about, just parroting the usual commie 'peace at any price' nonsense popular with left wingers. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein was a genius in cause and effect
> 
> Einstein wanted the bomb at first because he knew Germany may get it first   So he got the bomb started
> 
> But then when Germany was beat and Japan controlled could not come out of their island   Einstein was horrified
> 
> Einstein the best at cause and effect. He then knew there will now be a nuke race and in time nukes will be used since America did that
> 
> Russia was next in inventing the nuke bomb America dropping the bomb when not needed made them very scared of us same with China
> 
> And now we have a nuke race
> 
> 
> Might does make right until bad decisions comes to give the might makes right to others
> 
> Einstein understood clearly that cause and effect
Click to expand...


Russia didn't 'invent' a nuclear bomb; they stole the plans from us, some of Einstein's peers and commie friends gave it to them, for one, and Einstein spent most of his time on physics and math, not political analysis ; name any war he ever fought in or the armies he commanded. He knew nothing but pacifist sloganeering, like the fashion victim he was.


----------



## Picaro

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. FDR and Truman were criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Only from the perspective of enemies of the USA
Click to expand...



You won't find a single post form these types about the criminality of the Japanese or Nazis, or Stalin or Mao, or Ho Chi Min, or even Pol Pot. That's all one needs to know about them and their gibberish.


----------



## Picaro

GreenAndBlue said:


> Japan was indeed more brutal and close to hitler.
> 
> Japan was slaughtering peaceful China in 1937. We did not help until
> Japan forced us with the peal harbor attack
> 
> Our entering the war late May have been a greed issue



The Japanese attacked us, Germany declared war on us; that's when we got into the war. You're just getting silly and deranged.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriotism is not blindly defending immoral actions performed by the government. Patriotism is not arguing that anyone who disagrees with the nuking of Japan is somehow dishonoring the American military personnel who served in the Pacific War, as if those personnel were the ones who decided to drop napalm on dozens of Japanese cities and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Just exactly how many Japanese women and children had to be fire-bombed and nuked to make up for the 2,335 people killed and the 1,143 people wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack? 100,000? 200,000? 400,000? About 220,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of whom were women and children. At the very least, another 150,000 people--mostly women and children--were killed in the 66 cities that we fire-bombed with napalm before we used nukes.
> 
> One of the most comprehensive, thorough rebuttals to the Truman-Stimson-Byrnes defense of FDR and Truman's conduct of the war, Truman's use of nukes, and the prosecution of 28 Japanese government and military leaders in the Tokyo war crimes trial is Dr. Keiichiro Kobori's 1995 book _The Tokyo Trials: The Unheard Defense, _which is available for free reading and/or download at the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact:
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/66_S4.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your definition of statist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You
Click to expand...

Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriotism is not blindly defending immoral actions performed by the government. Patriotism is not arguing that anyone who disagrees with the nuking of Japan is somehow dishonoring the American military personnel who served in the Pacific War, as if those personnel were the ones who decided to drop napalm on dozens of Japanese cities and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Just exactly how many Japanese women and children had to be fire-bombed and nuked to make up for the 2,335 people killed and the 1,143 people wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack? 100,000? 200,000? 400,000? About 220,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of whom were women and children. At the very least, another 150,000 people--mostly women and children--were killed in the 66 cities that we fire-bombed with napalm before we used nukes.
> 
> One of the most comprehensive, thorough rebuttals to the Truman-Stimson-Byrnes defense of FDR and Truman's conduct of the war, Truman's use of nukes, and the prosecution of 28 Japanese government and military leaders in the Tokyo war crimes trial is Dr. Keiichiro Kobori's 1995 book _The Tokyo Trials: The Unheard Defense, _which is available for free reading and/or download at the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact:
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/66_S4.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your definition of statist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.
Click to expand...

That’s right. STATIST!


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriotism is not blindly defending immoral actions performed by the government. Patriotism is not arguing that anyone who disagrees with the nuking of Japan is somehow dishonoring the American military personnel who served in the Pacific War, as if those personnel were the ones who decided to drop napalm on dozens of Japanese cities and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Just exactly how many Japanese women and children had to be fire-bombed and nuked to make up for the 2,335 people killed and the 1,143 people wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack? 100,000? 200,000? 400,000? About 220,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of whom were women and children. At the very least, another 150,000 people--mostly women and children--were killed in the 66 cities that we fire-bombed with napalm before we used nukes.
> 
> One of the most comprehensive, thorough rebuttals to the Truman-Stimson-Byrnes defense of FDR and Truman's conduct of the war, Truman's use of nukes, and the prosecution of 28 Japanese government and military leaders in the Tokyo war crimes trial is Dr. Keiichiro Kobori's 1995 book _The Tokyo Trials: The Unheard Defense, _which is available for free reading and/or download at the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact:
> 
> http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/66_S4.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your definition of statist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s right. STATIST!
Click to expand...

So, the depth of the OP's scholarly knowledge is name calling with words or terms he does not understand and can not define or articulate even after hours of opportunity to research an answer. Yet, he thinks we should believe he is an expert on historical events from his reading of an opinion piece from an agenda driven article.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your definition of statist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s right. STATIST!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the depth of the OP's scholarly knowledge is name calling with words or terms he does not understand and can not define or articulate even after hours of opportunity to research an answer. Yet, he thinks we should believe he is an expert on historical events from his reading of an opinion piece from an agenda driven article.
Click to expand...

I have tried educating you for nearly a decade, but you are unable to learn. The statism is too strong in you, so sadly you shall remain dumb forever.


----------



## Picaro

lol at 'statist'. As I've said before, the right wing loons use Gramscian vocabulary substitution as well as the commies do.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your definition of statist?
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s right. STATIST!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the depth of the OP's scholarly knowledge is name calling with words or terms he does not understand and can not define or articulate even after hours of opportunity to research an answer. Yet, he thinks we should believe he is an expert on historical events from his reading of an opinion piece from an agenda driven article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have tried educating you for nearly a decade, but you are unable to learn. The statism is too strong in you, so sadly you shall remain dumb forever.
Click to expand...

You have spent your whole day lamely attempting to evade answering a simple question and providing a definition of a word you use as if you know what it means or what it is supposed to mean or what you think it means. You seem to be determined to prove yourself as a fraud.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s right. STATIST!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the depth of the OP's scholarly knowledge is name calling with words or terms he does not understand and can not define or articulate even after hours of opportunity to research an answer. Yet, he thinks we should believe he is an expert on historical events from his reading of an opinion piece from an agenda driven article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have tried educating you for nearly a decade, but you are unable to learn. The statism is too strong in you, so sadly you shall remain dumb forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have spent your whole day lamely attempting to evade answering a simple question and providing a definition of a word you use as if you know what it means or what it is supposed to mean or what you think it means. You seem to be determined to prove yourself as a fraud.
Click to expand...

That’s right my son.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor's memoir tells us how commonly it was known among top government officials that Japan was defeated, that Japan’s civilian leaders knew it, and that as early as May 1945 we knew from decrypted Japanese cables that Japan wanted to make peace. Telford was a reserve colonel in Army Intelligence. In May 1945, he returned to the U.S. from Europe and was thinking about trying to get an assignment in the Pacific. He spoke with his superiors in Army Intelligence, especially Colonel Alfred McCormack, who was a good friend of Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy and the director of the Military Intelligence Service. Telford tells us what McCormack told him when he asked about the Pacific War:

I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (_The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir_, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​


----------



## regent

Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
> How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.


Because as has been stated several times in this thread, they feared the Americans would hang the Emperor. Do you need to be reminded that the Japanese revered the Emperor as a God and that nothing was worse than being disgraced. They thought they had no choice but to fight to the death, thanks to FDR’s murderous unconditional surrender requirement. 

Truman massacred all those women and children, then agreed to their only condition. Does that make sense to you?


----------



## mikegriffith1

regent said:


> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
> 
> How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.



That argument might make some sense if Japan had had a king who could do anything he wanted, but WWII-era Japan was nothing like that. The cabinet had to be unanimous; the Supreme War Council had to be unanimous; and then the matter would be brought to the emperor. There were many good men in the imperial court and in the cabinet who were trying to bring about a surrender, but they had to contend with the hardliners, and Truman's insistence on "unconditional surrender" and his refusal to clarify the emperor's status in such a surrender gave the hardliners powerful ammunition.

Just about all of Truman's advisers, especially those with expertise on Japan, were telling him that if he would just specify that the emperor would not be deposed in an unconditional surrender, Japan's leaders would most likely surrender in very short order. As later events showed, even after we nuked them twice and after the Soviets invaded, even Japan's moderates insisted on the condition that the emperor would not be harmed, and we accepted it. This fact strongly suggests that if we had specified the emperor's earlier, Japan would have surrendered earlier.


----------



## mikegriffith1

regent said:


> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender? How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.



Why do you keep trying to make this about the troops when you're presented with evidence that there was no need for an invasion by then? It's a phony issue that forms the basis for the false choice of invading vs. nuking. Let me repeat what Eisenhower said about this when Stimson approached him about the idea of nuking Japan:

During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of _my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary_, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of _a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender_ with a minimum loss of "face." (_Mandate for Change_, pp. 312-313, emphasis added)​And let me repeat what Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, said he was told about Japan's condition by Alfred McCormack, the director of the Military Intelligence Service, when he asked McCormack about it in May 1945:

I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (_The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir_, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​


----------



## regent

mikegriffith1 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender? How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep trying to make this about the troops when you're presented with evidence that there was no need for an invasion by then? It's a phony issue that forms the basis for the false choice of invading vs. nuking. Let me repeat what Eisenhower said about this when Stimson approached him about the idea of nuking Japan:
> 
> During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of _my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary_, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of _a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender_ with a minimum loss of "face." (_Mandate for Change_, pp. 312-313, emphasis added)​And let me repeat what Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, said he was told about Japan's condition by Alfred McCormack, the director of the Military Intelligence Service, when he asked McCormack about it in May 1945:
> 
> I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (_The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir_, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​
Click to expand...

So are you trying to say that as full of anxiety as the Japanese were, they simply did not know how to make peace?


----------



## mikegriffith1

regent said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender? How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep trying to make this about the troops when you're presented with evidence that there was no need for an invasion by then? It's a phony issue that forms the basis for the false choice of invading vs. nuking. Let me repeat what Eisenhower said about this when Stimson approached him about the idea of nuking Japan:
> 
> During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of _my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary_, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of _a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender_ with a minimum loss of "face." (_Mandate for Change_, pp. 312-313, emphasis added)​And let me repeat what Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, said he was told about Japan's condition by Alfred McCormack, the director of the Military Intelligence Service, when he asked McCormack about it in May 1945:
> 
> I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (_The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir_, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you trying to say that as full of anxiety as the Japanese were, they simply did not know how to make peace?
Click to expand...


Have you even read one word that I've written in my last replies? You keep responding to them, but you don't address a single fact that I present.

"They simply did not know how to make peace"??? I mean, that is such a silly, evasive argument that I don't think it's worth taking the time to reply to it. If that ridiculous argument is all you have to say after the facts I have presented to you, there's really no point in further discussion with you, because it's obvious that you have no intention of engaging on a factual, objective basis.

Patriotism is not condoning the mass killing of women and children with the phony excuse that it was the only way to avoid an invasion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender? How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep trying to make this about the troops when you're presented with evidence that there was no need for an invasion by then? It's a phony issue that forms the basis for the false choice of invading vs. nuking. Let me repeat what Eisenhower said about this when Stimson approached him about the idea of nuking Japan:
> 
> During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of _my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary_, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of _a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender_ with a minimum loss of "face." (_Mandate for Change_, pp. 312-313, emphasis added)​And let me repeat what Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, said he was told about Japan's condition by Alfred McCormack, the director of the Military Intelligence Service, when he asked McCormack about it in May 1945:
> 
> I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (_The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir_, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you trying to say that as full of anxiety as the Japanese were, they simply did not know how to make peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you even read one word that I've written in my last replies? You keep responding to them, but you don't address a single fact that I present.
> 
> "They simply did not know how to make peace"??? I mean, that is such a silly, evasive argument that I don't think it's worth taking the time to reply to it. If that ridiculous argument is all you have to say after the facts I have presented to you, there's really no point in further discussion with you, because it's obvious that you have no intention of engaging on a factual, objective basis.
> 
> Patriotism is not condoning the mass killing of women and children with the phony excuse that it was the only way to avoid an invasion.
Click to expand...

You have no facts. The Japanese Government NEVER offered to surrender, they never asked for terms and they never said if ONLY you spare the Emperor. Even after 2 Atomic Bombs they refused to surrender and even after the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army which ran the Government staged a Coup to stop the surrender/


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender? How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep trying to make this about the troops when you're presented with evidence that there was no need for an invasion by then? It's a phony issue that forms the basis for the false choice of invading vs. nuking. Let me repeat what Eisenhower said about this when Stimson approached him about the idea of nuking Japan:
> 
> During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of _my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary_, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of _a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender_ with a minimum loss of "face." (_Mandate for Change_, pp. 312-313, emphasis added)​And let me repeat what Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, said he was told about Japan's condition by Alfred McCormack, the director of the Military Intelligence Service, when he asked McCormack about it in May 1945:
> 
> I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (_The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir_, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you trying to say that as full of anxiety as the Japanese were, they simply did not know how to make peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you even read one word that I've written in my last replies? You keep responding to them, but you don't address a single fact that I present.
> 
> "They simply did not know how to make peace"??? I mean, that is such a silly, evasive argument that I don't think it's worth taking the time to reply to it. If that ridiculous argument is all you have to say after the facts I have presented to you, there's really no point in further discussion with you, because it's obvious that you have no intention of engaging on a factual, objective basis.
> 
> Patriotism is not condoning the mass killing of women and children with the phony excuse that it was the only way to avoid an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no facts. The Japanese Government NEVER offered to surrender, they never asked for terms and they never said if ONLY you spare the Emperor. Even after 2 Atomic Bombs they refused to surrender and even after the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army which ran the Government staged a Coup to stop the surrender/
Click to expand...

they don't understand facts for some reason


----------



## SandSquid

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
> How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> Because as has been stated several times in this thread, they feared the Americans would hang the Emperor. Do you need to be reminded that the Japanese revered the Emperor as a God and that nothing was worse than being disgraced. They thought they had no choice but to fight to the death, thanks to FDR’s murderous unconditional surrender requirement.
> 
> Truman massacred all those women and children, then agreed to their only condition. Does that make sense to you?
Click to expand...


How is unconditional surrender "Murderous"?  I mean he was the man who called for the Pearl Harbor attack. 


And as for "protecting the Emporer" I think you are talking about ketsu-go, the strategy of fighting one last decisive battle intended to inflict so many casualties on a war-weary America that it would relax its demands for unconditional surrender and negotiate a peace which would  at a minimum, safeguard the Emperor, and potentially preserve the armed forces and shield them from prosecution for war crimes.


That's the alternative you support?   Killing as many Americans as you can to support the Emporer, the man who made the call to attack Pearl Harbor, from any charges and letting their leaders walk free from war crimes?


----------



## gipper

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
> How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> Because as has been stated several times in this thread, they feared the Americans would hang the Emperor. Do you need to be reminded that the Japanese revered the Emperor as a God and that nothing was worse than being disgraced. They thought they had no choice but to fight to the death, thanks to FDR’s murderous unconditional surrender requirement.
> 
> Truman massacred all those women and children, then agreed to their only condition. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is unconditional surrender "Murderous"?  I mean he was the man who called for the Pearl Harbor attack.
> 
> 
> And as for "protecting the Emporer" I think you are talking about ketsu-go, the strategy of fighting one last decisive battle intended to inflict so many casualties on a war-weary America that it would relax its demands for unconditional surrender and negotiate a peace which would  at a minimum, safeguard the Emperor, and potentially preserve the armed forces and shield them from prosecution for war crimes.
> 
> 
> That's the alternative you support?   Killing as many Americans as you can to support the Emporer, the man who made the call to attack Pearl Harbor, from any charges and letting their leaders walk free from war crimes?
Click to expand...

Good God think!

FDR’s ignorant and murderous requirement forced the Japanese to fight to the death. They OBVIOUSLY feared FDR would have the Emperor hung. Do you know anything about the Japanese people?  Rhetorical. 

The Emperor was a god to them. They also believed nothing is worst then disgrace and surrender. It is their culture. FDR KNEW THIS, which could mean he wanted to completely murder all their people.

Believing their attack on Pearl Harbor warranted the wanton destruction of their entire nation, is proof you are uninformed and a dupe of the State.


----------



## SandSquid

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
> How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> Because as has been stated several times in this thread, they feared the Americans would hang the Emperor. Do you need to be reminded that the Japanese revered the Emperor as a God and that nothing was worse than being disgraced. They thought they had no choice but to fight to the death, thanks to FDR’s murderous unconditional surrender requirement.
> 
> Truman massacred all those women and children, then agreed to their only condition. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is unconditional surrender "Murderous"?
> 
> 
> And as for "protecting the Emporer" I think you are talking about ketsu-go, the strategy of fighting one last decisive battle intended to inflict so many casualties on a war-weary America that it would relax its demands for unconditional surrender and negotiate a peace which would  at a minimum, safeguard the Emperor, and potentially preserve the armed forces and shield them from prosecution for war crimes.
> 
> 
> That's the alternative you support?   Killing as many Americans as you can to support the Emporer, the man who made the call to attack Pearl Harbor, from any charges and letting their leaders walk free from war crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good God think!
> 
> FDR’s ignorant and murderous requirement forced the Japanese to fight to the death. They OBVIOUSLY feared FDR would have the Emperor hung. Do you know anything about the Japanese people?  Rhetorical.
> 
> The Emperor was a god to them. They also believed nothing is worst then disgrace and surrender. It is their culture. FDR KNEW THIS, which could mean he wanted to completely murder all their people.
> 
> Believing their attack on Pearl Harbor warranted the wanton destruction of their entire nation, is proof you are uninformed and a dupe of the State.
Click to expand...


What was his requirement?  Unconditional surrender?  Holding those who committed war crimes against the US accountable?  

THEIR choice was to kill as many Americans as possible.  Even after the first bomb, Hirohoto's cabinet estimated that no more than one or two additional bombs could be readied, so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging "there would be more destruction but the war would go on".  Seriously, how many Americans would have needed to die to make that statement?  

You are saying that's the side you join with?  The side who's leader's insistence against surrender had mothers jumping off cliffs with their children rather than surrendering.   

The Potsdam didn't mention either way about the Emperor.  The Japanese Government council gave their recommendation to Hirohito that they ask for one condition (Emperor keeps his position), and if that was met, they should surrender.  The Emperor decided against that path of even engaging in any peace talks, and that continuing to wage a war and killing American soldiers was the best path.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
> How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> Because as has been stated several times in this thread, they feared the Americans would hang the Emperor. Do you need to be reminded that the Japanese revered the Emperor as a God and that nothing was worse than being disgraced. They thought they had no choice but to fight to the death, thanks to FDR’s murderous unconditional surrender requirement.
> 
> Truman massacred all those women and children, then agreed to their only condition. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is unconditional surrender "Murderous"?  I mean he was the man who called for the Pearl Harbor attack.
> 
> 
> And as for "protecting the Emporer" I think you are talking about ketsu-go, the strategy of fighting one last decisive battle intended to inflict so many casualties on a war-weary America that it would relax its demands for unconditional surrender and negotiate a peace which would  at a minimum, safeguard the Emperor, and potentially preserve the armed forces and shield them from prosecution for war crimes.
> 
> 
> That's the alternative you support?   Killing as many Americans as you can to support the Emporer, the man who made the call to attack Pearl Harbor, from any charges and letting their leaders walk free from war crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good God think!
> 
> FDR’s ignorant and murderous requirement forced the Japanese to fight to the death. They OBVIOUSLY feared FDR would have the Emperor hung. Do you know anything about the Japanese people?  Rhetorical.
> 
> The Emperor was a god to them. They also believed nothing is worst then disgrace and surrender. It is their culture. FDR KNEW THIS, which could mean he wanted to completely murder all their people.
> 
> Believing their attack on Pearl Harbor warranted the wanton destruction of their entire nation, is proof you are uninformed and a dupe of the State.
Click to expand...

Fuck their culture, and it was far more than just Pearl Harbor that shaped our response to Japan and caused us to demand unconditional surrender. Japan committed atrocities worse than the NAZI's. Japanese culture needed a drastic ass whopping and clear change to one that recognized western culture and standards of behavior. They needed western values beat and bombed into them.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
> How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> Because as has been stated several times in this thread, they feared the Americans would hang the Emperor. Do you need to be reminded that the Japanese revered the Emperor as a God and that nothing was worse than being disgraced. They thought they had no choice but to fight to the death, thanks to FDR’s murderous unconditional surrender requirement.
> 
> Truman massacred all those women and children, then agreed to their only condition. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is unconditional surrender "Murderous"?  I mean he was the man who called for the Pearl Harbor attack.
> 
> 
> And as for "protecting the Emporer" I think you are talking about ketsu-go, the strategy of fighting one last decisive battle intended to inflict so many casualties on a war-weary America that it would relax its demands for unconditional surrender and negotiate a peace which would  at a minimum, safeguard the Emperor, and potentially preserve the armed forces and shield them from prosecution for war crimes.
> 
> 
> That's the alternative you support?   Killing as many Americans as you can to support the Emporer, the man who made the call to attack Pearl Harbor, from any charges and letting their leaders walk free from war crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good God think!
> 
> FDR’s ignorant and murderous requirement forced the Japanese to fight to the death. They OBVIOUSLY feared FDR would have the Emperor hung. Do you know anything about the Japanese people?  Rhetorical.
> 
> The Emperor was a god to them. They also believed nothing is worst then disgrace and surrender. It is their culture. FDR KNEW THIS, which could mean he wanted to completely murder all their people.
> 
> Believing their attack on Pearl Harbor warranted the wanton destruction of their entire nation, is proof you are uninformed and a dupe of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck their culture, and it was far more than just Pearl Harbor that shaped our response to Japan and caused us to demand unconditional surrender. Japan committed atrocities worse than the NAZI's. Japanese culture needed a drastic ass whopping and clear change to one that recognized western culture and standards of behavior. They needed western values beat and bombed into them.
Click to expand...

Yes the murderous statist rears his ugly head. Incapable of reasoned thought, all he wants is blood for the empire.


----------



## gipper

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
> How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> Because as has been stated several times in this thread, they feared the Americans would hang the Emperor. Do you need to be reminded that the Japanese revered the Emperor as a God and that nothing was worse than being disgraced. They thought they had no choice but to fight to the death, thanks to FDR’s murderous unconditional surrender requirement.
> 
> Truman massacred all those women and children, then agreed to their only condition. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is unconditional surrender "Murderous"?
> 
> 
> And as for "protecting the Emporer" I think you are talking about ketsu-go, the strategy of fighting one last decisive battle intended to inflict so many casualties on a war-weary America that it would relax its demands for unconditional surrender and negotiate a peace which would  at a minimum, safeguard the Emperor, and potentially preserve the armed forces and shield them from prosecution for war crimes.
> 
> 
> That's the alternative you support?   Killing as many Americans as you can to support the Emporer, the man who made the call to attack Pearl Harbor, from any charges and letting their leaders walk free from war crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good God think!
> 
> FDR’s ignorant and murderous requirement forced the Japanese to fight to the death. They OBVIOUSLY feared FDR would have the Emperor hung. Do you know anything about the Japanese people?  Rhetorical.
> 
> The Emperor was a god to them. They also believed nothing is worst then disgrace and surrender. It is their culture. FDR KNEW THIS, which could mean he wanted to completely murder all their people.
> 
> Believing their attack on Pearl Harbor warranted the wanton destruction of their entire nation, is proof you are uninformed and a dupe of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was his requirement?  Unconditional surrender?  Holding those who committed war crimes against the US accountable?
> 
> THEIR choice was to kill as many Americans as possible.  Even after the first bomb, Hirohoto's cabinet estimated that no more than one or two additional bombs could be readied, so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging "there would be more destruction but the war would go on".  Seriously, how many Americans would have needed to die to make that statement?
> 
> You are saying that's the side you join with?  The side who's leader's insistence against surrender had mothers jumping off cliffs with their children rather than surrendering.
> 
> The Potsdam didn't mention either way about the Emperor.  The Japanese Government council gave their recommendation to Hirohito that they ask for one condition (Emperor keeps his position), and if that was met, they should surrender.  The Emperor decided against that path of even engaging in any peace talks, and that continuing to wage a war and killing American soldiers was the best path.
Click to expand...

Is massive aerial bombing of defenseless cities full of women and children, a war crime?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
> How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> Because as has been stated several times in this thread, they feared the Americans would hang the Emperor. Do you need to be reminded that the Japanese revered the Emperor as a God and that nothing was worse than being disgraced. They thought they had no choice but to fight to the death, thanks to FDR’s murderous unconditional surrender requirement.
> 
> Truman massacred all those women and children, then agreed to their only condition. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is unconditional surrender "Murderous"?  I mean he was the man who called for the Pearl Harbor attack.
> 
> 
> And as for "protecting the Emporer" I think you are talking about ketsu-go, the strategy of fighting one last decisive battle intended to inflict so many casualties on a war-weary America that it would relax its demands for unconditional surrender and negotiate a peace which would  at a minimum, safeguard the Emperor, and potentially preserve the armed forces and shield them from prosecution for war crimes.
> 
> 
> That's the alternative you support?   Killing as many Americans as you can to support the Emporer, the man who made the call to attack Pearl Harbor, from any charges and letting their leaders walk free from war crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good God think!
> 
> FDR’s ignorant and murderous requirement forced the Japanese to fight to the death. They OBVIOUSLY feared FDR would have the Emperor hung. Do you know anything about the Japanese people?  Rhetorical.
> 
> The Emperor was a god to them. They also believed nothing is worst then disgrace and surrender. It is their culture. FDR KNEW THIS, which could mean he wanted to completely murder all their people.
> 
> Believing their attack on Pearl Harbor warranted the wanton destruction of their entire nation, is proof you are uninformed and a dupe of the State.
Click to expand...

Perhaps YOU can explain why after the "living God" ordered a surrender his worshipers staged a Coup to stop him?


----------



## SandSquid

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
> How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.
> 
> 
> 
> Because as has been stated several times in this thread, they feared the Americans would hang the Emperor. Do you need to be reminded that the Japanese revered the Emperor as a God and that nothing was worse than being disgraced. They thought they had no choice but to fight to the death, thanks to FDR’s murderous unconditional surrender requirement.
> 
> Truman massacred all those women and children, then agreed to their only condition. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is unconditional surrender "Murderous"?  I mean he was the man who called for the Pearl Harbor attack.
> 
> 
> And as for "protecting the Emporer" I think you are talking about ketsu-go, the strategy of fighting one last decisive battle intended to inflict so many casualties on a war-weary America that it would relax its demands for unconditional surrender and negotiate a peace which would  at a minimum, safeguard the Emperor, and potentially preserve the armed forces and shield them from prosecution for war crimes.
> 
> 
> That's the alternative you support?   Killing as many Americans as you can to support the Emporer, the man who made the call to attack Pearl Harbor, from any charges and letting their leaders walk free from war crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good God think!
> 
> FDR’s ignorant and murderous requirement forced the Japanese to fight to the death. They OBVIOUSLY feared FDR would have the Emperor hung. Do you know anything about the Japanese people?  Rhetorical.
> 
> The Emperor was a god to them. They also believed nothing is worst then disgrace and surrender. It is their culture. FDR KNEW THIS, which could mean he wanted to completely murder all their people.
> 
> Believing their attack on Pearl Harbor warranted the wanton destruction of their entire nation, is proof you are uninformed and a dupe of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck their culture, and it was far more than just Pearl Harbor that shaped our response to Japan and caused us to demand unconditional surrender. Japan committed atrocities worse than the NAZI's. Japanese culture needed a drastic ass whopping and clear change to one that recognized western culture and standards of behavior. They needed western values beat and bombed into them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the murderous statist rears his ugly head. Incapable of reasoned thought, all he wants is blood for the empire.
Click to expand...


So no, you have no response other than your unhinged manifesto?


----------



## SandSquid

gipper said:


> Is massive aerial bombing of defenseless cities full of women and children, a war crime?



No it wasn't a war crime because Japan was using those cities as manufacturing hubs for their war against the USA which is why not one court ever went forward with a case.

War is hell.  Yes if you want to put your weapons industries in close proximity to schools or places of worship and put your people at risk, especially in an era well before any smart bombings, they are at risk of dying from the situation you put them in.   

So no it wasn't a war crime.  


And you said "defenseless cities"...   Oh really.  The Japanese army air service was in operation defending Japan until the day of their surrender.   The entire reason more pinpoint bombing wasn't used during daylight hours was Japans night fighter force was weaker and anti-aircraft fire was less accurate at night.  Literally the definition of defended targets.  


What you are doing is lying to create your myth by trying to rewrite the past.  PLEASE, stop lying ok bud?  It doesn't help your cause when you need to lie to defend your belief.   




Yes, I do feel bad for a child when a terrorist uses them as a human shield.  No I do not think we should let the terrorists keep killing American troops because they have human shields.  



Like Hirohito himself said “I feel sorry for Hiroshima citizens, but it couldn’t be averted"


----------



## gipper

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is massive aerial bombing of defenseless cities full of women and children, a war crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't a war crime because Japan was using those cities as manufacturing hubs for their war against the USA which is why not one court ever went forward with a case.
> 
> War is hell.  Yes if you want to put your weapons industries in close proximity to schools or places of worship and put your people at risk, especially in an era well before any smart bombings, they are at risk of dying from the situation you put them in.
> 
> So no it wasn't a war crime.
> 
> 
> And you said "defenseless cities"...   Oh really.  The Japanese army air service was in operation defending Japan until the day of their surrender.   The entire reason more pinpoint bombing wasn't used during daylight hours was Japans night fighter force was weaker and anti-aircraft fire was less accurate at night.  Literally the definition of defended targets.
> 
> 
> What you are doing is lying to create your myth by trying to rewrite the past.  PLEASE, stop lying ok bud?  It doesn't help your cause when you need to lie to defend your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do feel bad for a child when a terrorist uses them as a human shield.  No I do not think we should let the terrorists keep killing American troops because they have human shields.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hirohito himself said “I feel sorry for Hiroshima citizens, but it couldn’t be averted"
Click to expand...

Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts. 

I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.


----------



## SandSquid

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is massive aerial bombing of defenseless cities full of women and children, a war crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't a war crime because Japan was using those cities as manufacturing hubs for their war against the USA which is why not one court ever went forward with a case.
> 
> War is hell.  Yes if you want to put your weapons industries in close proximity to schools or places of worship and put your people at risk, especially in an era well before any smart bombings, they are at risk of dying from the situation you put them in.
> 
> So no it wasn't a war crime.
> 
> 
> And you said "defenseless cities"...   Oh really.  The Japanese army air service was in operation defending Japan until the day of their surrender.   The entire reason more pinpoint bombing wasn't used during daylight hours was Japans night fighter force was weaker and anti-aircraft fire was less accurate at night.  Literally the definition of defended targets.
> 
> 
> What you are doing is lying to create your myth by trying to rewrite the past.  PLEASE, stop lying ok bud?  It doesn't help your cause when you need to lie to defend your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do feel bad for a child when a terrorist uses them as a human shield.  No I do not think we should let the terrorists keep killing American troops because they have human shields.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hirohito himself said “I feel sorry for Hiroshima citizens, but it couldn’t be averted"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts.
> 
> I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.
Click to expand...


No the mass murder of Japan and Germany in their conquest to take over the world was not ok.  And I agree with you 100% that Japan's methods of teaching women and children to strap bombs on and throw themselves under tanks if needed to stop an American land invasion was absolutely gross.  To teach children to make bamboo spears and fight to the death rather than surrender was awful.  So glad we did not have to live through that armaggeddon war their cabinet members wanted to send their population to their grave for.  Their cabinets approval of drafting male and female children was horrible.  


You are not defending any of the holes I poked into your reasoning using historical facts.  

You tried saying those cities were defenseless.   What are you wanting to do?  Take the crews of the hundreds of planes shot down, find the families of those American hero's KIA, and tell them you are removing their graves, burning their bodies and erasing their existence because they didn't die by enemy hands since you want to rewrite history that those cities weren't defended?  

And are you saying if the shoe was on the other foot and we decided to bomb a peaceful Japan?  Enslave tens of thousands to build weapons, force child labor to keep our war effort when all was proven to be lost...    And FDR was keeping that and breaking every Geneva convention signed in order to keep from losing power...  That's your defense?   Some fairy tale that doesn't exist in the real world?


----------



## SandSquid

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is massive aerial bombing of defenseless cities full of women and children, a war crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't a war crime because Japan was using those cities as manufacturing hubs for their war against the USA which is why not one court ever went forward with a case.
> 
> War is hell.  Yes if you want to put your weapons industries in close proximity to schools or places of worship and put your people at risk, especially in an era well before any smart bombings, they are at risk of dying from the situation you put them in.
> 
> So no it wasn't a war crime.
> 
> 
> And you said "defenseless cities"...   Oh really.  The Japanese army air service was in operation defending Japan until the day of their surrender.   The entire reason more pinpoint bombing wasn't used during daylight hours was Japans night fighter force was weaker and anti-aircraft fire was less accurate at night.  Literally the definition of defended targets.
> 
> 
> What you are doing is lying to create your myth by trying to rewrite the past.  PLEASE, stop lying ok bud?  It doesn't help your cause when you need to lie to defend your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do feel bad for a child when a terrorist uses them as a human shield.  No I do not think we should let the terrorists keep killing American troops because they have human shields.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hirohito himself said “I feel sorry for Hiroshima citizens, but it couldn’t be averted"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts.
> 
> I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.
Click to expand...


No it never should have come to Japan putting civilians in harms way by drafting them into the war effort.  

 90% of the Japanese war production was done in unmarked workshops and homes which were widely dispersed within residential areas in cities.   That's horrible.  You want those leaders given their chance to get away scott free who caused the deaths of millions?


----------



## SandSquid

I've never seen someone so intent on letting Japanese leaders get away with their war crimes and avoid those tribunals at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American hero's and potentially millions more innocent lives throughout Asia.   

Like are you death itself to push for your beliefs there...  So some of the most evil men who walked the planet could get away?   Gross.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> ...
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.




True.


----------



## gipper

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is massive aerial bombing of defenseless cities full of women and children, a war crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't a war crime because Japan was using those cities as manufacturing hubs for their war against the USA which is why not one court ever went forward with a case.
> 
> War is hell.  Yes if you want to put your weapons industries in close proximity to schools or places of worship and put your people at risk, especially in an era well before any smart bombings, they are at risk of dying from the situation you put them in.
> 
> So no it wasn't a war crime.
> 
> 
> And you said "defenseless cities"...   Oh really.  The Japanese army air service was in operation defending Japan until the day of their surrender.   The entire reason more pinpoint bombing wasn't used during daylight hours was Japans night fighter force was weaker and anti-aircraft fire was less accurate at night.  Literally the definition of defended targets.
> 
> 
> What you are doing is lying to create your myth by trying to rewrite the past.  PLEASE, stop lying ok bud?  It doesn't help your cause when you need to lie to defend your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do feel bad for a child when a terrorist uses them as a human shield.  No I do not think we should let the terrorists keep killing American troops because they have human shields.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hirohito himself said “I feel sorry for Hiroshima citizens, but it couldn’t be averted"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts.
> 
> I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it never should have come to Japan putting civilians in harms way by drafting them into the war effort.
> 
> 90% of the Japanese war production was done in unmarked workshops and homes which were widely dispersed within residential areas in cities.   That's horrible.  You want those leaders given their chance to get away scott free who caused the deaths of millions?
Click to expand...

So the Americans who were in the war machine, shouldn’t have been???

Think!!!


----------



## SandSquid

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is massive aerial bombing of defenseless cities full of women and children, a war crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't a war crime because Japan was using those cities as manufacturing hubs for their war against the USA which is why not one court ever went forward with a case.
> 
> War is hell.  Yes if you want to put your weapons industries in close proximity to schools or places of worship and put your people at risk, especially in an era well before any smart bombings, they are at risk of dying from the situation you put them in.
> 
> So no it wasn't a war crime.
> 
> 
> And you said "defenseless cities"...   Oh really.  The Japanese army air service was in operation defending Japan until the day of their surrender.   The entire reason more pinpoint bombing wasn't used during daylight hours was Japans night fighter force was weaker and anti-aircraft fire was less accurate at night.  Literally the definition of defended targets.
> 
> 
> What you are doing is lying to create your myth by trying to rewrite the past.  PLEASE, stop lying ok bud?  It doesn't help your cause when you need to lie to defend your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do feel bad for a child when a terrorist uses them as a human shield.  No I do not think we should let the terrorists keep killing American troops because they have human shields.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hirohito himself said “I feel sorry for Hiroshima citizens, but it couldn’t be averted"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts.
> 
> I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it never should have come to Japan putting civilians in harms way by drafting them into the war effort.
> 
> 90% of the Japanese war production was done in unmarked workshops and homes which were widely dispersed within residential areas in cities.   That's horrible.  You want those leaders given their chance to get away scott free who caused the deaths of millions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Americans who were in the war machine, shouldn’t have been???
> 
> Think!!!
Click to expand...


Lol no. We were not the powers starting wwii to conquest.  That's not a reality. 

 Wow you are a loopy one.  Still no response to the facts against your ranting huh?  Figured.


----------



## SandSquid

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
Click to expand...


Technically true. 

But surrender doesn't seem like a good option for America.  What was it?  30-40 million dead?  I think a strongly worded letter would have been plenty.


----------



## Unkotare

SandSquid said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> THERE WAS NO NEED TO DROP THE A-BOMBS OR INVADE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically true.
> 
> But surrender doesn't seem like a good option for America.  What was it?  30-40 million dead?  I think a strongly worded letter would have been plenty.
Click to expand...




What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## gipper

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is massive aerial bombing of defenseless cities full of women and children, a war crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't a war crime because Japan was using those cities as manufacturing hubs for their war against the USA which is why not one court ever went forward with a case.
> 
> War is hell.  Yes if you want to put your weapons industries in close proximity to schools or places of worship and put your people at risk, especially in an era well before any smart bombings, they are at risk of dying from the situation you put them in.
> 
> So no it wasn't a war crime.
> 
> 
> And you said "defenseless cities"...   Oh really.  The Japanese army air service was in operation defending Japan until the day of their surrender.   The entire reason more pinpoint bombing wasn't used during daylight hours was Japans night fighter force was weaker and anti-aircraft fire was less accurate at night.  Literally the definition of defended targets.
> 
> 
> What you are doing is lying to create your myth by trying to rewrite the past.  PLEASE, stop lying ok bud?  It doesn't help your cause when you need to lie to defend your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do feel bad for a child when a terrorist uses them as a human shield.  No I do not think we should let the terrorists keep killing American troops because they have human shields.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hirohito himself said “I feel sorry for Hiroshima citizens, but it couldn’t be averted"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts.
> 
> I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it never should have come to Japan putting civilians in harms way by drafting them into the war effort.
> 
> 90% of the Japanese war production was done in unmarked workshops and homes which were widely dispersed within residential areas in cities.   That's horrible.  You want those leaders given their chance to get away scott free who caused the deaths of millions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Americans who were in the war machine, shouldn’t have been???
> 
> Think!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol no. We were not the powers starting wwii to conquest.  That's not a reality.
> 
> Wow you are a loopy one.  Still no response to the facts against your ranting huh?  Figured.
Click to expand...

You don’t know anything but what the lying state has told you. As such, you are clueless.

FDR started WWII. Look it up. Get informed.


----------



## SandSquid

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't a war crime because Japan was using those cities as manufacturing hubs for their war against the USA which is why not one court ever went forward with a case.
> 
> War is hell.  Yes if you want to put your weapons industries in close proximity to schools or places of worship and put your people at risk, especially in an era well before any smart bombings, they are at risk of dying from the situation you put them in.
> 
> So no it wasn't a war crime.
> 
> 
> And you said "defenseless cities"...   Oh really.  The Japanese army air service was in operation defending Japan until the day of their surrender.   The entire reason more pinpoint bombing wasn't used during daylight hours was Japans night fighter force was weaker and anti-aircraft fire was less accurate at night.  Literally the definition of defended targets.
> 
> 
> What you are doing is lying to create your myth by trying to rewrite the past.  PLEASE, stop lying ok bud?  It doesn't help your cause when you need to lie to defend your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do feel bad for a child when a terrorist uses them as a human shield.  No I do not think we should let the terrorists keep killing American troops because they have human shields.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hirohito himself said “I feel sorry for Hiroshima citizens, but it couldn’t be averted"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts.
> 
> I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it never should have come to Japan putting civilians in harms way by drafting them into the war effort.
> 
> 90% of the Japanese war production was done in unmarked workshops and homes which were widely dispersed within residential areas in cities.   That's horrible.  You want those leaders given their chance to get away scott free who caused the deaths of millions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Americans who were in the war machine, shouldn’t have been???
> 
> Think!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol no. We were not the powers starting wwii to conquest.  That's not a reality.
> 
> Wow you are a loopy one.  Still no response to the facts against your ranting huh?  Figured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know anything but what the lying state has told you. As such, you are clueless.
> 
> FDR started WWII. Look it up. Get informed.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes when FDR built his moon base of reanimated civil war corpses,. Those nice Nazis and Japanese fought to stop him from unleashing his zombie horde on the world.   Lol


----------



## harmonica

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't a war crime because Japan was using those cities as manufacturing hubs for their war against the USA which is why not one court ever went forward with a case.
> 
> War is hell.  Yes if you want to put your weapons industries in close proximity to schools or places of worship and put your people at risk, especially in an era well before any smart bombings, they are at risk of dying from the situation you put them in.
> 
> So no it wasn't a war crime.
> 
> 
> And you said "defenseless cities"...   Oh really.  The Japanese army air service was in operation defending Japan until the day of their surrender.   The entire reason more pinpoint bombing wasn't used during daylight hours was Japans night fighter force was weaker and anti-aircraft fire was less accurate at night.  Literally the definition of defended targets.
> 
> 
> What you are doing is lying to create your myth by trying to rewrite the past.  PLEASE, stop lying ok bud?  It doesn't help your cause when you need to lie to defend your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do feel bad for a child when a terrorist uses them as a human shield.  No I do not think we should let the terrorists keep killing American troops because they have human shields.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hirohito himself said “I feel sorry for Hiroshima citizens, but it couldn’t be averted"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts.
> 
> I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it never should have come to Japan putting civilians in harms way by drafting them into the war effort.
> 
> 90% of the Japanese war production was done in unmarked workshops and homes which were widely dispersed within residential areas in cities.   That's horrible.  You want those leaders given their chance to get away scott free who caused the deaths of millions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Americans who were in the war machine, shouldn’t have been???
> 
> Think!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol no. We were not the powers starting wwii to conquest.  That's not a reality.
> 
> Wow you are a loopy one.  Still no response to the facts against your ranting huh?  Figured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know anything but what the lying state has told you. As such, you are clueless.
> 
> FDR started WWII. Look it up. Get informed.
Click to expand...

you are as insane as Jussie Smollett


----------



## SandSquid

harmonica said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts.
> 
> I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it never should have come to Japan putting civilians in harms way by drafting them into the war effort.
> 
> 90% of the Japanese war production was done in unmarked workshops and homes which were widely dispersed within residential areas in cities.   That's horrible.  You want those leaders given their chance to get away scott free who caused the deaths of millions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Americans who were in the war machine, shouldn’t have been???
> 
> Think!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol no. We were not the powers starting wwii to conquest.  That's not a reality.
> 
> Wow you are a loopy one.  Still no response to the facts against your ranting huh?  Figured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know anything but what the lying state has told you. As such, you are clueless.
> 
> FDR started WWII. Look it up. Get informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are as insane as Jussie Smollett
Click to expand...


I've seen his story.  Colonel Sanders led the first charge to expand his chicken empire into peaceful Germany.   Obama used his time travel machine funded by Soros and Koch to rewrite history and sent an actor back in time to portray Adolf Hitler.  Used him to make Germany look bad and then transported him and Eva Braun out of the bunker once their mission was complete, and after plastic surgery we know them today as Brad Pitt and Caitlyn Jenner.   Lol


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't a war crime because Japan was using those cities as manufacturing hubs for their war against the USA which is why not one court ever went forward with a case.
> 
> War is hell.  Yes if you want to put your weapons industries in close proximity to schools or places of worship and put your people at risk, especially in an era well before any smart bombings, they are at risk of dying from the situation you put them in.
> 
> So no it wasn't a war crime.
> 
> 
> And you said "defenseless cities"...   Oh really.  The Japanese army air service was in operation defending Japan until the day of their surrender.   The entire reason more pinpoint bombing wasn't used during daylight hours was Japans night fighter force was weaker and anti-aircraft fire was less accurate at night.  Literally the definition of defended targets.
> 
> 
> What you are doing is lying to create your myth by trying to rewrite the past.  PLEASE, stop lying ok bud?  It doesn't help your cause when you need to lie to defend your belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do feel bad for a child when a terrorist uses them as a human shield.  No I do not think we should let the terrorists keep killing American troops because they have human shields.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Hirohito himself said “I feel sorry for Hiroshima citizens, but it couldn’t be averted"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts.
> 
> I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it never should have come to Japan putting civilians in harms way by drafting them into the war effort.
> 
> 90% of the Japanese war production was done in unmarked workshops and homes which were widely dispersed within residential areas in cities.   That's horrible.  You want those leaders given their chance to get away scott free who caused the deaths of millions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Americans who were in the war machine, shouldn’t have been???
> 
> Think!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol no. We were not the powers starting wwii to conquest.  That's not a reality.
> 
> Wow you are a loopy one.  Still no response to the facts against your ranting huh?  Figured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know anything but what the lying state has told you. As such, you are clueless.
> 
> FDR started WWII. Look it up. Get informed.
Click to expand...

Good God YOU REALLY ARE a MORON .


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother that is most murderous of you. So mass murder of innocent civilians on the scale of Stalin and Hilter is okay, because their government forces them to build armaments. Damn. That’s nuts.
> 
> I would guess if the shoe were on the other foot and Japan or Germany obliterated cities like Detroit and other American cities where our war machines were built, you would consider that just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it never should have come to Japan putting civilians in harms way by drafting them into the war effort.
> 
> 90% of the Japanese war production was done in unmarked workshops and homes which were widely dispersed within residential areas in cities.   That's horrible.  You want those leaders given their chance to get away scott free who caused the deaths of millions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Americans who were in the war machine, shouldn’t have been???
> 
> Think!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol no. We were not the powers starting wwii to conquest.  That's not a reality.
> 
> Wow you are a loopy one.  Still no response to the facts against your ranting huh?  Figured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know anything but what the lying state has told you. As such, you are clueless.
> 
> FDR started WWII. Look it up. Get informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good God YOU REALLY ARE a MORON .
Click to expand...

LOL. Says the blood thirsty mass murdering statist dummy. 

Uncle says jump. You jump. 

Can’t fix stupid.


----------



## SandSquid

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it never should have come to Japan putting civilians in harms way by drafting them into the war effort.
> 
> 90% of the Japanese war production was done in unmarked workshops and homes which were widely dispersed within residential areas in cities.   That's horrible.  You want those leaders given their chance to get away scott free who caused the deaths of millions?
> 
> 
> 
> So the Americans who were in the war machine, shouldn’t have been???
> 
> Think!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol no. We were not the powers starting wwii to conquest.  That's not a reality.
> 
> Wow you are a loopy one.  Still no response to the facts against your ranting huh?  Figured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know anything but what the lying state has told you. As such, you are clueless.
> 
> FDR started WWII. Look it up. Get informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good God YOU REALLY ARE a MORON .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Says the blood thirsty mass murdering statist dummy.
> 
> Uncle says jump. You jump.
> 
> Can’t fix stupid.
Click to expand...

Lol.  You are the one trying to pass off the Colonel Sanders vs the nice Nazi theory kiddo.  

Have fun!


----------



## gipper

SandSquid said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Americans who were in the war machine, shouldn’t have been???
> 
> Think!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol no. We were not the powers starting wwii to conquest.  That's not a reality.
> 
> Wow you are a loopy one.  Still no response to the facts against your ranting huh?  Figured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know anything but what the lying state has told you. As such, you are clueless.
> 
> FDR started WWII. Look it up. Get informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good God YOU REALLY ARE a MORON .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Says the blood thirsty mass murdering statist dummy.
> 
> Uncle says jump. You jump.
> 
> Can’t fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol.  You are the one trying to pass off the Colonel Sanders vs the nice Nazi theory kiddo.
> 
> Have fun!
Click to expand...

Yes the truth is tough for low IQ statists to accept. 

Time to man up boys.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

FDR did not get Hitler to declare war against the US nor did he force japan to sneak attack Pearl Harbor. Further at ABSOLUTELY no time did the Government of Japan offer to surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

FDR was a bloodthirsty racist who had NO intention of allowing the war to end before he could try out his new toy on a civilian population. He very deliberately ignored rather than pursued possible avenues to peace under the same conditions we ultimately accepted anyway. That this meant prolonging the war at the cost of more American lives apparently meant nothing to him.


----------



## SandSquid

Unkotare said:


> FDR was a bloodthirsty racist who had NO intention of allowing the war to end before he could try out his new toy on a civilian population. He very deliberately ignored rather than pursued possible avenues to peace under the same conditions we ultimately accepted anyway. That this meant prolonging the war at the cost of more American lives apparently meant nothing to him.



Wait, so you are saying the US offered an offer to surrender.   And Japans only avenue in their response was total war.  Women and children fighting to their last breath.  Training kids to be suicide bombers.  And after the bombs they accepted the surrender which Hirohito himself said ended the war.  

What fake reality are you talking about there bud?


----------



## Unkotare

SandSquid said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a bloodthirsty racist who had NO intention of allowing the war to end before he could try out his new toy on a civilian population. He very deliberately ignored rather than pursued possible avenues to peace under the same conditions we ultimately accepted anyway. That this meant prolonging the war at the cost of more American lives apparently meant nothing to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so you are saying the US offered an offer to surrender.   And Japans only avenue in their response was total war.  Women and children fighting to their last breath.  Training kids to be suicide bombers.  And after the bombs they accepted the surrender which Hirohito himself said ended the war.
> 
> What fake reality are you talking about there bud?
Click to expand...


You’re not a strong reader, are you? And I guess you never studied History in enough depth to understand propaganda.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a bloodthirsty racist who had NO intention of allowing the war to end before he could try out his new toy on a civilian population. He very deliberately ignored rather than pursued possible avenues to peace under the same conditions we ultimately accepted anyway. That this meant prolonging the war at the cost of more American lives apparently meant nothing to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so you are saying the US offered an offer to surrender.   And Japans only avenue in their response was total war.  Women and children fighting to their last breath.  Training kids to be suicide bombers.  And after the bombs they accepted the surrender which Hirohito himself said ended the war.
> 
> What fake reality are you talking about there bud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not a strong reader, are you? And I guess you never studied History in enough depth to understand propaganda.
Click to expand...

Again for the truly SLOW and STUPID.... AT NO TIME did the Japanese Government offer to surrender.


----------



## SandSquid

Unkotare said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a bloodthirsty racist who had NO intention of allowing the war to end before he could try out his new toy on a civilian population. He very deliberately ignored rather than pursued possible avenues to peace under the same conditions we ultimately accepted anyway. That this meant prolonging the war at the cost of more American lives apparently meant nothing to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so you are saying the US offered an offer to surrender.   And Japans only avenue in their response was total war.  Women and children fighting to their last breath.  Training kids to be suicide bombers.  And after the bombs they accepted the surrender which Hirohito himself said ended the war.
> 
> What fake reality are you talking about there bud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not a strong reader, are you? And I guess you never studied History in enough depth to understand propaganda.
Click to expand...


You don't need propoganda.   I mean besides from their own mouths we have their cabinet votes on peace.  We have their leaders talking of training people for the invasion.

We literally have the Japanese prime ministers public response to the Potsdam Declaration from the Allies...

"My thinking is that the joint declaration is virtually the same as the earlier declaration. The government of Japan does not consider it having any crucial value. We simply _mokusatsu suru_. The only alternative for us is to be *determined to continue our fight to the end"*

And their Foreign minister Togo saying " "Although it is apparent that there will be more casualties on both sides in case the war is prolonged, *we will stand as united against the enemy if the enemy forcibly demands our unconditional surrender*."

Sorry, you can't rewrite history bud.


----------



## Unkotare

SandSquid said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a bloodthirsty racist who had NO intention of allowing the war to end before he could try out his new toy on a civilian population. He very deliberately ignored rather than pursued possible avenues to peace under the same conditions we ultimately accepted anyway. That this meant prolonging the war at the cost of more American lives apparently meant nothing to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so you are saying the US offered an offer to surrender.   And Japans only avenue in their response was total war.  Women and children fighting to their last breath.  Training kids to be suicide bombers.  And after the bombs they accepted the surrender which Hirohito himself said ended the war.
> 
> What fake reality are you talking about there bud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re not a strong reader, are you? And I guess you never studied History in enough depth to understand propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need propoganda.   I mean besides from their own mouths we have their cabinet votes on peace.  We have their leaders talking of training people for the invasion.
> 
> We literally have the Japanese prime ministers public response to the Potsdam Declaration from the Allies...
> 
> "My thinking is that the joint declaration is virtually the same as the earlier declaration. The government of Japan does not consider it having any crucial value. We simply _mokusatsu suru_. The only alternative for us is to be *determined to continue our fight to the end"*
> 
> And their Foreign minister Togo saying " "Although it is apparent that there will be more casualties on both sides in case the war is prolonged, *we will stand as united against the enemy if the enemy forcibly demands our unconditional surrender*."
> 
> Sorry, you can't rewrite history bud.
Click to expand...






There is no point in reading if you don’t understand what the words mean.


----------



## mikegriffith1

For those who might be interested, I have created a website on the Pacific War and the decision to use the atomic bomb. Here is the link:

Sign in - Google Accounts


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> For those who might be interested, I have created a website on the Pacific War and the decision to use the atomic bomb. Here is the link:
> 
> Sign in - Google Accounts



I had fix the permissions for the site. Now it should work:

The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writes for the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


One of the best threads in the history section.


----------



## elektra

A sad revisionist point of view that relies on President Eisenhower's conflicting statements after the fact. I think we have put it to rest, that Eisenhower said a couple of different things and made claims about things he told Stimson in which Stimson never acknowledged and actually said the opposite of. It appears that Eisenhower wrote two scenarios of his meeting with Stimson. 

Eisenhower claims he was told of the Atomic bomb while that was a secret that was kept from the Vice President of the USA. 

Hardly is Eisenhower credible in light of his conflicting statements and the secrecy of the bomb. Even General MacArthur acknowledges he was not told of the Bomb and Major General was the Commander of the United States Army Forces of the Far East.


----------



## elektra

Values, the article references values.



> the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values.



Okay, American Values. Our lives are more important than the lives of others. That is an American Value. Our Soldiers, taken prisoner and thus helpless, dying in and around Nagasaki and Hiroshima deserved to be valued higher than the Japanese wives who worked in the factories of war. In the shipyards. Japanese wives who fed and comforted the japanese guards who were killing and torturing our men who were prisoners under the worst conditions imagined. 

Yes, our values, that we should win a war we did not start with the least amount of lives lost. Our lives in consideration first and foremost. 

The author is an idiot bringing up values as a reason not to drop the atomic bombs.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> There is no point in reading if you don’t understand what the words mean.


We understand the words, you don’t.  Unconditional surrender was the official policy agreed to by the three major allied powers.  Even if FDR had wanted to, he lacked the power to over ride that agreement.  Even if the US and UK had wanted to accept a conditional surrender, Stalin wouldn’t have.  He wanted the territory he could conquer in a war with Japan.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> We understand the words, you don’t.  Unconditional surrender was the official policy agreed to by the three major allied powers.  Even if FDR had wanted to, he lacked the power to over ride that agreement.  ....


Yet in the end the terms we finally agreed to were exactly the ones being sought.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, American Values. ....




Clearly, you do not understand what those are.


----------



## Markle

We finished this thread over a year ago.  Nothing has changed.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Markle said:


> We finished this thread over a year ago.  Nothing has changed.


Exactly,this conversation ended over a year ago AZrailwhale   Get with the program.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> Yet in the end the terms we finally agreed to were exactly the ones being sought.


No they weren't.  The Japanese military was disarmed under allied supervision.  Japanese war criminals were tried by allied courts.  Japan had to give up Manchuria, Korea, Vietnam , Loas, Cambodia and China.  None of which were in the Japanese government's terms. The Emperior was emasculated, and only left with ceremonial power as an  aid to MacAurther governing Japan.  Read the surrender documents signed on the fantail of the USS Missouri, they don't give the Japanese anything.  It's was a unconditional surrender.


----------



## AZrailwhale

LA RAM FAN said:


> Exactly,this conversation ended over a year ago AZrailwhale   Get with the program.


"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?  It's not over till we say it's over.  Unconditional surrender or eternal posts.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Clearly, you do not understand what those are.


says the pervert


----------



## gipper

AZrailwhale said:


> We understand the words, you don’t.  Unconditional surrender was the official policy agreed to by the three major allied powers.  Even if FDR had wanted to, he lacked the power to over ride that agreement.  Even if the US and UK had wanted to accept a conditional surrender, Stalin wouldn’t have.  He wanted the territory he could conquer in a war with Japan.


And yet after Truman did his war crime, he agreed to a conditional surrender. The only condition the Japanese asked for before the war crime. Weird?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> says the pervert


Speak for yourself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Yet in the end the terms we finally agreed to were exactly the ones being sought.


No they were not until the second bomb Japan demanded a CEASEFIRE no Occupation of Japan and NO concessions in China.


----------



## Mac-7

gipper said:


> And yet after Truman did his war crime, he agreed to a conditional surrender.


War crime my ass

how has the left managed to poison the minds of so many Americans?


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Speak for yourself.


I spoke of what I know, it is your choice and nothing I made up. It is why you chose your user name


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> I spoke of what I know,......


But you don't.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> No they weren't. ......











						Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
					

Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> ..... The Emperior was emasculated, and only left with ceremonial power....  It's was a unconditional surrender.


Comments like these suggest an ignorance of the role of emperor at various points in Japanese history, and a misunderstanding of the term "unconditional surrender."


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> And yet after Truman did his war crime, he agreed to a conditional surrender. The only condition the Japanese asked for before the war crime. Weird?


Our demands never changed? Japan accepted unconditional surrender and put it in writing.





__





						Milestone Documents
					

The primary source documents on this page highlight pivotal moments in the course of American history or government. They are some of the most-viewed and sought-out documents in the holdings of the National Archives.




					www.ourdocuments.gov
				



We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under the Japanese control wherever situated.


----------



## Unkotare

There was one condition and we allowed it. That is not really "unconditional."


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> Our demands never changed? Japan accepted unconditional surrender and put it in writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Milestone Documents
> 
> 
> The primary source documents on this page highlight pivotal moments in the course of American history or government. They are some of the most-viewed and sought-out documents in the holdings of the National Archives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ourdocuments.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under the Japanese control wherever situated.


You’re not informed.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> You’re not informed.


Exactly, I am educated. I know the history of the pacific war. When I see you post something I know right of way if it is correct or not. I have provided you with the acceptance of unconditional surrender, the literal reply japan wrote and gave to our government.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> There was one condition and we allowed it. That is not really "unconditional."


.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writesfor the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousandscannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com




1. Everyone wanted the Japanese Emperor to stay in office. The Truman administration did and so did the generals and admirals.

2. The Emperor wanted to stay in office and he damn sure didn't want to be tried and hanged.

3. The Potsdam Accord called for Japan's complete surrender or Japan would face utter annihilation. Originally there was text that said the emperor could remain, however that text was removed at the last moment.

4. There was zero communication between America and Japan at this time.

5. So the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

6. A week went by. No surrender.

7. Someone in the Truman administration drafted a letter and sent it to the Japanese via the Swiss embassy. It strongly hinted that the Emperor could keep his job though it didn't come right out and say it.

8. So that was good enough for the emperor who threw his vote in with the moderates, breaking the tie they had with the hard liners. Japan surrendered.

So why was the text removed from the Potsdam Accord?

Because 85% of America voters wanted to see the Emperor hanged. Truman realized that no Democrat would ever get elected again in his lifetime if he didn't tread carefully.


----------



## gipper

Otis Mayfield said:


> 1. Everyone wanted the Japanese Emperor to stay in office. The Truman administration did and so did the generals and admirals.
> 
> 2. The Emperor wanted to stay in office and he damn sure didn't want to be tried and hanged.
> 
> 3. The Potsdam Accord called for Japan's complete surrender or Japan would face utter annihilation. Originally there was text that said the emperor could remain, however that text was removed at the last moment.
> 
> 4. There was zero communication between America and Japan at this time.
> 
> 5. So the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> 6. A week went by. No surrender.
> 
> 7. Someone in the Truman administration drafted a letter and sent it to the Japanese via the Swiss embassy. It strongly hinted that the Emperor could keep his job though it didn't come right out and say it.
> 
> 8. So that was good enough for the emperor who threw his vote in with the moderates, breaking the tie they had with the hard liners. Japan surrendered.
> 
> So why was the text removed from the Potsdam Accord?
> 
> Because 85% of America voters wanted to see the Emperor hanged. Truman realized that no Democrat would ever get elected again in his lifetime if he didn't tread carefully.


Will then why didn’t Harry accept their surrender before he did his war crimes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  The only condition they asked for was don’t harm the emperor, well prior to the a-bombings. Truman massacred all those women and children then agreed to their terms. He should have been hung at Nuremberg as the Nazis were.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Will then why didn’t Harry accept their surrender before he did his war crimes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  The only condition they asked for was don’t harm the emperor, well prior to the a-bombings. Truman massacred all those women and children then agreed to their terms. He should have been hung at Nuremberg as the Nazis were.


pure bullshit on your part, 

No surrender was offered prior to the bombing of Nagasaki. 

But hey, at least 140,000 POW's lived to thank Truman for saving them. Fair trade as far as war goes. 

I notice you never mention the men killed? It was not only women and children.
I also notice you never mention that many of those woman and children worked in the factories, or even at home making stuff to be used in the war.

Should Truman hang for ending a war that Japan started, and fought brutally? Is it really a fact that Americans must die and our enemies must be offered safety? 

Gipper is advocating doing exactly what Biden did in Afghanistan, simply give up, retreat, surrender, and leave the 140,000 POW's behind.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> pure bullshit on your part,
> 
> No surrender was offered prior to the bombing of Nagasaki.
> 
> But hey, at least 140,000 POW's lived to thank Truman for saving them. Fair trade as far as war goes.
> 
> I notice you never mention the men killed? It was not only women and children.
> I also notice you never mention that many of those woman and children worked in the factories, or even at home making stuff to be used in the war.
> 
> Should Truman hang for ending a war that Japan started, and fought brutally? Is it really a fact that Americans must die and our enemies must be offered safety?
> 
> Gipper is advocating doing exactly what Biden did in Afghanistan, simply give up, retreat, surrender, and leave the 140,000 POW's behind.


You’re not informed, but typical of so many duped Americans. Japan had been trying to surrender for months. Harry said fuck you and die.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

gipper said:


> Will then why didn’t Harry accept their surrender before he did his war crimes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  The only condition they asked for was don’t harm the emperor, well prior to the a-bombings. Truman massacred all those women and children then agreed to their terms. He should have been hung at Nuremberg as the Nazis were.




The Japanese didn't offer surrender.

The Japanese strategy was to make the war so bloody, so awful that the Americans would agree to an Armistice.

An Armistice isn't an unconditional surrender, no American troops would've occupied Japanese soil for example.

The Japanese regime would've remained in power.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> There was one condition and we allowed it. That is not really "unconditional."


There was no condition.  The legal document that the Japanese Government signed says UNCONDITIONAL.  The Japanese tried to weasel out of it here's an explanation:
"Two events early in the occupation demolish any claim the United States recognized any obligation to retain Hirohito as emperor. Japanese officials examined the Potsdam Declaration and presented to General Douglas MacArthur’s occupation command their argument that Japan’s surrender was contractual and conditional. In the words of historian John Dower, “they were crisply informed their capitulation was and always had been unconditional.” MacArthur was under orders not to do anything to the emperor without Washington’s approval, and to exercise his authority through Japanese officials “including the emperor to the extent that this satisfactorily furthers United States objectives.”..."
The US decided to use the Emperor to make the administration of Japan easier, NOT because they had agreed to keep him on or even allow him ceremonial powers.  In reality Macarthur was the reigning emperor of Japan, Hirohito was a ventriloquist's dummy.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> There was no condition.   ...


Yes, there was. We allowed it.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> Yes, there was. We allowed it.


Can't you read?  Even after the war the Japanese were told in no uncertain terms keeping the emperor WASN'T part of the peace treaty.  They knew at the time they signed the treaty, when they tried to weasel out of it they were told again.  Treaties are written by lawyers, they are very specific and state the conditions clearly.  This one specifically and clearly said in English and Japanese UNCONDITIONAL and that's what it meant.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Can't you read?  ....


Can you? The one condition insisted upon was allowed. NOT unconditional.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Unkotare said:


> Can you? The one condition insisted upon was allowed. NOT unconditional.




We picked the conditions. The Japanese had to take what we gave them.


----------



## Unkotare

Otis Mayfield said:


> We picked the conditions. The Japanese had to take what we gave them.


And we allowed one significant condition.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> You’re not informed, but typical of so many duped Americans. Japan had been trying to surrender for months. Harry said fuck you and die.


Japan? You speak as if they were all one big unified Republic! They were not. They were ruled by the Emperor and the Supreme War Council. 

The Emperor surrendered after Nagasaki.

Like in a fist fight, the loser may try to look for a way out, but until he actually gives up, there is still a fight.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> Japan? You speak as if they were all one big unified Republic! They were not. They were ruled by the Emperor and the Supreme War Council.
> 
> The Emperor surrendered after Nagasaki.
> 
> Like in a fist fight, the loser may try to look for a way out, but until he actually gives up, there is still a fight.


Lol


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Lol


you have a link, for your LOL? 

I figured you could not prove anything you said


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> you have a link, for your LOL?
> 
> I figured you could not prove anything you said


I can and have, but it won’t matter.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Japan never offered to surrender until after the 2nd atomic bomb before that every "offer" was a ceasefire and no consequences to Japan.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> I can and have, but it won’t matter.


It won't matter. Outside internet searches there is much information. All says the same thing. It was a hard decision but it all came down to saving American lives.

The last time democrats did the right thing


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> .....
> 
> The last time democrats did the right thing


Incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians isn't "the right thing."


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> .


a Newspaper article with no sources and you can not provide a single quote or link other then an unsourced newspaper article.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians isn't "the right thing."


Not for today's democrats. We do know what Democrats do today. 

1. If pearl harbor was today, Democrats would blame us and do nothing.

2. If we found our troops at war, with 140,000 prisoners of war, Democrats would surrender and allow them to die.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> It won't matter. Outside internet searches there is much information. All says the same thing. It was a hard decision but it all came down to saving American lives.
> 
> The last time democrats did the right thing


Over the years there have been many threads on this topic. I’ve posted numerous historian’s works backing my opinion. Unfortunately, guys like you never learn. I don’t know why.

I once believed what the state told me about these events in grade school, as you still do. I then much later, started reading more widely and changed my opinion. You might try it.

Democrats have nothing to with this issue, fool. Stop being a partisan dunce.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Over the years there have been many threads on this topic. I’ve posted numerous historian’s works backing my opinion. Unfortunately, guys like you never learn. I don’t know why.
> 
> I once believed what the state told me about these events in grade school, as you still do. I then much later, started reading more widely and changed my opinion. You might try it.
> 
> Democrats have nothing to with this issue, fool. Stop being a partisan dunce.


All you have is OPINION. The FACT is that Japan never offered to surrender.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> All you have is OPINION. The FACT is that Japan never offered to surrender.


See what I mean?  Here is a poster who knows nothing more about this history than what he “learned” in third grade government school. Completely propagandized by the state. There is no changing such people. The truth isn’t allowed into their minds.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> See what I mean?  Here is a poster who knows nothing more about this history than what he “learned” in third grade government school. Completely propagandized by the state. There is no changing such people. The truth isn’t allowed into their minds.


Look dumb ass I have the intercepts of all the supposed offers that Japan made to Sweden the Soviet Union and everyone else. I also have the offers they made before the bombs the one after the 1st bomb as well. The offer was the same. NO surrender a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines except in China, No concessions there at all. No disarmament no occupation.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look dumb ass I have the intercepts of all the supposed offers that Japan made to Sweden the Soviet Union and everyone else. I also have the offers they made before the bombs the one after the 1st bomb as well. The offer was the same. NO surrender a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines except in China, No concessions there at all. No disarmament no occupation.


You have propaganda put out by the lying criminal state, but are too dumb to know it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> You have propaganda put out by the lying criminal state, but are too dumb to know it.


Nope ACTUAL hard copy transcripts from the intercepts. And what do you have? Opinions of some flakes.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

RetiredGySgt said:


> Nope ACTUAL hard copy transcripts from the intercepts. And what do you have? Opinions of some flakes.



Gipper is a conspiracy fan.

He's not going to believe facts.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> Incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians isn't "the right thing."


But starving them with a blockade would be?  The Japanese government wasn’t willing to surrender even after Nagasaki.  Hirohito overrode his own government in an unprecedented action.


----------



## AZrailwhale

gipper said:


> See what I mean?  Here is a poster who knows nothing more about this history than what he “learned” in third grade government school. Completely propagandized by the state. There is no changing such people. The truth isn’t allowed into their minds.


No.  The only FACT is that the official Japanese Government’s only “surrender”  terms left them in control of Manchuria, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, most of China, with no changes to their government, no war crimes trials and disarmament (if any) to be determined and supervised by the same Japanese government that started the war way back in 1931.  Every other proposal was made by either civilians, or minor governmental officials without any authority to do so.  Those are the facts of the matter.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> But starving them with a blockade would be?  The Japanese government wasn’t willing to surrender even after Nagasaki.  Hirohito overrode his own government in an unprecedented action.


The scumbag democrat fdr could have explored the possibility of peace long before any of it, but his disregard for human life or American principles is now well-known. The option of a naval blockade vs targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is stark.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> .


.


----------



## gipper

Otis Mayfield said:


> Gipper is a conspiracy fan.
> 
> He's not going to believe facts.


In America today truth is conspiracy, and conspiracy is truth. The CIA won.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> The scumbag democrat fdr could have explored the possibility of peace long before any of it, but his disregard for human life or American principles is now well-known. The option of a naval blockade vs targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is stark.


Millions of Japanese, mostly civilians, would have died from starvation with a blockade. Japan was already nearly starving and it meant nothing to the government.  What little food there was was going to the military and government.  Civilians got what little was left.  A blockade would have made things worse.


----------



## gipper

AZrailwhale said:


> Millions of Japanese, mostly civilians, would have died from starvation with a blockade. Japan was already nearly starving and it meant nothing to the government.  What little food there was was going to the military and government.  Civilians got what little was left.  A blockade would have made things worse.


Absurd justification for mass murder. Damn you’re really desperate now.


----------



## AZrailwhale

gipper said:


> Absurd justification for mass murder. Damn you’re really desperate now.


Sometimes in the real world you have to make the least bad choice.  Using nukes to end the war was the least bad of several choices.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Over the years there have been many threads on this topic. I’ve posted numerous historian’s works backing my opinion. Unfortunately, guys like you never learn. I don’t know why.
> 
> I once believed what the state told me about these events in grade school, as you still do. I then much later, started reading more widely and changed my opinion. You might try it.
> 
> Democrats have nothing to with this issue, fool. Stop being a partisan dunce.


Oh, I have seen your posts and responded to them. I have seen you cherry pick which google result you post. And within the cherry picked google result you have numerous, "historians" works, which do not back your opinion, but that you base you opinion on. 

I have then, looked at your sources, your historians, I have bought the books, they reference, that they cherry pick. I have not only bought those books, but I have bought other books, sometimes from the same author, the same politician or general. I have shown how the historians are not historians at all. For what kind of historian bases his work on another historian's work? And at that cherry picks what he shares. 

Yes, read widely? What do you suggest, books or google searches?

I get it, I got it, and I will not being using google, what about you?


----------



## elektra

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look dumb ass I have the intercepts of all the supposed offers that Japan made to Sweden the Soviet Union and everyone else. I also have the offers they made before the bombs the one after the 1st bomb as well. The offer was the same. NO surrender a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines except in China, No concessions there at all. No disarmament no occupation.


is this in a book? copied from the internet, not challenging you at all, I would like to have them myself if possible.

I have all the information in books, it is really telling. The stark contrast to what the truth is and what the revisionist claim. But it would be nice to add, more to the collection.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

elektra said:


> is this in a book? copied from the internet, not challenging you at all, I would like to have them myself if possible.
> 
> I have all the information in books, it is really telling. The stark contrast to what the truth is and what the revisionist claim. But it would be nice to add, more to the collection.


I have a book marked page on the internet on my main computer cant get to it right bow badically it is magic intercepts the page is in reference to the atomic bombs


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Look back through my posts on these threads you will find the link


----------



## elektra

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look back through my posts on these threads you will find the link


I have the same, in a book, so no problem


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Millions of Japanese, mostly civilians, would have died from starvation with a blockade. Japan was already nearly starving and it meant nothing to the government.  What little food there was was going to the military and government.  Civilians got what little was left.  A blockade would have made things worse.


You _think_.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Millions of Japanese, mostly civilians, would have died from starvation with a blockade. Japan was already nearly starving and it meant nothing to the government.  .....


How do you know it meant nothing to the government?


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> How do you know it meant nothing to the government?


Because the Japanese government made no effort to surrender despite having its cities burned to the ground every night,  its ships sunk in harbor by carrier air strikes and anything larger than a rowboat that put to sea being sunk. The people of Japan were starving and the government was teaching them how to attack tanks with wooden spears while telling them that the Americans were going to rape and eat them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AZrailwhale said:


> Because the Japanese government made no effort to surrender despite having its cities burned to the ground every night,  its ships sunk in harbor by carrier air strikes and anything larger than a rowboat that put to sea being sunk. The people of Japan were starving and the government was teaching them how to attack tanks with wooden spears while telling them that the Americans were going to rape and eat them.


Poop boy has a romanticized view of the Japanese, he denies they committed suicide rather then capture on Saipan, he denies Japanese soldiers murdered Okinawan civilians rather then let them surrender, he denies that the army was teaching citizens to human wave attack the invasion beaches with Bamboo spears, he denies the Japanese Government was taking the food fuel and resources for Government and military use while starving the population. And he claims an unsourced news article from the mid 60's  proves Japan tried to surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Because the Japanese government made no effort to surrender .....


That is not true, as has been established on many of these threads many times.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> That is not true, as has been established on many of these threads many times.


No you have not. The only thing you have is opinion and a news article from the 60's with no citations or references.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> That is not true, as has been established on many of these threads many times.


No, you are wrong.  The Japanese GOVERNMENT wasn't part of any of those overtures.  The people makings them were either civilians, or low level bureaucrats without the authority or authorization from ANYONE official to make overtures for the Japanese government.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> .


.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


^^^


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> ^^^


The narrative pushed by the US warmongers and statists that Japan refused to surrender, was prepared to fight to the last man, woman, and child; and a US invasion would result in a million US casualties *is set in stone *for many Americans. They believe the bombs were justified and required to end the war. No evidence to the contrary will change them.

Proof war propaganda works extremely well.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> The narrative pushed by the US warmongers and statists that Japan refused to surrender, was prepared to fight to the last man, woman, and child; and a US invasion would result in a million US casualties *is set in stone *for many Americans. They believe the bombs were justified and required to end the war. No evidence to the contrary will change them.
> 
> Proof war propaganda works extremely well.


Says those who have no knowledge of history


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> Says those who have no knowledge of history


You prove my point. 

Right back at you.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> You prove my point.
> 
> Right back at you.


Okinawa is a nice example proving you wrong. Then of course Iwo Jima is another example you can not explain away with your beliefs


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> Okinawa is a nice example proving you wrong. Then of course Iwo Jima is another example you can not explain away with your beliefs


Lol. Oh yes I can my son.

Had we not attacked Okinawa many lives would have been saved and its conquest meant nothing, because Japan was trying to surrender and had already lost the war.

Did it ever occur to you that our military never needed to OCCUPY Japan?  Invading the islands was a dumb idea. They were defeated by early 1945. They had no ability for offensive action let alone being able to defend themselves.

This is why daylight bombing was instituted. Japan had nothing left, yet you someone think dropping two nukes killing thousands of innocent women and children was justified. You are no different than the worst Nazi or Imperial Japanese war criminal.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Lol. Oh yes I can my son.
> 
> Had we not attacked Okinawa many lives would have been saved and its conquest meant nothing, because Japan was trying to surrender and had already lost the war.
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that our military never needed to OCCUPY Japan?  Invading the islands was a dumb idea. They were defeated by early 1945. They had no ability for offensive action let alone being able to defend themselves.
> 
> This is why daylight bombing was instituted. Japan had nothing left, yet you someone think dropping two nukes killing thousands of innocent women and children was justified. You are no different than the worst Nazi or Imperial Japanese war criminal.


God you deniers are STUPID. Japan had no intention of surrendering ever. ALL they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines, they even offered the Soviets to ally with them if they brokered the deal ally against the US, and the west.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> God you deniers are STUPID. Japan had no intention of surrendering ever. ALL they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines, they even offered the Soviets to ally with them if they brokered the deal ally against the US, and the west.


See? Dumb again. Refuses to accept the truth. Believes the criminal warmongering state.


----------



## AZrailwhale

gipper said:


> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender, based on inaccurate information.
> 
> Ike said don’t drop those bombs.  Admiral Leahy said don’t drop those bombs.


Defenseless nation?  Japan was still actively fighting in China, it was killing hundreds of Allied Pows a month by brutality and many more by forcing them to labor under unsafe conditions in things like condemned iron and coal mines.  Japan was killing thousands of Malaysian, Burmese and Chinese citizens every week.  The submarine I-58 sank the USS Indianapolis during that period.  Japan had and was stockpiling thousands of Kamikaze aircraft, submarines, manned torpedoes and motorboats to kill Americans in the invasion force. Thew Japanese Army had over SIX MILLION trained troops under arms in Japan and had trained and "armed" between EIGHTEEN AND TWENTY MILLION civilian militia (every man between 15 and 60 and every woman between 17 and 40) That's a far better armed and more numerous force than the UK could muster six months after Dunkirk, and the Japoanese were as committed to defending their Islands as the citizens of the UK were to defending their island.


----------



## gipper

AZrailwhale said:


> Defenseless nation?  Japan was still actively fighting in China, it was killing hundreds of Allied Pows a month by brutality and many more by forcing them to labor under unsafe conditions in things like condemned iron and coal mines.  Japan was killing thousands of Malaysian, Burmese and Chinese citizens every week.  The submarine I-58 sank the USS Indianapolis during that period.  Japan had and was stockpiling thousands of Kamikaze aircraft, submarines, manned torpedoes and motorboats to kill Americans in the invasion force. Thew Japanese Army had over SIX MILLION trained troops under arms in Japan and had trained and "armed" between EIGHTEEN AND TWENTY MILLION civilian militia (every man between 15 and 60 and every woman between 17 and 40) That's a far better armed and more numerous force than the UK could muster six months after Dunkirk, and the Japoanese were as committed to defending their Islands as the citizens of the UK were to defending their island.


Lol. No their military was getting its ass kicked everywhere. They had no fuel or food. An army can’t fight without those two things. 

THINK!


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Lol. Oh yes I can my son.
> 
> Had we not attacked Okinawa many lives would have been saved and its conquest meant nothing, because Japan was trying to surrender and had already lost the war.
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that our military never needed to OCCUPY Japan?  Invading the islands was a dumb idea. They were defeated by early 1945. They had no ability for offensive action let alone being able to defend themselves.
> 
> This is why daylight bombing was instituted. Japan had nothing left, yet you someone think dropping two nukes killing thousands of innocent women and children was justified. You are no different than the worst Nazi or Imperial Japanese war criminal.


No ability for offensive action? That is a great way to redefine, "lost the war". 

Trying to surrender, you can say that but I can also say at no time did those leading the war consider surrender. Make your best case, who specifically. 

No ability at defence? You have zero facts to support that. We of course can easily show the Japanese were very much preparing to defend the main island, using those innocent women and children who were busy making weapons.

Defeated yet they fought the USSR for weeks after we bombed nagasaki and hiroshoma, so how do you prove defeat?

Wow, calling me as bad as a NAZI or the Japanese? 

It is your pacifist attitude that resulted in the war with japan making you directly responsible for all the rapes, tortures, and murders committed by japanese, using your logic.

Of course, had it been your decision making we followed, more of our prisoners of war, held by the japanese would of been tortured to death. I thank God your thinking was considered and determined to be extreme, thus saving the lives of our american men held by the japanese.

But go ahead, take a topic, present your fact, and see how easy your opinion is shown to be just that, an opinion.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Okinawa is a nice example proving you wrong. Then of course Iwo Jima is another example you can not explain away with your beliefs


Talk about "no knowledge of history"...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Talk about "no knowledge of history"...


Okinawa proved that Saipan was no fluke and reinforced the fact that the civilians would do as told.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> No ability for offensive action? That is a great way to redefine, "lost the war".
> 
> Trying to surrender, you can say that but I can also say at no time did those leading the war consider surrender. Make your best case, who specifically.
> 
> No ability at defence? You have zero facts to support that. We of course can easily show the Japanese were very much preparing to defend the main island, using those innocent women and children who were busy making weapons.
> 
> Defeated yet they fought the USSR for weeks after we bombed nagasaki and hiroshoma, so how do you prove defeat?
> 
> Wow, calling me as bad as a NAZI or the Japanese?
> 
> It is your pacifist attitude that resulted in the war with japan making you directly responsible for all the rapes, tortures, and murders committed by japanese, using your logic.
> 
> Of course, had it been your decision making we followed, more of our prisoners of war, held by the japanese would of been tortured to death. I thank God your thinking was considered and determined to be extreme, thus saving the lives of our american men held by the japanese.
> 
> But go ahead, take a topic, present your fact, and see how easy your opinion is shown to be just that, an opinion.


So much of what you know is wrong. Japan was more than willing to surrender months before the bombs dropped. They only asked Dirty Harry not to hang the emperor, which he gladly agreed to AFTER he committed his heinous war crime. 

Are you also completely unaware of the many military leaders and officials who at the time said the bombs were unnecessary?  

Are you also unaware of Truman’s desire to intimidate Uncle Joe with the a-bombs, even though he knew about the bombs before Dirty Harry did?  All thanks to FDR having an administration full of Soviet spies. 

Yet you continue to unquestioningly support the corrupt State.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> So much of what you know is wrong. Japan was more than willing to surrender months before the bombs dropped. They only asked Dirty Harry not to hang the emperor, which he gladly agreed to AFTER he committed his heinous war crime.
> 
> Are you also completely unaware of the many military leaders and officials who at the time said the bombs were unnecessary?
> 
> Are you also unaware of Truman’s desire to intimidate Uncle Joe with the a-bombs, even though he knew about the bombs before Dirty Harry did?  All thanks to FDR having an administration full of Soviet spies.
> 
> Yet you continue to unquestioningly support the corrupt State.


Retard the Japanese NEVER offered to surrender all they ever said was they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines except in China and no foreign troops no disarmament and no consequence for the war they started.  They even offered the Soviets a deal to ally against the west if the Soviets went to war against the US and west.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Okinawa proved that Saipan was no fluke and reinforced the fact that the civilians would do as told.


Our military clearly didn’t need to invade Okinawa or any Japanese islands. Okinawa was a war crime that should have resulted in military leaders being executed. 

Only dumb imperialists think invading a defeated starving destroyed nation is necessary.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Retard the Japanese NEVER offered to surrender all they ever said was they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines except in China and no foreign troops no disarmament and no consequence for the war they started.  They even offered the Soviets a deal to ally against the west if the Soviets went to war against the US and west.


Stop posting you know nothing. You’ve failed to learn anything about the event since you left 4th grade.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> So much of what you know is wrong. Japan was more than willing to surrender months before the bombs dropped. They only asked Dirty Harry not to hang the emperor, which he gladly agreed to AFTER he committed his heinous war crime.


I already said, present your facts. Repeating your opinion proves nothing.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> I already said, present your facts. Repeating your opinion proves nothing.


Read the thread. I started it almost four years ago. You won’t regret it. Staying uninformed is a terrible thing.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Okinawa proved that Saipan was no fluke and reinforced the fact that the civilians would do as told.


No knowledge of history ^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
					

Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Read the thread. I started it almost four years ago. You won’t regret it. Staying uninformed is a terrible thing.


I have read the thread, and being how it is your thread, and you are making a point that you are informed, go ahead and simply inform me now. Super easy for you, unless you have not the names of the people you think tried to surrender to the USA.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writesfor the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousandscannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


So, what is it that you believe you have knowledge of? Which part of the opinions you use to try to substantiate your opinion or premise of the OP do you wish to discuss. 

You posted a nice opinion piece here, take any sentence and show us how that should of ended the war? Start wherever you like. Certainly you enjoy seeing your Thread still active, so go ahead and discuss something.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Stop posting you know nothing. You’ve failed to learn anything about the event since you left 4th grade.


LOL read the damn military intercepts you blazing moron.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> So, what is it that you believe you have knowledge of? Which part of the opinions you use to try to substantiate your opinion or premise of the OP do you wish to discuss.
> 
> You posted a nice opinion piece here, take any sentence and show us how that should of ended the war? Start wherever you like. Certainly you enjoy seeing your Thread still active, so go ahead and discuss something.


It’s clear no?  Truman is a fucking war criminal.  The bombs were entirely unnecessary. Japan had been trying to surrender for months. They only asked that the emperor be spared. Truman mass murdered thousands of defenseless women and children merely to show off US power. Sick fuck!


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL read the damn military intercepts you blazing moron.


Now I’m not certain if you got past 4th grade.


----------



## AZrailwhale

gipper said:


> Lol. No their military was getting its ass kicked everywhere. They had no fuel or food. An army can’t fight without those two things.
> 
> THINK!


The Japanese had plenty of fuel for their climactic battle.  They had adequate stockpiles for defense.  They had enough naval fuel oil to fuel Yamato, Yahagi and eight destroyers to fight their way to Okinawa and some sources now say to return to Japan.   They had enough food to last months and the plan was for every Japanese to die fighting the invasion, so no food was needed past the end of 1945.


----------



## AZrailwhale

gipper said:


> It’s clear no?  Truman is a fucking war criminal.  The bombs were entirely unnecessary. Japan had been trying to surrender for months. They only asked that the emperor be spared. Truman mass murdered thousands of defenseless women and children merely to show off US power. Sick fuck!


The Japanese hadn't been trying to surrender.  They were trying to arrange an armistice (cease fire) that negated all the allied victories and returned the forces back to where they were on December 6th, 1941.  Japan would still possess Manchuria, most of China, Thailand, Vietnam, Korea and would only disarm under Japanese supervision (which means no disarmament at all) and war crimes trials would be done by the Japanese authorities which means no trials because the Japanese admitted to committing no war crimes since they were not signatories of the Geneva Conventions. The Japanese government knew the only terms authorized by the Allies at Yalta.  They were sent the terms through neutral governments and the government of Japan decided to totally ignore the terms. Any remotely normal nation would have surrendered after losing almost all its fleet carriers at Midway.  Any sane government would have surrendered after the invasion of the Philippines which cut Japan off from all the resources it went to war to gain.  The Japanese government decided to keep fighting in the hope that if they managed to kill enough Allied personnel AND Japanese civilians and troops we would be sickened and grant them favorable peace terms.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> It’s clear no?  Truman is a fucking war criminal.  The bombs were entirely unnecessary. Japan had been trying to surrender for months. They only asked that the emperor be spared. Truman mass murdered thousands of defenseless women and children merely to show off US power. Sick fuck!


Japan? Again, who are you talking about. Japan was not ruled like the USA with a president that commanded the military and spoke for the nation. 

Japan, when you state Japan had been trying to surrender you are revising the facts. Name who, when, and where.

And show us where "Japan", asked that the Emperor be spared. It is actually very easy to dispel your revisionism. So go ahead and tell us who your are talking about, when this happened, and where. 

This thread has been your baby for four years. You must have the answers to these questions. You dont even have to link, just tell us.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> The Japanese hadn't been trying to surrender.  They were trying to arrange an armistice (cease fire) that negated all the allied victories and returned the forces back to where they were on December 6th, 1941.  Japan would still possess Manchuria, most of China, Thailand, Vietnam, Korea and would only disarm under Japanese supervision (which means no disarmament at all) and war crimes trials would be done by the Japanese authorities which means no trials because the Japanese admitted to committing no war crimes since they were not signatories of the Geneva Conventions. The Japanese government knew the only terms authorized by the Allies at Yalta.  They were sent the terms through neutral governments and the government of Japan decided to totally ignore the terms. Any remotely normal nation would have surrendered after losing almost all its fleet carriers at Midway.  Any sane government would have surrendered after the invasion of the Philippines which cut Japan off from all the resources it went to war to gain.  The Japanese government decided to keep fighting in the hope that if they managed to kill enough Allied personnel AND Japanese civilians and troops we would be sickened and grant them favorable peace terms.











						Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
					

Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> ..... the plan was for every Japanese to die fighting the invasion, so no food was needed past the end of 1945.


Do you have any idea how ridiculous your posts have become?


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> Yeah...mass murder civilians of a defenseless nation ready to surrender,



War sucks.  Probably not a good idea to start one.

In the words of the warrior poet, Will Smith...

"Don't start nothing,  won't be nothing "


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> That is disingenuous BS meant to bury any guilty feelings that might come with a clear, sober evaluation of history. It is most certainly NOT "anti-American" to look at history directly and objectively, and anyone who cannot do so due to emotion is no historian.


.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Lol. No their military was getting its ass kicked everywhere. They had no fuel or food. An army can’t fight without those two things.
> 
> THINK!


denial is your argument? after four years, all you can do is offer a denial


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> War sucks.  Probably not a good idea to start one.
> 
> In the words of the warrior poet, Will Smith...
> 
> "Don't start nothing,  won't be nothing "


As has been discussed ad naseum, FDR did all he could to position Japan into attacking.  Imposing ridiculous sanctions and trade embargoes on Japan and demanding they leave China before he’d even talk to them.

He knew they would attack and he had foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl, and not only refused to notify commanders but he scapegoated them and ruined their careers.

*Does this relive Japan of responsibility for their attack, fuck no. However most Americans refuse to believe their government also holds responsibility, just as it does now in Ukraine. *

Its an story repeated throughout our history, but few Americans know it.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> denial is your argument? after four years, all you can do is offer a denial


Lol. I offered you plenty you’re just too stupid to know it.

You!


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Lol. I offered you plenty you’re just too stupid to know it.
> 
> You!


got it, you do not have the knowledge, you found links that you may quote from, quotes that are easily shown to be false.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.


Gipper, is considering surrender, the same as surrender? 

Gipper, Russia's move, entering the war was after we bombed Hiroshima. If anything, what you began your thread with, shows that Japan did not consider unconditional surrender until after the first bomb was dropped, not any earlier. 

Stalin beat Japan? Yet Japan did not surrender to Russia, Japan fought Russia for weeks after Japan agreed to the USA's terms of surrender. 

Complete nonsense, Stalin beat Japan, yet Japan only quit fighting when they surrendered formally to the USA. Japan did not surrender when Stalin joined the war, they fought the Russians. 

Sure, you can make any claim you want, but you can not show how that opinion of yours fits the facts of the war.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousandscannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


Ambiguous circumstances?

Whoever you have chosen to defend in this here thread, is certainly being clever. What ambiguous circumstance is he speaking of.

I bet gipper refuses to answer, and if gipper can not reply to these simple questions, the premise is simply false, not supported by facts.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered.


The circumstance in which Truman encountered is simple, Japan attacked our allies, Japan attacked our people in Hawaii, Japan sided with Germany to force us to fight on two fronts. Japan took our men as prisoners of war. Japan attacked our forces in the Philippines, taking more prisoners.

The only question is, who should die. Americans or Japanese.

Why should our men die if we have the means to end the war? Why should our men taken prisoner have to suffer?

Our men are at least as innocent as the Japanese women and children.

Truman had to make the toughest decision ever made in history. Yet, it was also the easiest. Do we use our best weapon to save our lives. Our president, took an oath to protect American lives. If you do not like that fact, find another country to live in without a constitution that is the basis of our Republic.

Calling Truman a war criminal, a murderer, because he upheld his oath, is pathetic.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> As has been discussed ad naseum, FDR did all he could to position Japan into attacking.  Imposing ridiculous sanctions and trade embargoes on Japan and demanding they leave China before he’d even talk to them.


Japan attacked multiple countries and was at war. How are sanctions against a nation at war, ridiculous?


----------



## BackAgain

gipper said:


> Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
> 
> Great column on the subject.
> 
> *The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered*
> By Alan Mosley
> Mises.org
> 
> January 2, 2019
> 
> Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
> 
> Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
> 
> As Timothy P. Carney writesfor the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousandscannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
> 
> The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


Nonsense.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> Japan attacked multiple countries and was at war. How are sanctions against a nation at war, ridiculous?


Think about it. Think hard.


----------



## BackAgain

gipper said:


> Think about it. Think hard.


Try to think. At all. For once in your life.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> Do you have any idea how ridiculous your posts have become?


Those are the facts.  The Japanese military government planned to burn their nation to the ground rather than surrender.  If you doubt it, look at the conduct of Japanese troops when in danger of losing battles.  They mounted suicidal charges into the face of massed American firepower.  That conduct was evident as early as the early battles on Guadalcanal and never changed.  On Okinawa Japanese parents killed their children, then suicided by jumping off cliffs rather than surrendering.  That’s a documented fact witnessed by thousands of troops and even filmed.  The Japanese would have resisted even more fanatically defending the home islands.  If anyone’s posts are ridiculous, they’re yours for persistently denying recorded facts that are backed up by Japanese diplomatic correspondence as well as Allied intelligence.


----------



## AZrailwhale

gipper said:


> As has been discussed ad naseum, FDR did all he could to position Japan into attacking.  Imposing ridiculous sanctions and trade embargoes on Japan and demanding they leave China before he’d even talk to them.
> 
> He knew they would attack and he had foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl, and not only refused to notify commanders but he scapegoated them and ruined their careers.
> 
> *Does this relive Japan of responsibility for their attack, fuck no. However most Americans refuse to believe their government also holds responsibility, just as it does now in Ukraine. *
> 
> Its an story repeated throughout our history, but few Americans know it.


There was no knowledge of any pending attack on Pearl.  In fact, it was considered impossible for logistics reasons.  The IJN had to draft nearly every modern tanker registered in Japan to make it possible.  The USN was far better equipped for underway replenishment and the USN couldn’t make a round trip from Pearl to Japan.  There was intelligence that the Japanese would attack somewhere, but the best guesses were the Philippines or Malaysia.


----------



## AZrailwhale

elektra said:


> Japan attacked multiple countries and was at war. How are sanctions against a nation at war, ridiculous?


He’s referring to the Sino-Japanese war that started in 1936.  There was plenty of popular support for the sanctions against Japan.  FDR didn’t want to fight Japan, he wanted to fight Germany who he thought was Far more dangerous.  Everyone underestimated the Japanese and thought they would back down and end their aggression against China in the face of crippling sanctions.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> .... the plan was for every Japanese to die fighting the invasion, so no food was needed past the end of 1945.


Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? If "the plan" was _for everyone to die_, then why the hell would the atomic bombs have any influence? You are so desperate to hold on to a comfortable narrative that you have lost all reason.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> ... The Japanese military government planned to burn their nation to the ground rather than surrender. ....


Then why the hell would they care about the atomic bombs? You've watched too much anime. Everyone alive in the 1940s was human just like we are today.  Get your shit together.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> FDR did all he could to position Japan into attacking. Imposing ridiculous sanctions and trade embargoes on Japan and demanding they leave China before he’d even talk to them.



Was FDR flying the planes at Pearl Harbor?


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? If "the plan" was _for everyone to die_, then why the hell would the atomic bombs have any influence? You are so desperate to hold on to a comfortable narrative that you have lost all reason.


Because the nukes negated the plan.  There were going to be next to no American casualties so no chance of getting a favorable peace out of a bloodbath.  That’s why the Mikado blinked and surrendered,there was no longer any benefit to prolonging the war.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> Then why the hell would they care about the atomic bombs? You've watched too much anime. Everyone alive in the 1940s was human just like we are today.  Get your shit together.


Except the Japanese didn’t and don’t view life as westerners do.  Suicide is a perfectly acceptable alternative to dishonor.


----------



## DudleySmith

elektra said:


> Japan attacked multiple countries and was at war. How are sanctions against a nation at war, ridiculous?



For the likes of the Gippers and Unkotares, only Americans are 'war mongering racist's, the Japanese were just hapless innocent hobbit like fairies spreading joy and happiness to all of Asia, until the Evul Amurkins jumped on them for no reason and killed them for fun. I.e. they're feckless morons.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> So much of what you know is wrong. Japan was more than willing to surrender months before the bombs dropped. They only asked Dirty Harry not to hang the emperor, which he gladly agreed to AFTER he committed his heinous war crime.
> 
> Are you also completely unaware of the many military leaders and officials who at the time said the bombs were unnecessary?
> 
> Are you also unaware of Truman’s desire to intimidate Uncle Joe with the a-bombs, even though he knew about the bombs before Dirty Harry did?  All thanks to FDR having an administration full of Soviet spies.
> 
> Yet you continue to unquestioningly support the corrupt State.


This is the fiurth time of you repeating your opinion without saying who you are talking about.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Read the thread. I started it almost four years ago. You won’t regret it. Staying uninformed is a terrible thing.


I did read your thread and I proved your opening cut/paste was from a dopehead

Just thought after four years you may of learned something and could respond


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> It’s clear no?  Truman is a fucking war criminal.  The bombs were entirely unnecessary. Japan had been trying to surrender for months. They only asked that the emperor be spared. Truman mass murdered thousands of defenseless women and children merely to show off US power. Sick fuck!


Tell us how they asked this, when and where.

Or do you simply believe out of your own hatred towards our great country


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Think about it. Think hard.


You dont have any answers to your opinion, I dont need to think about that. You have demonstrated your lack of knowledge perfectly


----------



## elektra

AZrailwhale said:


> He’s referring to the Sino-Japanese war that started in 1936.  There was plenty of popular support for the sanctions against Japan.  FDR didn’t want to fight Japan, he wanted to fight Germany who he thought was Far more dangerous.  Everyone underestimated the Japanese and thought they would back down and end their aggression against China in the face of crippling sanctions.


Gipper has demonstrated he has no knowledge outside of his opinion which he can not support.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> You dont have any answers to your opinion, I dont need to think about that. You have demonstrated your lack of knowledge perfectly


Lol. You’ve been informed, but continue to play dumb.

Here is a good book for you, by a member who regularly posts here. You’ve likely been informed of this book by him in other threads on this topic but in typical fashion, refused to learn.






Follow the Author​


Michael T. Griffith
Follow 

The Real Infamy of Pearl Harbor: Separating Fact from Fiction about the "Unprovoked and Dastardly Attack" Kindle Edition​by  Michael Griffith  (Author)   Format: Kindle Edition

He stated the following in a post…

_Isn't it curious that FDR's favorite Navy ship, the USS Indianapolis, was ordered to leave Pearl Harbor less than 48 hours before the attack, and that the ship left in such a rush that it left without most of its crew? Neither of the two explanations for the ship's strange, rushed departure make any sense. One story says the ship was sent to take supplies to Johnston Island. The other story says the ship was sent to do bombardment training. Well, why would a heavy cruiser be suddenly dispatched to take supplies when there were plenty of transport ships to do so? And why would a routine supply mission require such a rushed, frenzied departure that would leave most of the crew behind? The bombardment training story is equally nonsensical. You don't do bombardment training at the last minute, and you certainly don't do it with most of your crew left behind_


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Lol. You’ve been informed, but continue to play dumb.
> 
> Here is a good book for you, by a member who regularly posts here. You’ve likely been informed of this book by him in other threads on this topic but in typical fashion, refused to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the Author​
> 
> 
> Michael T. Griffith
> Follow
> 
> The Real Infamy of Pearl Harbor: Separating Fact from Fiction about the "Unprovoked and Dastardly Attack" Kindle Edition​by  Michael Griffith  (Author)   Format: Kindle Edition
> 
> He stated the following in a post…
> 
> _Isn't it curious that FDR's favorite Navy ship, the USS Indianapolis, was ordered to leave Pearl Harbor less than 48 hours before the attack, and that the ship left in such a rush that it left without most of its crew? Neither of the two explanations for the ship's strange, rushed departure make any sense. One story says the ship was sent to take supplies to Johnston Island. The other story says the ship was sent to do bombardment training. Well, why would a heavy cruiser be suddenly dispatched to take supplies when there were plenty of transport ships to do so? And why would a routine supply mission require such a rushed, frenzied departure that would leave most of the crew behind? The bombardment training story is equally nonsensical. You don't do bombardment training at the last minute, and you certainly don't do it with most of your crew left behind_


LOL so FDR knew of the attack and even knew the date of said attack? But no one else knew right?


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL so FDR knew of the attack and even knew the date of said attack? But no one else knew right?


Please get informed before posting. Your posts are so ignorant and uninformed.

Are you related to Obama?  Is this why you consistently post strawman arguments?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Please get informed before posting. Your posts are so ignorant and uninformed.
> 
> Are you related to Obama?  Is this why you consistently post strawman arguments?


Fuck off you retard.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Lol. You’ve been informed, but continue to play dumb.
> 
> Here is a good book for you, by a member who regularly posts here. You’ve likely been informed of this book by him in other threads on this topic but in typical fashion, refused to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the Author​
> 
> 
> Michael T. Griffith
> Follow
> 
> The Real Infamy of Pearl Harbor: Separating Fact from Fiction about the "Unprovoked and Dastardly Attack" Kindle Edition​by  Michael Griffith  (Author)   Format: Kindle Edition
> 
> He stated the following in a post…
> 
> _Isn't it curious that FDR's favorite Navy ship, the USS Indianapolis, was ordered to leave Pearl Harbor less than 48 hours before the attack, and that the ship left in such a rush that it left without most of its crew? Neither of the two explanations for the ship's strange, rushed departure make any sense. One story says the ship was sent to take supplies to Johnston Island. The other story says the ship was sent to do bombardment training. Well, why would a heavy cruiser be suddenly dispatched to take supplies when there were plenty of transport ships to do so? And why would a routine supply mission require such a rushed, frenzied departure that would leave most of the crew behind? The bombardment training story is equally nonsensical. You don't do bombardment training at the last minute, and you certainly don't do it with most of your crew left behind_


Presenting a book, without quoting from the book proves this topic is beyond your level of education.

It is clear if gimper knew anything you would of made a comment othet than stating, it is in my thread.

Hahahaha, grifter the charltan who has done no real research other than to reference other revisionists work.

I tore that prick up in his thread. Not one of his opinions was he able to substantiate.

And now you prove you can not substantiate your own thread


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Because the nukes negated the plan.  There were going to be next to no American casualties so no chance of getting a favorable peace out of a bloodbath.  That’s why the Mikado blinked and surrendered,there was no longer any benefit to prolonging the war.


You're making no sense.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Except the Japanese didn’t and don’t view life as westerners do.  ....


Don't be stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> For the likes of the Gippers and Unkotares, only Americans are 'war mongering racist's, the Japanese were just hapless innocent hobbit like fairies spreading joy and happiness to all of Asia,...


When you have to resort to idiotic lies, you prove that you have run out of rational argument.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> This is the fiurth [sic] time ....


The what now?


----------



## Mac-7

AZrailwhale said:


> Because the nukes negated the plan.  There were going to be next to no American casualties so no chance of getting a favorable peace out of a bloodbath.  That’s why the Mikado blinked and surrendered,there was no longer any benefit to prolonging the war.


The Japanese military wanted fight to the last man, woman and child while killing as many Americans as possible

They believed that it was the only honorable thing to do


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> The Japanese military wanted fight to the last man, woman and child .....


Ridiculous, and if that cartoon notion were true why would they have cared about the atomic bombing at all?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Ridiculous, and if that cartoon notion were true why would they have cared about the atomic bombing at all?


You really dont know ANYTHING about this subject

The japanese military were not suitably  impressed by the bomb

But civilians in the government particularly the emperor were shocked and ready to surrender

Normally   Hirohito had no authority over decision making

But in this case he was the deciding factor between war and surrender


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Mac-7 said:


> You really dont know ANYTHING about this subject
> 
> The japanese military were not suitably  impressed by the bomb
> 
> But civilians in the government particularly the emperor were shocked and ready to surrender
> 
> Normally   Hirohito had no authority over decision making
> 
> But in this case he was the deciding factor between war and surrender


LOL don't bother with reality to this fool he doesn't deal in it, He doesn't even realize that after the emperor surrendered the Army staged a coup to stop it, nor does he accept the reality that the army never agreed to surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

Some people have this ridiculous cartoon notion that no Japanese soldier ever surrendered, or that an entire nation doesn't care about their own lives at all. That is not and never has been true. Anyone who has actually studied Japanese history knows that soldiers and their leaders surrendered in wars at times just like any other peoples. "Western" cultures honor those who fight to the end as well. 



			https://www.army.mil/article/92856/the_story_of_the_nuts_reply


----------



## Mac-7

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL don't bother with reality to this fool he doesn't deal in it, He doesn't even realize that after the emperor surrendered the Army staged a coup to stop it, nor does he accept the reality that the army never agreed to surrender.


The sad thing is he’s a public school teacher


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> You really dont know ANYTHING about this subject
> ...


I really do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Some people have this ridiculous cartoon notion that no Japanese soldier ever surrendered, or that an entire nation doesn't care about their own lives at all. That is not and never has been true. Anyone who has actually studied Japanese history knows that soldiers and their leaders surrendered in wars at times just like any other peoples. "Western" cultures honor those who fight to the end as well.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.army.mil/article/92856/the_story_of_the_nuts_reply


You are such a moron and liar.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Some people have this ridiculous cartoon notion that no Japanese soldier ever surrendered, or that an entire nation doesn't care about their own lives at all. That is not and never has been true. Anyone who has actually studied Japanese history knows that soldiers and their leaders surrendered in wars at times just like any other peoples. "Western" cultures honor those who fight to the end as well.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.army.mil/article/92856/the_story_of_the_nuts_reply


Saipan is a great example of you spreading misinformation

Very frw japanese soldiers or civilians surrendered


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Saipan is a great example of you spreading misinformation
> 
> Very frw japanese soldiers or civilians surrendered


Saipan is not Honshu.


----------



## DudleySmith

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL so FDR knew of the attack and even knew the date of said attack? But no one else knew right?



He's an idiot, pay no mind.

More on the facts around the invasion of Japan and how the bombs forced surrender; the Japanese Military wasn't going to surrender, for young people who might think Gipper and Unkotare should be taken seriously.









						The Proposed Invasion of Japan
					

On 8 May 1945, the Allies celebrated VE Day, marking the end of the war in Europe. But the war in the east still raged on and Japanese surrender seemed a long way off. What did the proposed invasion of Japan look like?




					www.iwm.org.uk


----------



## DudleySmith

Mac-7 said:


> Saipan is a great example of you spreading misinformation
> 
> Very frw japanese soldiers or civilians surrendered



Exactly, and there was zero reason to think the mainland forces would not be even worse. They had over 6 million ready to meet the invasion waves. There were no 'civilians' in Japan.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Exactly, and there was zero reason to think the mainland forces would not be even worse. ....


Yes there was.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> ....... There were no 'civilians' in Japan.


Does saying such a ridiculous thing make you feel better about trying to rationalize the targeting and incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians?


----------



## Unkotare

Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
					

Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> Does saying such a ridiculous thing make you feel better about trying to rationalize the targeting and incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians?



You don't give a shit about human life, you're just a nasty little troll.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> You don't give a shit about human life,.....


_You're_ the one trying to rationalize the deliberate targeting and incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians.


----------



## elektra

Mac-7 said:


> Saipan is a great example of you spreading misinformation
> 
> Very frw japanese soldiers or civilians surrendered


You are exactly right. Hari Kari, suicide before surrender. 

That is one reason the Japanese treated prisoners like dirt. The japanese had no respect for those who are captured or surrender.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> You're making no sense.


If it seems to you that I'm making no sense, it's because you have the memory of a goldfish.  As I have stated several times, the Japanese government's OFFICIAL plan was to kill so many Japanese and Allied personnel that the American public would be sickened by the carnage and grant Japan a favorable end to the war allowing Japan to keep its ill-gotten gains.  That is how delusional the Japanese government was in 1945.  They were literally preparing to fight in their own homes against an enemy that was superior in material, numbers and technology and they STILL thought they could dictate terms to the victors.  
The American public was so inured to Japanese atrocities, that most Americans wouldn't have thought twice about exterminating the Japanese race.  The US government didn't have to make up atrocity stories to fan the hatred of the Japanese, the Japanese were happy, even eager, to furnish a continual stream of atrocities to achieve that goal.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> Don't be stupid.


I'm not, look at Japanese suicide statistics, per capita Japan is in 49th place out of 183 countries. 
Per Wikki: "In Japan, suicide (自殺, _jisatsu_) is considered a major social issue.[2][3] In 2017, the country had the seventh highest suicide rate in the OECD, at 14.9 per 100,000 persons,[4] and in 2019 the country had the second highest suicide rate among the G7 developed nations."


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Saipan is not Honshu.


Yes it was

It was japan as much as Mt Fuji

*Out of the entire Japanese garrison of 30,000 troops, only 921 prisoners were captured; the rest died. The Japanese commanders and some 5,000 others committed suicide rather than surrender.*


----------



## BackAgain

gipper said:


> Lol. You’ve been informed, but continue to play dumb.
> 
> Here is a good book for you, by a member who regularly posts here. You’ve likely been informed of this book by him in other threads on this topic but in typical fashion, refused to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the Author​
> 
> 
> Michael T. Griffith
> Follow
> 
> The Real Infamy of Pearl Harbor: Separating Fact from Fiction about the "Unprovoked and Dastardly Attack" Kindle Edition​by  Michael Griffith  (Author)   Format: Kindle Edition
> 
> He stated the following in a post…
> 
> _Isn't it curious that FDR's favorite Navy ship, the USS Indianapolis, was ordered to leave Pearl Harbor less than 48 hours before the attack, and that the ship left in such a rush that it left without most of its crew? Neither of the two explanations for the ship's strange, rushed departure make any sense. One story says the ship was sent to take supplies to Johnston Island. The other story says the ship was sent to do bombardment training. Well, why would a heavy cruiser be suddenly dispatched to take supplies when there were plenty of transport ships to do so? And why would a routine supply mission require such a rushed, frenzied departure that would leave most of the crew behind? The bombardment training story is equally nonsensical. You don't do bombardment training at the last minute, and you certainly don't do it with most of your crew left behind_


That good old gimp is willingly gullible is indisputable.


----------



## BackAgain

The thread headline is a lie. It says it speaks of “truth” when it clearly does not.


----------



## Mac-7

The sad thing is that Unkotare is a public school teacher

Who knows how many innocent children he will infect with his crazy ideas?


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> Some people have this ridiculous cartoon notion that no Japanese soldier ever surrendered, or that an entire nation doesn't care about their own lives at all. That is not and never has been true. Anyone who has actually studied Japanese history knows that soldiers and their leaders surrendered in wars at times just like any other peoples. "Western" cultures honor those who fight to the end as well.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.army.mil/article/92856/the_story_of_the_nuts_reply


In WWII very few JAPANESE troops surrendered.  On Okinawa for instance, the Japanese had 130,000 troops, only 7,000 surrendered and most of those weren't Japanese at all, they were Korean draftees.
Yes surrender was normal in the intra-Japanese wars, but not in WWII, the Bushido culture that evolved in the military between 1918 and 1936 was very different than the historical Japanese military culture.
From Wikki: 
"
Bushido regarded surrender as cowardly. Those who did forfeited their honor and lost dignity and respect:[99]



> As Japan continued its modernization in the early 20th century, her armed forces became convinced that success in battle would be assured if Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen had the "spirit" of _Bushido_. ... The result was that the _Bushido_ code of behavior "was inculcated into the Japanese soldier as part of his basic training". Each soldier was indoctrinated to accept that it was the greatest honor to die for the Emperor and it was cowardly to surrender to the enemy. ... _Bushido_ therefore explains why the Japanese in the NEI so mistreated POWs in their custody. Those who had surrendered to the Japanese—regardless of how courageously or honorably they had fought—merited nothing but contempt; they had forfeited all honor and literally deserved nothing. Consequently, when the Japanese murdered POWs by shooting, beheading, and drowning, these acts were excused since they involved the killing of men who had forfeited all rights to be treated with dignity or respect. While civilian internees were certainly in a different category from POWs, it is reasonable to think that there was a "spill-over" effect from the tenets of _Bushido_.
> — Fred Borch, _Military Trials of War Criminals in the Netherlands East Indies 1946–1949"._


----------



## Unkotare

Sturma, Michael. “The Limits of Hate: Japanese Prisoners on US Submarines during the Second World War.” _Journal of Contemporary History_, vol. 51, no. 4, 2016, pp. 738–59. _JSTOR_, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26416464. Accessed 4 Nov. 2022.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> I'm not, ...


You are. Human beings are human beings. 

Middle aged men in the US have the highest suicide rate in the country. Are they not human?


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Yes it was
> ...


No, it wasn't.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> ...
> Yes surrender was normal in the intra-Japanese wars, but not in WWII, the Bushido culture that evolved in the military between 1918 and 1936 was very different than the historical Japanese military culture.
> ....


Nice job contradicting yourself.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> No, it wasn't.


Twas so


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Twas so


Nope. Get yourself a map.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Nope. Get yourself a map.


What would that show me?

Saipan was a japanese island populated by native japanese


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Saipan was considered the same as the home Islands and was peopled by Japanese.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> What would that show me?
> 
> Saipan was a japanese island populated by native japanese



Keep trying, it may come to you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Saipan was considered the same as the home Islands and was peopled by Japanese.


Ohh Look our resident history teacher that claims he knows everything about ww2 Japan doesnt know that Saipan was considered the same as the home Islands.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Keep trying, it may come to you.


You got nuthin’ and are just stalling


----------



## elektra

From gipper to griffith, not one is able to debate, or simply discuss the pacific war, rationally.

The revisionist declare victory, cherry picking a sentence when it takes a entire library of books to chronicle the events of the War with Japan.

Sad are the creatures who deny their hate and never realize their ignorance.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> You got nuthin’ and are just stalling


Are you really this ignorant?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ...
> 
> Sad are the creatures who deny their hate ....



NOT rationalizing the targeting and incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians is "hate"?


----------

