# The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima



## mikegriffith1

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype. 

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


----------



## rightwinger

I agree
There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them. 

While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary


----------



## sparky

Truman was the only _real _advocate.  Stimson (sec of war) , along with the majority of top generals saw no need, nor any ending utilizing the bomb.  

The real _negotiation _card was the Russians , Manchuria , the underlying economic inevitability , least of all the _public_ execution of the emperor , which would have been (at the time) akin to crucifying Christ in our culture.

~S~


----------



## candycorn

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.


----------



## JoeB131

Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.  

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.  

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> I agree
> There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.
> 
> While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary


Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.


----------



## rightwinger

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.



It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next


----------



## sparky

Actually Truman's own cabinet publicly stated the bomb would put us on par with the German genocide at the time,  and the dept of defense stifled all Truman's top generals , insisting all comments be vetted first

Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals 

~S~


----------



## sparky

mudwhistle said:


> The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat.



nope

they knew they were done, and were negotiating

the Russians were a huge part of that

~S~


----------



## JoeB131

mudwhistle said:


> Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.



The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.  

The real game changer was the USSR entering the war.  It opened a whole new front and hundreds of battle hardened divisions, with the potential of Japan itself being partitioned like Germany was.  

The other key thing was that the US had dropped it's insistence that Hirohito had to abdicate AFTER the Soviets got into it. 

.


----------



## JoeB131

rightwinger said:


> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?



A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."  

I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.  

AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.  

But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



Recall that they attacked us.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves.  There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.

Did the bomb end the war?  Undoubtedly, and that was the intent.  I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.
> 
> The real game changer was the USSR entering the war.  It opened a whole new front and hundreds of battle hardened divisions, with the potential of Japan itself being partitioned like Germany was.
> 
> The other key thing was that the US had dropped it's insistence that Hirohito had to abdicate AFTER the Soviets got into it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The Japanese we're clearly told they had a chance to surrender BY THE ALLIES at potsdamn 
THey ignored it !!!
The soviets were skunks and Finally joined the battle in between nukes ...how convenient


----------



## miketx

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Right, like you know anything you haven't been fed. If anything we should have then nuked China and the USSR.


----------



## JoeB131

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.



Except that the bombs didn't end the war.  The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

JoeB131 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the bombs didn't end the war.  The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.
Click to expand...


I and history disagree with you.


----------



## miketx

JoeB131 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the bombs didn't end the war.  The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.
Click to expand...

Sez the habitual America hating liar. Strange how the Japs surrendered very shortly after we set them on fire,


----------



## fncceo

_Don't start nothin, there won't be nothin'

-- _FDR


----------



## mikegriffith1

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.



True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.


----------



## JoeB131

Deplorable Yankee said:


> The Japanese we're clearly told they had a chance to surrender BY THE ALLIES at potsdamn
> THey ignored it !!!
> The soviets were skunks and Finally joined the battle in between nukes ...how convenient



The Soviets lost 20 million people fighting the Axis. 

We lost 400,000.  You tell me who made greater sacrifices to end fascism. 

The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.  

The thing few people talk about was how after the USSR got into it, the US dropped it's insistence on trying Hirohito as a war criminal, which he obviously was.  In fact, a massive whitewash was done after the war to make it look like Hirohito was this nice guy who just wanted to study marine biology and those mean old generals tricked him into a war.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> True, because the Japanese tried for months to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade Russia, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet Union, provoked Japan to war.



The Japanese had been carrying out a genocidal war in China for nearly a decade... you think FDR should have rewarded them for THAT? 

The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis in WWII... we just don't hear that much about it because the Jews run Hollywood and just can't stop whining about Hitler.   Now, if the Chinese ran Hollywood, that'd be a different story.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> Truman was the only _real _advocate.  Stimson (sec of war) , along with the majority of top generals saw no need, nor any ending utilizing the bomb.
> 
> The real _negotiation _card was the Russians , Manchuria , the underlying economic inevitability , least of all the _public_ execution of the emperor , which would have been (at the time) akin to crucifying Christ in our culture.
> 
> ~S~


Wrong, where do you get this idea Stimson was against as well as the top generals. And which Generals?


----------



## Flash

Who gives a fuck?  They were a murderous nation back then.  As bad as the Nazis.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Can you name that battle you refer to, USSR against Japan? I am thinking it never happened.


----------



## candycorn

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.
Click to expand...


Wow…you fit so much garbage into one paragraph.  I’m impressed.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the bombs didn't end the war.  The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.
Click to expand...


The Jew hater is right. America could not afford for the Soviets to conquer Japan and divide it like what happened in Germany so they used the nuclear option and garnered surrender that way. Great History channels documentaries on it.


----------



## mudwhistle

sparky said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> they knew they were done, and were negotiating
> 
> the Russians were a huge part of that
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

N Korea has been "Negotiating" since 1950.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name that battle you refer to, USSR against Japan? I am thinking it never happened.
Click to expand...


Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs


----------



## edward37

Billy_Kinetta said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recall that they attacked us.
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves.  There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.
> 
> Did the bomb end the war?  Undoubtedly, and that was the intent.  I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.
Click to expand...

There were think tanks back then that all said many 1000's of American lives would be saved by that bombing


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
Click to expand...

This shows exactly how ignorant you are on the subject.
Hiroshima had one of the biggest military posts in Japan. 
However both were selected because of weather, travel distance, effect on morale and other reasons. 


The Selection of the Target | The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com


Since the atomic bomb was expected to produce its greatest amount of damage by primary blast effect, and next greatest by fires, the targets should contain a large percentage of closely-built frame buildings and other construction that would be most susceptible to damage by blast and fire.
The maximum blast effect of the bomb was calculated to extend over an area of approximately 1 mile in radius; therefore the selected targets should contain a densely built-up area of at least this size.
The selected targets should have a high military strategic value.
The first target should be relatively untouched by previous bombing, in order that the effect of a single atomic bomb could be determined.
The weather records showed that for five years there had never been two successive good visual bombing days over Tokyo, indicating what might be expected over other targets in the home islands. The worst month of the year for visual bombing was believed to be June, after which the weather should improve slightly during July and August and then become worse again during September. Since good bombing conditions would occur rarely, the most intense plans and preparations were necessary in order to secure accurate weather forecasts and to arrange for full utilization of whatever good weather might occur. It was also very desirable to start the raids before September.​


----------



## Maxdeath

Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> The Japanese had been carrying out a genocidal war in China for nearly a decade... you think FDR should have rewarded them for THAT?



If FDR did nothing to punish the Soviets for their brutality and oppression, why did he choose to pick a fight with the anti-communist Japanese over their arguably justified war in China?

The Japanese were not any more vicious than Mao's Communist Chinese forces were, and the Nationalist Chinese forces certainly did not follow the rules of warfare either in many cases. The Japanese had entirely valid interests in seeking to keep the Communists from coming to power in China, as the whole world saw after the war when Mao came to power and murdered over 20 million Chinese.

Instead of joining with Japan to defeat the Maoist Communnists, Chang Kaishek oddly chose to form an alliance with the Communists against the Japanese. Surely no one in their right mind would say that China was better off under the Communists than Manchuria had been under the Japanese.



> The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis in WWII... we just don't hear that much about it because the Jews run Hollywood and just can't stop whining about Hitler.   Now, if the Chinese ran Hollywood, that'd be a different story.



Actually, that is total hogwash. The Japanese were nothing like the Nazis. Tojo was a mild leader compared to Hitler and Stalin. The Japanese people enjoyed far more rights and freedoms during WW II than did the Russians under Stalin and the Germans under Hitler.

One book that documents this fact is Israeli historian Ben Shillony's book _Politics and Culture in Wartime Japan_ (Clarendon Press, 1991). Two other good books on the subject are Meron Medzini's _Under the Shadow of the Rising Sun: Japan and the Jews during the Holocaust Era_ (Academic Studies Press, 2016) and Samuel Yamashita's _Daily Life in Wartime Japan, 1940-1945_ (University of Kansas Press, 2017).

Many readers will be astounded to learn of the degree and frequency of political opposition and criticism that was tolerated in wartime Japan. They will also be surprised to learn that much more often than not Japan's legal system protected citizens against unjust actions by the government. Japan was certainly not as free and open as America and England were during the war, but open criticism/opposition and the rule of law existed in Japan to a degree that was unheard of in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.


----------



## rightwinger

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
Click to expand...


WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table. 

The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion

The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?

Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t. 

We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb

Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target


----------



## rightwinger

Maxdeath said:


> Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
> First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
> The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
> Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
> To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
> Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
> As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.



We had three bombs
One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki

We had the bomb, nobody else did

At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended on July 16, 1945
> That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
> 
> The trade off has never been.....
> Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
> 
> The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
> 
> Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t.
> 
> We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
> 
> Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
> If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
Click to expand...

Again you show your ignorance on the subject.
All of this was taken into account and it was decided that dropping the bomb on an isolated island wouldn't scare anyone. 
I hate to think of the death and destruction that dropping one in a heavily populated area causes, but the Japanese were spread all over Asia causing death and destruction everywhere they went. The war crimes they had committed were horrific. We can't blame most of the population for this, but this wasn't some Western society where everyone wanted peace and tranquility. Japan was a feudal society where violence and death unfortunately was as common as taking a shit. Dropping those bombs saved the Japanese people from the oppression of their own military establishment as much as anything else.


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> The Jew hater is right. America could not afford for the Soviets to conquer Japan and divide it like what happened in Germany so they used the nuclear option and garnered surrender that way. Great History channels documentaries on it.



Um, no.  Your reading comprehension is a little confused. 

The bombs didn't make the Japanese Surrender. 

They surrendered because the USSR entered the war and we promised to not hang Hirohito, even though the cocksucker deserved it.


----------



## JoeB131

rightwinger said:


> We had three bombs
> One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
> 
> We had the bomb, nobody else did
> 
> At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.



Except that it really wasn't.  

What we were realizing by 1945 is that the Soviets couldn't really be trusted.  they were installing Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe, and now they were in a position to send  hundreds of divisions into China, Korea and Japan.   

We'd have gotten to the same place, but with the Sovietns firmly in charge of the region...  As it was, we still ended up losing China in 1949, and the Korean war in 1950.  Imagine if the USSR had completely occupied Korea and maybe half of Japan.


----------



## miketx

JoeB131 said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese we're clearly told they had a chance to surrender BY THE ALLIES at potsdamn
> THey ignored it !!!
> The soviets were skunks and Finally joined the battle in between nukes ...how convenient
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets lost 20 million people fighting the Axis.
> 
> We lost 400,000.  You tell me who made greater sacrifices to end fascism.
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.
> 
> The thing few people talk about was how after the USSR got into it, the US dropped it's insistence on trying Hirohito as a war criminal, which he obviously was.  In fact, a massive whitewash was done after the war to make it look like Hirohito was this nice guy who just wanted to study marine biology and those mean old generals tricked him into a war.
Click to expand...

Sez the cut and paste pirate.


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended on July 16, 1945
> That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
> 
> The trade off has never been.....
> Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
> 
> The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
> 
> Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t.
> 
> We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
> 
> Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
> If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show your ignorance on the subject.
> All of this was taken into account and it was decided that dropping the bomb on an isolated island wouldn't scare anyone.
> I hate to think of the death and destruction that dropping one in a heavily populated area causes, but the Japanese were spread all over Asia causing death and destruction everywhere they went. The war crimes they had committed were horrific. We can't blame most of the population for this, but this wasn't some Western society where everyone wanted peace and tranquility. Japan was a feudal society where violence and death unfortunately was as common as taking a shit. Dropping those bombs saved the Japanese people from the oppression of their own military establishment as much as anything else.
Click to expand...

We don’t know that because we never gave Japan a chance. We gave them two days to decide then sent 70,000 to their deaths at Nagasaki. 

We had the bomb...the war was over

A less lethal demo had no downside
Worst case, Japan ignores it and we go to Plan B which is escalate the bombing. 

Japan loses either way


----------



## DGS49

It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.

The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.

Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*

The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.

If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.


----------



## rightwinger

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had three bombs
> One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
> 
> We had the bomb, nobody else did
> 
> At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it really wasn't.
> 
> What we were realizing by 1945 is that the Soviets couldn't really be trusted.  they were installing Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe, and now they were in a position to send  hundreds of divisions into China, Korea and Japan.
> 
> We'd have gotten to the same place, but with the Sovietns firmly in charge of the region...  As it was, we still ended up losing China in 1949, and the Korean war in 1950.  Imagine if the USSR had completely occupied Korea and maybe half of Japan.
Click to expand...


The Soviets did not have the time to execute an invasion of that magnitude

We had the bomb. Japan’s days were numbered

We had other options than giving Japan two days to decide and killing 150,000 civilians


----------



## JoeB131

Maxdeath said:


> Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
> First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender.



Um, except they did.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> If FDR did nothing to punish the Soviets for their brutality and oppression, why did he choose to pick a fight with the anti-communist Japanese over their arguably justified war in China?



There was nothing to justify Japan's war in China. It was a war of aggression, as bad as anything the Nazis were doing in Europe, maybe worse. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> The Japanese were not any more vicious than Mao's Communist Chinese forces were, and the Nationalist Chinese forces certainly did not follow the rules of warfare either in many cases. The Japanese had entirely valid interests in seeking to keep the Communists from coming to power in China, as the whole world saw after the war when Mao came to power and murdered over 20 million Chinese.



Except the Japanese were more intent on fighting the Nationalists (Kumaotang) than the Communists.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> Instead of joining with Japan to defeat the Maoist Communnists, Chang Kaishek oddly chose to form an alliance with the Communists against the Japanese. Surely no one in their right mind would say that China was better off under the Communists than Manchuria had been under the Japanese.



The Japanese were looting the shit out of Manchuria and even their puppets there were sick of it.  Yes, the Japanese were the bad guys.  Anyone who allied with them was seen as a traitor. 

The Japanese did attempt to set up a puppet government in China as well... it was not well-received. 

The reality is, the Communists were seen as the better alternative by most Chinese during and after the war.



mikegriffith1 said:


> Actually, that is total hogwash. The Japanese were nothing like the Nazis. Tojo was a mild leader compared to Hitler and Stalin. The Japanese people enjoyed far more rights and freedoms during WW II than did the Russians under Stalin and the Germans under Hitler.



The Japanese slaughtered 30 million Chinese during the war.  Yes, they were just as bad as the Nazis.


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended on July 16, 1945
> That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
> 
> The trade off has never been.....
> Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
> 
> The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
> 
> Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t.
> 
> We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
> 
> Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
> If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show your ignorance on the subject.
> All of this was taken into account and it was decided that dropping the bomb on an isolated island wouldn't scare anyone.
> I hate to think of the death and destruction that dropping one in a heavily populated area causes, but the Japanese were spread all over Asia causing death and destruction everywhere they went. The war crimes they had committed were horrific. We can't blame most of the population for this, but this wasn't some Western society where everyone wanted peace and tranquility. Japan was a feudal society where violence and death unfortunately was as common as taking a shit. Dropping those bombs saved the Japanese people from the oppression of their own military establishment as much as anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don’t know that because we never gave Japan a chance. We gave them two days to decide then sent 70,000 to their deaths at Nagasaki.
> 
> We had the bomb...the war was over
> 
> A less lethal demo had no downside
> Worst case, Japan ignores it and we go to Plan B which is escalate the bombing.
> 
> Japan loses either way
Click to expand...

Again you show your ignorance.....we were running out of time. 
Weather was a consideration......as was a movement in Washington to try to delay or prevent the next bombing....waiting a week would prolong the war. Waiting even longer would have possibly made the second bombing much more difficult because of weather and the possibility that that air defenses would have been improved making it outright impossible. We were only able to drop those bombs because of the element of surprise. One aircraft wasn't considered a threat. Now everything would be considered a threat. Waiting would have made the next bombing mission next to impossible.

How many lives were saved is something you totally want to ignore because you're bent demonizing America.


----------



## JoeB131

rightwinger said:


> The Soviets did not have the time to execute an invasion of that magnitude
> 
> We had the bomb. Japan’s days were numbered
> 
> We had other options than giving Japan two days to decide and killing 150,000 civilians



You should really read up on their invasion of Manchuria. They rolled the place up so quickly the puppet government didn't even have a chance to escape. 

They had over 100 Division lined up... By October, they'd have been in Japan proper while we were still slogging on the beaches.  Hokkaido was completely undefended.


----------



## rightwinger

DGS49 said:


> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.


That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it,  Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions. 

It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
Our choice was how to use the bomb


----------



## mikegriffith1

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended on July 16, 1945
> That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
> 
> The trade off has never been.....
> Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
> 
> The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
> 
> Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t.
> 
> We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
> 
> Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
> If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
Click to expand...


Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?

To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.

Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:

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. (USSBS 26)​


----------



## rightwinger

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets did not have the time to execute an invasion of that magnitude
> 
> We had the bomb. Japan’s days were numbered
> 
> We had other options than giving Japan two days to decide and killing 150,000 civilians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really read up on their invasion of Manchuria. They rolled the place up so quickly the puppet government didn't even have a chance to escape.
> 
> They had over 100 Division lined up... By October, they'd have been in Japan proper while we were still slogging on the beaches.  Hokkaido was completely undefended.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant
The Soviets were not in very good shape militarily.  They had lost millions of troops, supplies and logistics were a mess. Turning around and opening a new front was not going to happen overnight. 

We are talking about a few weeks to allow Japan to decide. We could have bombed them any time.


----------



## elektra

AzogtheDefiler said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name that battle you refer to, USSR against Japan? I am thinking it never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs
Click to expand...

Only one problem, the emperor of Japan decided to surrender before the Soviets declared war and began this needless battle. The Japanese surrendered well over a week before this needless Soviet battle ended. 

The USSR's entry into the war after it was over was insignificant compared to the power of atomic weapons.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended on July 16, 1945
> That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
> 
> The trade off has never been.....
> Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
> 
> The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
> 
> Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t.
> 
> We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
> 
> Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
> If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?
> 
> To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.
> 
> Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.
> 
> The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:
> 
> 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. (USSBS 26)​
Click to expand...

Yet the last Japanese to surrender was in 1974, proving your post as being wrong.


----------



## rightwinger

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended on July 16, 1945
> That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
> 
> The trade off has never been.....
> Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
> 
> The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
> 
> Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t.
> 
> We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
> 
> Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
> If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?
> 
> To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.
> 
> Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.
> 
> The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:
> 
> 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. (USSBS 26)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet the last Japanese to surrender was in 1974, proving your post as being wrong.
Click to expand...

One person does not make a war

Proving your post is ridiculous


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended on July 16, 1945
> That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
> 
> The trade off has never been.....
> Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
> 
> The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
> 
> Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t.
> 
> We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
> 
> Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
> If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?
> 
> To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.
> 
> Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.
> 
> The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:
> 
> 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. (USSBS 26)​
Click to expand...

And how about a link? 

What we do know as fact, is Truman never said the Emperor must go and the emperor himself cited this as he surrendered.

Funny you dont mention the Army and Navy leaders who were vehemently opposed to surrender. They had tremendous power and were a difficult obstacle to overcome.


----------



## elektra

rightwinger said:


> One person does not make a war
> 
> Proving your post is ridiculous


Thank you for confirming, that had we attacked the mainland of Japan  The Japanese were not going to surrender. 

It would of been a bitter terrible fight, for months. Millions dead.


----------



## rightwinger

elektra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One person does not make a war
> 
> Proving your post is ridiculous
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming, that had we attacked the mainland of Japan  The Japanese were not going to surrender.
> 
> It would of been a bitter terrible fight, for months. Millions dead.
Click to expand...


I’ve already said......
We had a bomb, an invasion was no longer necessary 

The decision was not....Invade or drop the bomb

The decision was, what is the best way to use our new power?


----------



## Maxdeath

rightwinger said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
> First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
> The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
> Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
> To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
> Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
> As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had three bombs
> One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
> 
> We had the bomb, nobody else did
> 
> At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.
Click to expand...

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. 
The Japanese knew we had tested one, when the other exploded over their homeland thay thought that we were out. Or perhaps they only hoped. I do not really know what they were thinking. 
The war did not stop because we dropped the bomb at Hiroshima. Fighting was still going on. So exactly how many lives were you willing to sacrifice? Obviously some were willing to sacrifice less lives then you. Any idea how much those three bombs cost in today's dollars?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Wow, the myths being rolled out here are unreal. A few points:

* Anyone who thinks Japan's move in China was pure aggression has only read one side of the story.

* By April 1945, if not earlier, Japan posed no threat to us. By that time, Japan had no ability to carry out offensive operations against us.

* By April 1945, the Japanese people were nearing the point of starvation. Their calorie intake was already well below the level needed to maintain basic health.

* By April 1945, we were bombing Japan at will and suffering virtually no aircraft losses in the process, because Japan was practically defenseless against air attack.

* Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, etc., was mild compared to Chinese Communist rule, Soviet rule, and Nazi rule.

* Yes, the Japanese focused more on the Nationalists than the Communists because the Nationalists, at that point, were much stronger and posed a greater threat, and because the Nationalists had decided to side with the Communists. So, *of course* the Japanese focused on the Nationalists, but they also fought the Communists.

* WEEKS before Hiroshima, we knew--we absolutely knew--from numerous Japanese intercepts and human sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, and even many senior military leaders, were willing to surrender if we would just clarify the "unconditional surrender" terms to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in such a surrender.

* Instead, Truman seemed intent on doing all he could to help the Japanese hardliners who were opposing surrender, at every single turn.

* The events surrounding Japan's surrender offer prove that if we had stipulated weeks earlier that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese moderates could have overcome the hardliners and enabled the emperor to order a surrender weeks earlier.

* Truth be told, we ignored the clear evidence that Japan was willing to surrender weeks earlier on acceptable terms because many folks in our government were determined to test the atomic bomb on live targets in Japan. That is the shameful truth.


----------



## Maxdeath

Um, except they did. 
After the second bomb was dropped. Then you are forgetting those that stayed hidden on islands for years. A few for twenty or more years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



Truman wanted to test to see which was more lethal: uranium bomb at ground level  (Hiroshima) or plutonium bomb as an air burst (Nagasaki)


----------



## rightwinger

Maxdeath said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
> First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
> The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
> Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
> To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
> Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
> As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had three bombs
> One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
> 
> We had the bomb, nobody else did
> 
> At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
> The Japanese knew we had tested one, when the other exploded over their homeland thay thought that we were out. Or perhaps they only hoped. I do not really know what they were thinking.
> The war did not stop because we dropped the bomb at Hiroshima. Fighting was still going on. So exactly how many lives were you willing to sacrifice? Obviously some were willing to sacrifice less lives then you. Any idea how much those three bombs cost in today's dollars?
Click to expand...


Nobody knew we had successfully tested the bomb
The war did not stop when we dropped a bomb on Hiroshima because we only gave them two days to decide.

We had three bombs. Japan had no idea how many we had.
As in was, we had more powerful bombs by early 1946.

We had nothing to lose by choosing a less lethal target than Hiroshima
If Japan was reluctant to surrender after a less lethal demonstration, we could have upped the ante

Once we had the bomb, we did not need to sacrifice any more lives. We drop a bomb and then step back and pressure Japan to surrender or face an escalation

Our ground troops were no longer involved


----------



## Maxdeath

rightwinger said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
> First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
> The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
> Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
> To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
> Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
> As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had three bombs
> One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
> 
> We had the bomb, nobody else did
> 
> At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
> The Japanese knew we had tested one, when the other exploded over their homeland thay thought that we were out. Or perhaps they only hoped. I do not really know what they were thinking.
> The war did not stop because we dropped the bomb at Hiroshima. Fighting was still going on. So exactly how many lives were you willing to sacrifice? Obviously some were willing to sacrifice less lives then you. Any idea how much those three bombs cost in today's dollars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody knew we had successfully tested the bomb
> The war did not stop when we dropped a bomb on Hiroshima because we only gave them two days to decide.
> 
> We had three bombs. Japan had no idea how many we had.
> As in was, we had more powerful bombs by early 1946.
> 
> We had nothing to lose by choosing a less lethal target than Hiroshima
> If Japan was reluctant to surrender after a less lethal demonstration, we could have upped the ante
> 
> Once we had the bomb, we did not need to sacrifice any more lives. We drop a bomb and then step back and pressure Japan to surrender or face an escalation
> 
> Our ground troops were no longer involved
Click to expand...

Damn you really are crazy. You don't think anyone noticed the largest bomb test to have ever taken place? Even for you that is completely crazy.

And how long did it take after the second bomb was dropped? It sure wasn't months.

We had three. Japan was either hopping or convinced that we only had two. So they were wrong.

How pray tell do you pressure somone to surrender if you allow them to gain ground or hunker down in some small area of an island while giving them freedom to roam around. To most that looks like either cowardice or winning or both.

The reason we had more powerful bombs later on was we were not involved in a war. The tech had already been proved. Duh.


----------



## rightwinger

Maxdeath said:


> Um, except they did.
> After the second bomb was dropped. Then you are forgetting those that stayed hidden on islands for years. A few for twenty or more years.


Who cares?

Had nothing to do with victory


----------



## Maxdeath

rightwinger said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, except they did.
> After the second bomb was dropped. Then you are forgetting those that stayed hidden on islands for years. A few for twenty or more years.
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Had nothing to do with victory
Click to expand...

I was replying to our freind who claimed that the Japanese did surrender. They certainly did after the second bomb was dropped. If we had not dropped the second one and allowed them to continue with the idea that the first bomb that we dropped on them was the only one then they may have continued even if it meant has ding in forests and using raids to keep the war going.


----------



## elektra

rightwinger said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One person does not make a war
> 
> Proving your post is ridiculous
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming, that had we attacked the mainland of Japan  The Japanese were not going to surrender.
> 
> It would of been a bitter terrible fight, for months. Millions dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ve already said......
> We had a bomb, an invasion was no longer necessary
> 
> The decision was not....Invade or drop the bomb
> 
> The decision was, what is the best way to use our new power?
Click to expand...

You called me out on my post, I told you why. 

Yes, the best way to use the bomb. You stated we should drop it on a small island that had military value and wait a month? In that month more Americans would die. How is that a better option at ending a war? Filming a bomb on an island which would not have the damage that was evident when the bombs were dropped on the military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Further, how do you get the film to the emperor and military leaders.

How do you know they would believe a film? They would not, remember it took two bombs not one. Hence you would need to bomb two islands not one. Or if you then bombed a city, chances are they would take that month to fortify against what you let them know is coming. And then, they dont surrender and you dont have any more bombs to drop.

We did the right thing


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it,  Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.
> 
> It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
> Our choice was how to use the bomb
Click to expand...

Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?
And then prolong the war???

I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
You are, however, an expert on losing.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jew hater is right. America could not afford for the Soviets to conquer Japan and divide it like what happened in Germany so they used the nuclear option and garnered surrender that way. Great History channels documentaries on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.  Your reading comprehension is a little confused.
> 
> The bombs didn't make the Japanese Surrender.
> 
> They surrendered because the USSR entered the war and we promised to not hang Hirohito, even though the cocksucker deserved it.
Click to expand...


It was a combination of both. I posted the link. Do fuck yourself you antisemitic asshole.


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended on July 16, 1945
> That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
> 
> The trade off has never been.....
> Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
> 
> The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
> 
> Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t.
> 
> We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
> 
> Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
> If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show your ignorance on the subject.
> All of this was taken into account and it was decided that dropping the bomb on an isolated island wouldn't scare anyone.
> I hate to think of the death and destruction that dropping one in a heavily populated area causes, but the Japanese were spread all over Asia causing death and destruction everywhere they went. The war crimes they had committed were horrific. We can't blame most of the population for this, but this wasn't some Western society where everyone wanted peace and tranquility. Japan was a feudal society where violence and death unfortunately was as common as taking a shit. Dropping those bombs saved the Japanese people from the oppression of their own military establishment as much as anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don’t know that because we never gave Japan a chance. We gave them two days to decide then sent 70,000 to their deaths at Nagasaki.
> 
> We had the bomb...the war was over
> 
> A less lethal demo had no downside
> Worst case, Japan ignores it and we go to Plan B which is escalate the bombing.
> 
> Japan loses either way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show your ignorance.....we were running out of time.
> Weather was a consideration......as was a movement in Washington to try to delay or prevent the next bombing....waiting a week would prolong the war. Waiting even longer would have possibly made the second bombing much more difficult because of weather and the possibility that that air defenses would have been improved making it outright impossible. We were only able to drop those bombs because of the element of surprise. One aircraft wasn't considered a threat. Now everything would be considered a threat. Waiting would have made the next bombing mission next to impossible.
> 
> How many lives were saved is something you totally want to ignore because you're bent demonizing America.
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring it, I am completely denying the need for an invasion once we had successfully tested the bomb

Weather, Japanese anti air defense, we would eventually get through
Japan had no chance, once we got the bomb

We can rationalize that we saved millions of lives. But once we were the worlds sole nuclear power.....we had won

The question is.....Did we have to kill 150,000 people in order to show how strong we were


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it,  Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.
> 
> It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
> Our choice was how to use the bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?
> And then prolong the war???
> 
> I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
> You are, however, an expert on losing.
Click to expand...

Prevent what?
They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority. 

We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack

Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon

Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WWII ended on July 16, 1945
> That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
> 
> The trade off has never been.....
> Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
> 
> The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
> 
> Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t.
> 
> We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
> 
> Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
> If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show your ignorance on the subject.
> All of this was taken into account and it was decided that dropping the bomb on an isolated island wouldn't scare anyone.
> I hate to think of the death and destruction that dropping one in a heavily populated area causes, but the Japanese were spread all over Asia causing death and destruction everywhere they went. The war crimes they had committed were horrific. We can't blame most of the population for this, but this wasn't some Western society where everyone wanted peace and tranquility. Japan was a feudal society where violence and death unfortunately was as common as taking a shit. Dropping those bombs saved the Japanese people from the oppression of their own military establishment as much as anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don’t know that because we never gave Japan a chance. We gave them two days to decide then sent 70,000 to their deaths at Nagasaki.
> 
> We had the bomb...the war was over
> 
> A less lethal demo had no downside
> Worst case, Japan ignores it and we go to Plan B which is escalate the bombing.
> 
> Japan loses either way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you show your ignorance.....we were running out of time.
> Weather was a consideration......as was a movement in Washington to try to delay or prevent the next bombing....waiting a week would prolong the war. Waiting even longer would have possibly made the second bombing much more difficult because of weather and the possibility that that air defenses would have been improved making it outright impossible. We were only able to drop those bombs because of the element of surprise. One aircraft wasn't considered a threat. Now everything would be considered a threat. Waiting would have made the next bombing mission next to impossible.
> 
> How many lives were saved is something you totally want to ignore because you're bent demonizing America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not ignoring it, I am completely denying the need for an invasion once we had successfully tested the bomb
> 
> Weather, Japanese anti air defense, we would eventually get through
> Japan had no chance, once we got the bomb
> 
> We can rationalize that we saved millions of lives. But once we were the worlds sole nuclear power.....we had won
> 
> The question is.....Did we have to kill 150,000 people in order to show how strong we were
Click to expand...

peers so.


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it,  Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.
> 
> It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
> Our choice was how to use the bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?
> And then prolong the war???
> 
> I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
> You are, however, an expert on losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prevent what?
> They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority.
> 
> We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack
> 
> Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon
> 
> Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim
Click to expand...

You are serious dumbass.
How can you have air superiority when most of the pilots would have to ditch their aircraft in the ocean because of running out of fuel????


----------



## Camp

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it,  Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.
> 
> It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
> Our choice was how to use the bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?
> And then prolong the war???
> 
> I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
> You are, however, an expert on losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prevent what?
> They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority.
> 
> We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack
> 
> Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon
> 
> Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are serious dumbass.
> How can you have air superiority when most of the pilots would have to ditch their aircraft in the ocean because of running out of fuel????
Click to expand...

America was conducting huge air raids on Japanese cities and military targets. Aircraft were not being lost from lack of fuel. Aircraft damaged from AA headed toward Okinawa and the US Navy positioned scores of ships along the route for retrieving pilots who had to ditch. Supplies of long-range B-29's was not an issue.


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it,  Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.
> 
> It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
> Our choice was how to use the bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?
> And then prolong the war???
> 
> I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
> You are, however, an expert on losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prevent what?
> They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority.
> 
> We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack
> 
> Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon
> 
> Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are serious dumbass.
> How can you have air superiority when most of the pilots would have to ditch their aircraft in the ocean because of running out of fuel????
Click to expand...

We had almost unchallenged air superiority. Japan had run out of pilots, planes and fuel


----------



## Weatherman2020

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


1. Bloodiest battle was the tiny island of Okinawa at the end of the war. 

2. After Nagasaki the military attempted a coup of their Emperor to keep the war going. 

3. Fighting continued after Nagasaki because of the lack of surrender.


----------



## Camp

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it,  Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.
> 
> It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
> Our choice was how to use the bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?
> And then prolong the war???
> 
> I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
> You are, however, an expert on losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prevent what?
> They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority.
> 
> We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack
> 
> Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon
> 
> Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are serious dumbass.
> How can you have air superiority when most of the pilots would have to ditch their aircraft in the ocean because of running out of fuel????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had almost unchallenged air superiority. Japan had run out of pilots, planes and fuel
Click to expand...

They had run out of trained pilots, but after the surrender occupation forces found large numbers of aircraft hidden away in reserve for use by quickly trained pilots for kamikaze attacks on ships during the expected American invasion. Very little training or fuel was needed for kamikaze missions.


----------



## MarathonMike

Everyone remembers the Big Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the 120,000 people that died. That is a fraction of the total number of civilians who died during saturation bombings of Japanese cities before the atom bombs dropped. Could we have achieved the surrender of Japan with a different bombing strategy? Probably but there were also captured American pilots who were being murdered by the Japanese which was incredibly stupid and certainly provoked American military leadership to a no mercy bombing campaign. It's always easy to say we should have done this or that but like most things, it's complicated. >>>>>>>>

"From January 1944 until August 1945, the U.S. dropped 157,000 tons of bombs on *Japanese* cities, according to the U.S. Strategic *Bombing* Survey. It estimated that 333,000 people were *killed*, including the 80,000 *killed* in the Aug. 6 Hiroshima atomic bomb attack and 40,000 in Nagasaki three days later."


----------



## rightwinger

Camp said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it,  Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.
> 
> It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
> Our choice was how to use the bomb
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?
> And then prolong the war???
> 
> I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
> You are, however, an expert on losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prevent what?
> They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority.
> 
> We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack
> 
> Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon
> 
> Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are serious dumbass.
> How can you have air superiority when most of the pilots would have to ditch their aircraft in the ocean because of running out of fuel????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had almost unchallenged air superiority. Japan had run out of pilots, planes and fuel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had run out of trained pilots, but after the surrender occupation forces found large numbers of aircraft hidden away in reserve for use by quickly trained pilots for kamikaze attacks on ships during the expected American invasion. Very little training or fuel was needed for kamikaze missions.
Click to expand...

But the question was planes attacking our bombers
They did not meet heavy resistance


----------



## Anathema

mikegriffith1 said:


> ...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.


----------



## Weatherman2020

MarathonMike said:


> Everyone remembers the Big Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the 120,000 people that died. That is a fraction of the total number of civilians who died during saturation bombings of Japanese cities before the atom bombs dropped. Could we have achieved the surrender of Japan with a different bombing strategy? Probably but there were also captured American pilots who were being murdered by the Japanese which was incredibly stupid and certainly provoked American military leadership to a no mercy bombing campaign. It's always easy to say we should have done this or that but like most things, it's complicated. >>>>>>>>
> 
> "From January 1944 until August 1945, the U.S. dropped 157,000 tons of bombs on *Japanese* cities, according to the U.S. Strategic *Bombing* Survey. It estimated that 333,000 people were *killed*, including the 80,000 *killed* in the Aug. 6 Hiroshima atomic bomb attack and 40,000 in Nagasaki three days later."


The fire bombings were not any better than a nuke.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Anathema said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.
Click to expand...

I know guys who in the Pacific getting ready to die in the coming invasion of the mainland. Then they heard the news about the bomb and suddenly they couldn’t get their men to fight.  Nobody wants to be the last man to die in a war.


----------



## Camp

Weatherman2020 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know guys who in the Pacific getting ready to die in the coming invasion of the mainland. Then they heard the news about the bomb and suddenly they couldn’t get their men to fight.  Nobody wants to be the last man to die in a war.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Marines couldn't get their Marines to fight? If you are going to lie about Marines being unwilling to fight during WWII you should have some evidence for backing up your lie beside "I know some guys...".


----------



## Weatherman2020

Camp said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know guys who in the Pacific getting ready to die in the coming invasion of the mainland. Then they heard the news about the bomb and suddenly they couldn’t get their men to fight.  Nobody wants to be the last man to die in a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. Marines couldn't get their Marines to fight? If you are going to lie about Marines being unwilling to fight during WWII you should have some evidence for backing up your lie beside "I know some guys...".
Click to expand...

Direct testimony from three Marines. 

You think Marines want to die?  The war was over.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.





mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.
Click to expand...


----------



## Weatherman2020

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.
Click to expand...

So you do not approve of economic sanctions against nations conquering other nations for exploit of their resources or people. Interesting insight of you.

What of what Japan did to citizens they conquered?


----------



## Weatherman2020

JoeB131 said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese we're clearly told they had a chance to surrender BY THE ALLIES at potsdamn
> THey ignored it !!!
> The soviets were skunks and Finally joined the battle in between nukes ...how convenient
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets lost 20 million people fighting the Axis.
> 
> We lost 400,000.  You tell me who made greater sacrifices to end fascism.
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.
> 
> The thing few people talk about was how after the USSR got into it, the US dropped it's insistence on trying Hirohito as a war criminal, which he obviously was.  In fact, a massive whitewash was done after the war to make it look like Hirohito was this nice guy who just wanted to study marine biology and those mean old generals tricked him into a war.
Click to expand...

Most of the Soviets lost were civilians who were handed a stick and told to charge the German lines or be shot on the spot. 

Commies at their finest.


----------



## rightwinger

Anathema said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.
Click to expand...

Did it save lives?


----------



## Weatherman2020

rightwinger said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did it save lives?
Click to expand...

Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.


----------



## Anathema

rightwinger said:


> Did it save lives?



I believe it did. I cannot point to some study or survey for definitive proof, but I do believe the second bomb proved to the Japanese thst we could recreate the destructive force of Hiroshima and force them to accept unconditional surrender. Without the Nagasaki attack I’m not so sure they wouldn’t have continued to fight on for longer, until we did utilize the second device.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * By April 1945, if not earlier, Japan posed no threat to us. By that time, Japan had no ability to carry out offensive operations against us.



All you can do is cut/paste a Google search. Yse, you heard something somewhere that you believe but you really dont know anything about the war.

Japan was beat? Ready to surrender, yet they did not.

How many Americans did the Japanese kill after April 1945?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Wow, the myths being rolled out here are unreal. A few points:
> 
> * Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, etc., was mild compared to Chinese Communist rule, Soviet rule, and Nazi rule.


Wow! You really do not know anything. The Japanese were thee most horrific people on the planet. 

The rape of the Chinese capital was mild compared to what the Japanese did in Burma.

Mild? You dont know a fucking thing about this topic.


----------



## percysunshine

All poster who were alive in 1945...raise your hands...

Uh huh....


----------



## elektra

The fact of the matter is simple. The faster WW II could be ended, the better.

It was a horrific war. The torture and death beyond brutal.

The Japanese got much less than they deserved. The Japanese got much less than they gave.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



Revisionist history? I thought you were smarter than that.  I guess you are dumber than a libtard!


----------



## elektra

percysunshine said:


> All poster who were alive in 1945...raise your hands...
> 
> Uh huh....


All who died at the hands of the Japanese in WW II raise your hands.


----------



## harmonica

we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple


----------



## percysunshine

elektra said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> All poster who were alive in 1945...raise your hands...
> 
> Uh huh....
> 
> 
> 
> All who died at the hands of the Japanese in WW II raise your hands.
Click to expand...


So your point is that everyone is inventing opinions?


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> Truman was the only _real _advocate.  Stimson (sec of war) , along with the majority of top generals saw no need, nor any ending utilizing the bomb.
> 
> The real _negotiation _card was the Russians , Manchuria , the underlying economic inevitability , least of all the _public_ execution of the emperor , which would have been (at the time) akin to crucifying Christ in our culture.
> 
> ~S~



Where did you hear this, it is wrong.


----------



## elektra

percysunshine said:


> So your point is that everyone is inventing opinions?


??? I will say this slow so you can understand......
Your point is what? It seemed like a ridiculous comment with zero relevance on your part.


----------



## percysunshine

elektra said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your point is that everyone is inventing opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> ??? I will say this slow so you can understand......
> Your point is what? It seemed like a ridiculous comment with zero relevance on your part.
Click to expand...

Finally...we found an adult from 1945.


----------



## rightwinger

Weatherman2020 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did it save lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.
Click to expand...

I have already said a mainland invasion was unnecessary once we had the bomb. Why would we endure an invasion if we already had the a bomb

The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple


Why?

What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
Click to expand...

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

*and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC


----------



## anynameyouwish

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.




you must be a conservative.

you missed the actual point completely....


----------



## anynameyouwish

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



it seems (unsurprisingly) that conservatives miss the main point.

it was  IMMORAL to nuke a city.

period.

you nuke a military target....like an army or a navy....

NOT a city.


If the point was to get japan to surrender then wouldn't  they surrender just as fast if they lost an army to a nuke?


----------



## Anathema

rightwinger said:


> The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?



Irrelevant. In my mind it would have been acceptable to nuke every moderate or larger sized city in Japan as punishment for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities.


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it seems (unsurprisingly) that conservatives miss the main point.
> 
> it was  IMMORAL to nuke a city.
> 
> period.
> 
> you nuke a military target....like an army or a navy....
> 
> NOT a city.
> 
> 
> If the point was to get japan to surrender then wouldn't  they surrender just as fast if they lost an army to a nuke?
Click to expand...

with that post, you prove you are very *ignorant *of the subject
...they didn't have much of a navy--at all
...Japan is a SMALL island----compared to the US--there are not many places the military can be away from civilians
...the effect of destroying a small base compared to a whole city would be worthless

why????????!!!!!!!!! = as I said BEFORE-----the VOTE to surrender was TIED AFTER the bombings!!!
do you UNDERSTAND that??????!!!
even after the* cities *were destroyed-----they did NOT want to surrender
get it???


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it seems (unsurprisingly) that conservatives miss the main point.
> 
> it was  IMMORAL to nuke a city.
> 
> period.
> 
> you nuke a military target....like an army or a navy....
> 
> NOT a city.
> 
> 
> If the point was to get japan to surrender then wouldn't  they surrender just as fast if they lost an army to a nuke?
Click to expand...

'''or navy'''   hahahahhahahahah
they had no navy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Click to expand...

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?


----------



## anynameyouwish

Anathema said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. In my mind it would have been acceptable to nuke every moderate or larger sized city in Japan as punishment for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities.
Click to expand...



yes

that is your opinion


because you are a conservative

you have no empathy and you demand total destruction as payback....

you don't care that  the people you are slaughtering are really no different than you.

they didn't start the war
they probably didn't want the war
and if they supported it they did so out of patriotic duty the way you would


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
Click to expand...

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were *NOT surrendering*
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were *NOT surrendering*

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. In my mind it would have been acceptable to nuke every moderate or larger sized city in Japan as punishment for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes
> 
> that is your opinion
> 
> 
> because you are a conservative
> 
> you have no empathy and you demand total destruction as payback....
> 
> you don't care that  the people you are slaughtering are really no different than you.
> 
> they didn't start the war
> they probably didn't want the war
> and if they supported it they did so out of patriotic duty the way you would
Click to expand...

you prove ignorant of the subject-----they had NO navy


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
Click to expand...

so if we didn't invade--they would not surrender 
????!! and then?


----------



## candycorn

anynameyouwish said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must be a conservative.
> 
> you missed the actual point completely....
Click to expand...


Unlikely.  I just didn’t care that much.


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
Click to expand...

let me explain more:
....we had already killed hundreds of thousands and destroyed their cities with conventional bombs--and they were not surrendering -----


----------



## JoeB131

rightwinger said:


> Irrelevant
> The Soviets were not in very good shape militarily. They had lost millions of troops, supplies and logistics were a mess. Turning around and opening a new front was not going to happen overnight.



again, read about the Soviet campaign in Manchuria in August 1945.  They made short work of the Kwantung Army.


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
Click to expand...

There were plenty of targets

We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender. 
Terms are....next one hits Tokyo


----------



## elektra

percysunshine said:


> Finally...we found an adult from 1945.


Yes, and the name is books. I do not post my opinion.


----------



## rightwinger

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant
> The Soviets were not in very good shape militarily. They had lost millions of troops, supplies and logistics were a mess. Turning around and opening a new front was not going to happen overnight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, read about the Soviet campaign in Manchuria in August 1945.  They made short work of the Kwantung Army.
Click to expand...

The Soviets could have hit Manchuria whether or not we had nuked Japan


----------



## Anathema

anynameyouwish said:


> yes
> 
> that is your opinion
> 
> because you are a conservative
> 
> you have no empathy and you demand total destruction as payback....
> 
> you don't care that  the people you are slaughtering are really no different than you.
> 
> they didn't start the war
> they probably didn't want the war
> and if they supported it they did so out of patriotic duty the way you would



You were totally correct until you got to the part about them not being any different from me. 

They are different... culturally, racially, and most importantly as the losers of the war. A war they didn’t stop, started by a Government they didn’t overthrow. In life, no matter what the situation, the Winners write the history and the losers suffer the pains of their defeat. I know thst paradigm all too well in this lifetime, though thankfully not on the level of the Japanese people after WWII. 

That’s why I never start a fight I can’t win and never fight fair when I do start one. In life it is better to not have played the game than to lose it.


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let me explain more:
> ....we had already killed hundreds of thousands and destroyed their cities with conventional bombs--and they were not surrendering -----
Click to expand...


But it was a nuclear bomb that convinced them

Japan was capable of figuring out that the balance of power had changed


----------



## percysunshine

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant
> The Soviets were not in very good shape militarily. They had lost millions of troops, supplies and logistics were a mess. Turning around and opening a new front was not going to happen overnight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, read about the Soviet campaign in Manchuria in August 1945.  They made short work of the Kwantung Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Soviets could have hit Manchuria whether or not we had nuked Japan
Click to expand...

Their entire population was in Germany and Poland


----------



## elektra

rightwinger said:


> There were plenty of targets
> 
> We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
> Terms are....next one hits Tokyo


Nope, there were only the effective targets. There was no guarantee the bomb would of worked, anywhere. Had it failed, then what? What if Japan did not believe the documentation. Then a bomb in which we only had two is lost. Another 30 days? While we are winning? In a fight, or war, you never stop until defeat is achieved. Too much can go wrong.

Either way, it was considered. We can refer to what the Secretary of War wrote on the matter.

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf


> In reaching these conclusions the Interim Committee carefully considered such alternatives as a detailed advance warning or a demonstration in some uninhabited area. Both of these suggestions were discarded as impractical. They were not regarded as likely to be effective in compelling a surrender of Japan, and both of them involved serious risks. Even the New Mexico test would not give final proof that any given bomb was certain to explode when dropped from an airplane. Quite apart from the generally unfamiliar nature of atomic explosives, there was the whole problem of exploding a bomb at a predetermined height in the air by a complicated mechanism which could not be tested in the static test of New Mexico. Nothing would have been more damaging to our effort to obtain surrender than a warningor a demonstration followed by a dud––and this was a real possibility. Furthermore, we had no bombs to waste. It was vital that a sufficient effect be quickly obtained with the few we had



As you can see, I do not post my opinion. I also have this in Stimson's book.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Wow, the myths being rolled out here are unreal. A few points:
> 
> * Anyone who thinks Japan's move in China was pure aggression has only read one side of the story.



No, there really is no other side.  Japan had no business being in China. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, etc., was mild compared to Chinese Communist rule, Soviet rule, and Nazi rule.



No, it really wasn't.   Maybe you need to talk to Koreans or Chinese about how they felt about it... Mass exterminations, the systematic rape of "comfort women". 



mikegriffith1 said:


> * WEEKS before Hiroshima, we knew--we absolutely knew--from numerous Japanese intercepts and human sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, and even many senior military leaders, were willing to surrender if we would just clarify the "unconditional surrender" terms to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in such a surrender.
> 
> * Instead, Truman seemed intent on doing all he could to help the Japanese hardliners who were opposing surrender, at every single turn.



Or maybe he legitimately felt that Hirohito should answer for his part in War Crimes.  



mikegriffith1 said:


> * Truth be told, we ignored the clear evidence that Japan was willing to surrender weeks earlier on acceptable terms because many folks in our government were determined to test the atomic bomb on live targets in Japan. That is the shameful truth.



Depends what you consider "acceptable Terms".   Every conference  - Cairo, Tehran, Yalta, Potsdam - agreed that NOTHING LESS than UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER was acceptable.  

Remember, a lot of people felt the reason why we had this war was because at the end of WWI, Germany was allowed to sign an armistice and spread a lie that they had been betrayed, not that they had been defeated on the battlefield. 

It had to be made crystal clear to the Axis powers they had lost.


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were plenty of targets
> 
> We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
> Terms are....next one hits Tokyo
Click to expand...

30 days????!!!!!!!!!!!
it would mean nothing
that was one of the thoughts----a remote island---but it would mean nothing because it would not have near the amount of infrastructure of a city 
....if they weren't surrendering after a city is destroyed--or  ALL of their major cities ----they certainly would not have after a remote island was destroyed


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> It was a combination of both. I posted the link. Do fuck yourself you antisemitic asshole.



You can post whatever links you want..  The A-bombs just weren't all that impressive (small compared to today's bombs).  The fact that 100 new battled hardened divisions of Rape-y Soviets just showed up on their western flank did.


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were plenty of targets
> 
> We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
> Terms are....next one hits Tokyo
Click to expand...

30 days!!!
you --ALSO--are in TV land/movie land and not reality
you people are not thinking in realistic terms
the war had been going on for over 3 and a half years !!!!


----------



## JoeB131

Weatherman2020 said:


> Most of the Soviets lost were civilians who were handed a stick and told to charge the German lines or be shot on the spot.
> 
> Commies at their finest.



Um, yeah, given the Germans were going to turn them into lampshades and bars of soap, they didn't need that much coaxing. 

By 1945, they were battle-hardened divisions...  Ones that raped the crap out of Germany and were looking for more in Japan. 



Weatherman2020 said:


> Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.



Actually, not really.  Most of the hard-core divisions were deployed in China or had been lost in the Pacific.  What they had left in Japan were the reserves, not well armed, not well trained.


----------



## harmonica

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the Soviets lost were civilians who were handed a stick and told to charge the German lines or be shot on the spot.
> 
> Commies at their finest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, given the Germans were going to turn them into lampshades and bars of soap, they didn't need that much coaxing.
> 
> By 1945, they were battle-hardened divisions...  Ones that raped the crap out of Germany and were looking for more in Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, not really.  Most of the hard-core divisions were deployed in China or had been lost in the Pacific.  What they had left in Japan were the reserves, not well armed, not well trained.
Click to expand...

defense does not take much training at all compared to offense
you are ignorant on the subject also


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> You can post whatever links you want..  The A-bombs just weren't all that impressive (small compared to today's bombs).  The fact that 100 new battled hardened divisions of Rape-y Soviets just showed up on their western flank did.


Not impressive? 
Color TV, would of been very impressive in 1945. Hell, any TV would of been impressive in1945.
Stereo, that would of been impressive in 1945.
A refrigerator was impressive in 1945.

The A-Bombs? Thee most impressive bomb ever seen at that time, by a factor of a million. 

The Japanese surrendered well before the Soviets actually killed anybody in China.


----------



## anynameyouwish

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
Click to expand...


nuked an army or a navy....

heck....both.

if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....


now you see em....

now ya don't!


now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nuked an army or a navy....
> 
> heck....both.
> 
> if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
> 
> 
> now you see em....
> 
> now ya don't!
> 
> 
> now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
Click to expand...

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean


----------



## anynameyouwish

harmonica said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. In my mind it would have been acceptable to nuke every moderate or larger sized city in Japan as punishment for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes
> 
> that is your opinion
> 
> 
> because you are a conservative
> 
> you have no empathy and you demand total destruction as payback....
> 
> you don't care that  the people you are slaughtering are really no different than you.
> 
> they didn't start the war
> they probably didn't want the war
> and if they supported it they did so out of patriotic duty the way you would
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you prove ignorant of the subject-----they had NO navy
Click to expand...



(sigh)....(cons....such morons....)


they had little left in the way of a military, that is true, but they still had forces.

or....

if they had no army or navy left then there was no reason to drop those nukes....

the allies could  have just waltzed in and taken over without killing anyone....

oh...

wait....


i forgot....

you WANT to kill people....


you LIKE killing people.....


you are a conservative.....


----------



## anynameyouwish

harmonica said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> 
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nuked an army or a navy....
> 
> heck....both.
> 
> if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
> 
> 
> now you see em....
> 
> now ya don't!
> 
> 
> now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
Click to expand...



if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.

other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> 
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nuked an army or a navy....
> 
> heck....both.
> 
> if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
> 
> 
> now you see em....
> 
> now ya don't!
> 
> 
> now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
> 
> other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
Click to expand...

MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> 
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nuked an army or a navy....
> 
> heck....both.
> 
> if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
> 
> 
> now you see em....
> 
> now ya don't!
> 
> 
> now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
> 
> other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
Click to expand...

you do realize you made yourself look--and are--stupid by mentioning the navy?


----------



## Unkotare

Billy_Kinetta said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recall that they attacked us.
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves.  There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.
> 
> Did the bomb end the war?  Undoubtedly, and that was the intent.  I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.
Click to expand...





 That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean


You are partially right. The Japanese indeed did have a navy. And much of it was under water, just not at the bottom of the sea. The USS Indianapolis is proof of that. 900 sailors lost their lives when the Japanese Navy sank the USS Indianapolis on July 30th, 1945. How many more ships could the Japanese Navy sink?


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> 
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nuked an army or a navy....
> 
> heck....both.
> 
> if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
> 
> 
> now you see em....
> 
> now ya don't!
> 
> 
> now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
> 
> other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
> not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country
Click to expand...



“Would”?

Propaganda works so well on the feeble-minded that it still has an effect over 70 years later.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.


Helpless? They had the protection of the Japanese Military? They also had the option of fleeing. It was pretty clear that living in cities with the military was a pretty dangerous thing. We also dropped leaflets warning them. 

Morally speaking, it is moral to win a war one did not start as quick as possible.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Unkotare said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recall that they attacked us.
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves.  There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.
> 
> Did the bomb end the war?  Undoubtedly, and that was the intent.  I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.
Click to expand...


A moot point.  It performed as intended.


----------



## whitehall

The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.


----------



## Unkotare

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recall that they attacked us.
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves.  There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.
> 
> Did the bomb end the war?  Undoubtedly, and that was the intent.  I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A moot point.  It performed as intended.
Click to expand...



The intention was for the bloodsucking fdr to annihilate hundreds of thousands of civilians.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sparky said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope
> 
> they knew they were done, and were negotiating
> 
> the Russians were a huge part of that
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

LOL negotiating their offer was a cease fire return to dec 41 start lines except in China no concessions there and no troops in Japan. You people are beyond stupid when you listen to revisionist stories about how Japan was gonna surrender, lets talk FACTS shall we? After 2 Atomic Bombs the Government REFUSED to surrender. the Emperor over rode them and then the Army staged a Coup to stop that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

whitehall said:


> The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.


That is a bald faced LIE, ALL the Japanese ever offered was Ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with no concessions in China.


----------



## Anathema

whitehall said:


> ... God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.



I’m more than happy to have it on my Soul as an American.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a combination of both. I posted the link. Do fuck yourself you antisemitic asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can post whatever links you want..  The A-bombs just weren't all that impressive (small compared to today's bombs).  The fact that 100 new battled hardened divisions of Rape-y Soviets just showed up on their western flank did.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is meaningless to me. I hope you are offended


----------



## sparky

RetiredGySgt said:


> You people are beyond stupid when you listen to revisionist stories about how Japan was gonna surrender, lets talk FACTS shall we



Sure

Truman was as racist as a human being could get, used the N word , and considered Asians _below_ the N word

Manchuria ,along with Japans back yard was up for grabs

And the Russians , who offe'd their OWN czar, would have thought nothing of publicly executing an emperor 

Now the Japanese did have quite the squabble among higher up's after Fat man and Little boy debuted, but it was all about a surrender negotiation that had BEEN on the table, vs. one they (the bomb) created for them

~S~


----------



## Weatherman2020

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the Soviets lost were civilians who were handed a stick and told to charge the German lines or be shot on the spot.
> 
> Commies at their finest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, given the Germans were going to turn them into lampshades and bars of soap, they didn't need that much coaxing.
> 
> By 1945, they were battle-hardened divisions...  Ones that raped the crap out of Germany and were looking for more in Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, not really.  Most of the hard-core divisions were deployed in China or had been lost in the Pacific.  What they had left in Japan were the reserves, not well armed, not well trained.
Click to expand...

It would have made Fallujah look like a playground.


----------



## Weatherman2020

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade



Correct. That’s why we kept bombing until they said uncle.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are beyond stupid when you listen to revisionist stories about how Japan was gonna surrender, lets talk FACTS shall we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure
> 
> Truman was as racist as a human being could get, used the N word , and considered Asians _below_ the N word
> 
> Manchuria ,along with Japans back yard was up for grabs
> 
> And the Russians , who offe'd their OWN czar, would have thought nothing of publicly executing an emperor
> 
> Now the Japanese did have quite the squabble among higher up's after Fat man and Little boy debuted, but it was all about a surrender negotiation that had BEEN on the table, vs. one they (the bomb) created for them
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Oh my God, Truman used the N word? That would make the Democrats racist! I guess we can not argue there. 

The Japanese? Too vague in relation to the facts of history. 

What was on the table? Care to enlighten us so that there is at least a bit of revisionist history to converse about.


----------



## Weatherman2020

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> we've been over this a million times
> it was necessary -- plain and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were plenty of targets
> 
> We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
> Terms are....next one hits Tokyo
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> There were plenty of targets



Nope. Most of Japan infrastructure was fire bombed to ashes at that point.


----------



## sparky

elektra said:


> Truman used the N word





> “I think one man is just as good as another,” he said, “as long as he’s honest and decent and not a ****** or a Chinaman.”



The Conversion Of Harry Truman | AMERICAN HERITAGE

~S~


----------



## sparky

elektra said:


> What was on the table? Care to enlighten us so that there is at least a bit of revisionist history to converse about.




~S~


----------



## Weatherman2020

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truman used the N word
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “I think one man is just as good as another,” he said, “as long as he’s honest and decent and not a ****** or a Chinaman.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Conversion Of Harry Truman | AMERICAN HERITAGE
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

The n word then was as common as black is today.


----------



## elektra

Henry Stimson, Secretary of War

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf



> My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.


----------



## whitehall

RetiredGySgt said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bald faced LIE, ALL the Japanese ever offered was Ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with no concessions in China.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a "cease fire" be good enough to prevent the innocent citizens of two cities from becoming the victims of the horrors of the worst nightmare in the 20th century and beyond? The dirty little secret is that the egg heads who developed the monstrosity were desperate to see how effective it would be on humans and the Japanese were the likely targets and little timid dumb Harry Truman was the ideal guy to sign the order. Don't worry about your legacy Harry, the mainstream media will take care of it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

whitehall said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a bald faced LIE, ALL the Japanese ever offered was Ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with no concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wouldn't a "cease fire" be good enough to prevent the innocent citizens of two cities from becoming the victims of the horrors of the worst nightmare in the 20th century and beyond? The dirty little secret is that the egg heads who developed the monstrosity were desperate to see how effective it would be on humans and the Japanese were the likely targets and little timid dumb Harry Truman was the ideal guy to sign the order. Don't worry about your legacy Harry, the mainstream media will take care of it.
Click to expand...

So after 4 years of bloody war with MILLIONS dead we should just forgive the Japanese and leave them alone ohh and allow them to continue to ravage China..... Good god you ARE stupid.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truman used the N word
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “I think one man is just as good as another,” he said, “as long as he’s honest and decent and not a ****** or a Chinaman.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Conversion Of Harry Truman | AMERICAN HERITAGE
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

No quote of what is relevant?


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was on the table? Care to enlighten us so that there is at least a bit of revisionist history to converse about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

This video explains that truman used the bomb as just another piece of artillery. Simply the biggest bomb, not so different than any other large weapon we could use. The video also explains that the japanese were not going to surrender until the bomb got dropped on hiroshima, which changed the emperors mind. The video then explains the 2nd bomb was needed to convince the Japanese military. I dont have time to listen the part that explains revisionist history so I can not comment on that. Surprisingly, the bits I did listen certainly confirm my posts.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
> 
> http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.
Click to expand...


That is obscenely absurd and revisionist. Stimson didn't even really write that article. He was pressured into "writing" it, and then his "draft" was heavily edited by others. By the time he "wrote" it, he was quite ill.

Months before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already prostrate, starving, and virtually powerless. The home islands were cut off from China. The Japanese people were approaching the point of starvation. Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attacks. Consider:

-- 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.

-- By October 1944, many new fighter pilots were being trained with films instead of live flight training in order to save fuel:

The Toho Motion Picture Company constructed a lake in Setagaya and filled it with six-foot models of U.S. warships. Atop a tower a movie camera on a boom took pictures of the vessels from various angles, simulating different speeds of approach. These films were shown as a substitute for flight training in order to save fuel. (John Toland, _The Rising Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, _New York: Random House, 2003 Modern Library Paperback Edition, p. 536)​
-- 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. Many 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 Navy’s 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 air force 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 and the Air Force. 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 in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.

Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.

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)​
So this nonsense that we had to use nukes to "save hundreds of thousands of lives" is gross revisionism of the basest kind. Again, weeks before Hiroshima, we knew from multiple sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that their only condition was that the emperor not be deposed, which was exactly the arrangement that we later accepted--after we had nuked two cities.


----------



## Unkotare

The conditions offered were the same ones we ultimately accepted after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
> 
> http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is obscenely absurd and revisionist. Stimson didn't even really write that article. He was pressured into "writing" it, and then his "draft" was heavily edited by others. By the time he "wrote" it, he was quite ill.
> 
> Months before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already prostrate, starving, and virtually powerless. The home islands were cut off from China. The Japanese people were approaching the point of starvation. Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attacks. Consider:
> 
> -- 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.
> 
> -- By October 1944, many new fighter pilots were being trained with films instead of live flight training in order to save fuel:
> 
> The Toho Motion Picture Company constructed a lake in Setagaya and filled it with six-foot models of U.S. warships. Atop a tower a movie camera on a boom took pictures of the vessels from various angles, simulating different speeds of approach. These films were shown as a substitute for flight training in order to save fuel. (John Toland, _The Rising Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, _New York: Random House, 2003 Modern Library Paperback Edition, p. 536)​
> -- 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. Many 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 Navy’s 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 air force 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 and the Air Force. 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 in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.
> 
> 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)​
> So this nonsense that we had to use nukes to "save hundreds of thousands of lives" is gross revisionism of the basest kind. Again, weeks before Hiroshima, we knew from multiple sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that their only condition was that the emperor not be deposed, which was exactly the arrangement that we later accepted--after we had nuked two cities.
Click to expand...

Nice cut and paste. Fortunate for me, I have many books to rely on. I actually bought them cause so many people cherry picked I thought how great it would be to see the stuff in proper context.

I wonder if th here is ac mt truth in what you ssd's tate?

Japan was already beat, ssf starving  Helpless? Virtually powerless?

Yet they fought the battle of Okinawa literally 2 months after you claim the Japanese were beat. By June 22nd, months after you claim the Japanese are powerless, they kill 14,000 of our men?

End of July they kill 900 sailors 

Beaten, ready to surrender, but still killing thousands?

You are more than a bit wrong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
> 
> http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is obscenely absurd and revisionist. Stimson didn't even really write that article. He was pressured into "writing" it, and then his "draft" was heavily edited by others. By the time he "wrote" it, he was quite ill.
> 
> Months before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already prostrate, starving, and virtually powerless. The home islands were cut off from China. The Japanese people were approaching the point of starvation. Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attacks. Consider:
> 
> -- 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.
> 
> -- By October 1944, many new fighter pilots were being trained with films instead of live flight training in order to save fuel:
> 
> The Toho Motion Picture Company constructed a lake in Setagaya and filled it with six-foot models of U.S. warships. Atop a tower a movie camera on a boom took pictures of the vessels from various angles, simulating different speeds of approach. These films were shown as a substitute for flight training in order to save fuel. (John Toland, _The Rising Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, _New York: Random House, 2003 Modern Library Paperback Edition, p. 536)​
> -- 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. Many 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 Navy’s 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 air force 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 and the Air Force. 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 in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.
> 
> 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)​
> So this nonsense that we had to use nukes to "save hundreds of thousands of lives" is gross revisionism of the basest kind. Again, weeks before Hiroshima, we knew from multiple sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that their only condition was that the emperor not be deposed, which was exactly the arrangement that we later accepted--after we had nuked two cities.
Click to expand...

Again for the slow and amazingly STUPID Japan WOULD NOT surrender. We were faced with an invasion that would probably have killed 6 million Japanese and we would have lost a million troops. Again the FACTS after 2 ATOMIC Bombs the Government oif Japan REFUSED to surrender, they REFUSED. The Emperor over rode them and order the surrender and the response from the Army was an attempted Coup to stop that from happening.

Even assuming we did not invade in November, the winter months would have killed millions of starving and freezing Japanese citizens. And the Army which ran the Government DID NOT CARE.

The only terms they offered were a ceasefire return to 41 start Lines except in China where they offered no concessions and NO disarmament, no troops in Japan and NO sacking of the Emperor.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> The conditions offered were the same ones we ultimately accepted after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.


.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions offered were the same ones we ultimately accepted after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No they were not dumb ass.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions offered were the same ones we ultimately accepted after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not dumb ass.
Click to expand...



Tell it to General MacArthur, revisionist.


----------



## HenryBHough

So many Jap sympathizers who should be in internment camps even to this day.,  Rooseveldt had it right but Truman failed to carry through.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions offered were the same ones we ultimately accepted after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell it to General MacArthur, revisionist.
Click to expand...


Be very specific and link to a document FROM Japan to the US BEFORE August 9 1945 that offered to surrender with only one demand that the Emperor be maintained.


----------



## Vandalshandle

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



So Solly, Japan.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Reread the documents OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS from this event, The Emperor offered to surrender under one condition after Hiroshima, that he remain Emperor God and Ruler of all Japan. He did this IN OPPOSITION to the Government leaders that had 4 demands , one of which was NO OCCUPATION and another was voluntary disarmament. The sole condition the Emperor demand was NOT acceptable to Washington and the second bomb was dropped after which again the Government of Japan REFUSED to surrender and the Emperor over rode them and accepted Unconditional surrender. In response the Army staged a Coup to prevent the Emperor from making the announcement but were stopped.  The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> So many Jap sympathizers who should be in internment camps even to this day.,  Rooseveldt [sic] had it right but Truman failed to carry through.




Had what right?


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions offered were the same ones we ultimately accepted after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell it to General MacArthur, revisionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be very specific and link to a document FROM Japan to the US BEFORE August 9 1945 that offered to surrender with only one demand that the Emperor be maintained.
Click to expand...



You have had mountains of evidence and page after page of documents presented to you only to have you go into Rain Man mode and stay there repeating your revision of over and over and over. Take it up with General MacArthur, Rain Man.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions offered were the same ones we ultimately accepted after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell it to General MacArthur, revisionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be very specific and link to a document FROM Japan to the US BEFORE August 9 1945 that offered to surrender with only one demand that the Emperor be maintained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have had mountains of evidence and page after page of documents presented to you only to have you go into Rain Man mode and stay there repeating your revision of over and over and over. Take it up with General MacArthur, Rain Man.
Click to expand...

You have not EVER linked to an official document EVER, what you have linked to are memoirs and opinion pieces. I have OFFICIAL Japanese intercept documents and US Government documents. Either link to an official document or admit you are full of SHIT.


----------



## Unkotare

General MacArthur is awaiting your call, Rain Man.


----------



## Andylusion

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



No, pretty much every Japanese person I've talked to, said that the nuking of both helped end the war.

What most of the people who want to sit around and blather about how bad the nukes where, what all of you miss, is that we were fire bombing these people.

Do you want fire bombing is?   It's where you set so much of a city on fire, that the fire fuels itself and incinerates most of the of the population.

If you ask me, which death I would prefer... I'll take getting vaporized in a nuke, over slowly roasting alive in a mass inferno.

We had pilots come back from these mission so traumatized by these human infernos, that they said in their late 70s and 80s, that they couldn't stand the smell of a BBQ, or camp fire, because it brought back the memories of the smell of burning human flesh, that they in the planes could smell.

These fire bomb missions were beyond horrific.   In fact, many of the people in congress that approved of the nukes, did so specifically because they were horrified by the fire bomb missions they were doing.

But you have to keep this in the context of the broader war with Japan.  We had just fought on islands where Japanese soldiers that were starving, and unsupported, and dug in so deep, we had to use flame throwers to burn them out.  Out of tens of thousands of soldiers, barely a thousand surrendered, even when they no longer had ammunition, they were coming out with grenades to blow our people, and themselves up.   On top of that, a hundred thousands civilians caught in the crossfire were killed.   Throw in there waves of suicide bombers flying themselves into ships....

If all that does not make you understand why nukes were necessary.... Look at this....






The Japanese military was training girls..... school girls.... to attack US soldiers with pitch forks and polls.

I simply do not even have the ability to understand the psychological damage that would have happened on BOTH sides... if we had not dropped those bombs, and if our soldiers had landed on Japanese soil, and been forced to mow down school girls with pitch forks.....

It is beyond my ability to understand how much damage would have been done to the Japanese to have their daughters and young boys slaughtered by our military... or how many of our own men would have been utterly mentally destroyed having to choose between their own lives, and the lives of these young girls.

So when you sit here and question in retrospect whether or not a nuclear bomb should or should not have been dropped... you need to look at it through THEIR EYES.... IN THEIR TIME.   Pretty easy for you in your comfy chair, at your computer, in your air conditioned home, to say that they should have acted differently, when you would never have to step over the bodies of the dead soldiers who did not fire, and the bodies of the young girls shot by those that did.... and explain to future generations that you did have a couple of bombs that might have ended the war, but decided to not use them.... you know because that would be horrible.

The two atomic bombs together killed roughly 200,000 people.

I for one, based on what I've read, and first hand accounts of Japan leading up to, and during WW2... am I absolutely convinced that millions would have died if Japan had refused to surrender, and we had landed on the mainland in a state of war.   Millions.  Guaranteed.

If you want to learn more about it, read a book called Hiroshima by John Hersey.   In it, at one point a group of women is in a build that is hit by the bomb.  The woman are trapped under the rubble, and start singing a song about them working in service to the Emperor.  The lone surviving woman, talks about how each voice in the dozen of women, dies out one by one, singing to the Emperor to their last breath.    These are people who were ready, willing, and trained to die for the Emperor.

The bombs were required.  They just were.  I'm so glad the men in charge were willing to do it, so that we could save Japan.  They would have fought us until there was nothing left of us, or them, if we had not.


----------



## Unkotare

What an absolute load of crap. "All the Japanese people I have spoken to" = fabricated bullshit. Pilots dropping incendiary bombs unable to BBQ because of the smell of burning flesh - as they flew by high and fast = poor fiction. Kids 'training' with bamboo spears was meant to be propaganda for domestic consumption to bolster rapidly waning public support for an obviously lost cause. That you are still swallowing propaganda that wasn't even meant for you over 70 years ago suggests you are a remarkably gullible buffoon.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> General MacArthur is awaiting your call, Rain Man.


LINK? to something other then an un sourced book.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> What an absolute load of crap. "All the Japanese people I have spoken to" = fabricated bullshit. Pilots dropping incendiary bombs unable to BBQ because of the smell of burning flesh - as they flew by high and fast = poor fiction. Kids 'training' with bamboo spears was meant to be propaganda for domestic consumption to bolster rapidly waning public support for an obviously lost cause. That you are still swallowing propaganda that wasn't even meant for you over 70 years ago suggests you are a remarkably gullible buffoon.


YOU LYIMG PIECE of human excrement, the Japanese REFUSED to surrender I have documents to prove it, they also cut bamboo and made bamboo spears fpr the civilian population to human wave attack the invaders that is NOT propaganda they were training them to do it.


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight


----------



## JoeB131

harmonica said:


> defense does not take much training at all compared to offense
> you are ignorant on the subject also



I was in the army for 11 years...  How about you?  Let me guess, you probably wet yourself when you realized you might have to shower with negroes.


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Your opinion is meaningless to me. I hope you are offended



Your opinion is meaningless to everyone because as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight



Um, no, they were already willing to surrender.  We just refused to let them do it on their terms until Russia entered the war and we realized we might have to share the spoils of war.


----------



## JoeB131

Weatherman2020 said:


> It would have made Fallujah look like a playground.



Says who?  These figures that came out saying, "Millions of Casualties" didn't come out until the war and the government had to justify why it vaporized hundreds of thousands of civilians.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> I for one, based on what I've read, and first hand accounts of Japan leading up to, and during WW2... am I absolutely convinced that millions would have died if Japan had refused to surrender, and we had landed on the mainland in a state of war. Millions. Guaranteed.



That's nice. 

The reality. Japan was out of war materials, most of their Navy was sunk, they had expended all their aircraft as Kamikazes to very little effect, and most of their experienced Army divisions were trapped in China.  

SOOOOOOO, what they had were civilians with pitchforks. They were desperate to surrender, and that's what they did once the USSR got into it and they had no chance for a negotiated settlement that allowed them to keep some of their colonies.


----------



## miketx

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one, based on what I've read, and first hand accounts of Japan leading up to, and during WW2... am I absolutely convinced that millions would have died if Japan had refused to surrender, and we had landed on the mainland in a state of war. Millions. Guaranteed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> The reality. Japan was out of war materials, most of their Navy was sunk, they had expended all their aircraft as Kamikazes to very little effect, and most of their experienced Army divisions were trapped in China.
> 
> SOOOOOOO, what they had were civilians with pitchforks. They were desperate to surrender, and that's what they did once the USSR got into it and they had no chance for a negotiated settlement that allowed them to keep some of their colonies.
Click to expand...

Prove it liar.


----------



## mikegriffith1

I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city. 

We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric, but in the Pacific War we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in our air raids on Japanese cities.

As for Japanese occupation, go read Hildi Kang's book _Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945_. Kang interviewed a large group of Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea and was rather stunned to discover that most of them never experienced cruelty and that quite a few of them said they had no problems with the Japanese. Yes, there were some cases of abuse and cruelty, but these were the exception, not the rule.

Or, read General Elliott Thorpe's book _East Wind, Rain. _Thorpe was very critical of the Japanese, but even he was willing to admit that the Japanese treated Dutch prisoners from Java better than Sukarno's soldiers treated them.

When the Japanese took over Korea, they spent billions of dollars building schools, bridges, power grids, water works, roads, etc. Korea's economy improved tremendously under the Japanese, thanks to these investments.

Similarly, when the Japanese took over Manchuria, they invested billions in infrastructure. Under Japanese rule, Manchuria became an economic miracle and attracted workers from all over Asia because word got out that there were jobs to be had there. Before the Japanese came to Manchuria, the region had been divided into tribal areas ruled by warlords. One of the reasons the Japanese moved on Manchuria was that the Soviets were trying to bring Communism to the region. The Japanese were fiercely anti-communist and pro-private property.

Now, was Japanese rule in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan identical to American rule in the Philippines? No, it was not. But, it was a whole lot better than Chinese Communist rule, Nazi rule, and Soviet rule.


----------



## Weatherman2020

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would have made Fallujah look like a playground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?  These figures that came out saying, "Millions of Casualties" didn't come out until the war and the government had to justify why it vaporized hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Click to expand...

Do you not know many fighting us on the islands were civilians?


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.



It would have been better if we nuked those heathen Buddhists? 

Again, at the time, it was seen as "just another weapon".  70 million people had died on all sides at that point. 







The rest of your post is a lot of apologetic nonsense.  

Anti-Japanese sentiment in China - Wikipedia

According to a 2017 BBC World Service Poll, mainland Chinese people hold the largest anti-Japanese sentiment in the world, with 75% of Chinese people viewing Japan's influence negatively, and 22% expressing a positive view. Anti-Japanese sentiment in China was at its highest in 2014 since the poll was first conducted in 2006 and was up 16 percent over the previous year

Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea - Wikipedia

The origins of anti-Japanese attitudes in Korea can be traced back to the effects of Japanese pirate raids and later to the 1592−98 Japanese invasions of Korea. Sentiments in contemporary society are largely attributed to the Japanese rule in Korea from 1910–45. According to a BBC World Service Poll conducted in 2013, 67% of South Koreans view Japan's influence negatively, and 21% express a positive view, making South Korea, behind mainland China, the country with the second most negative feelings of Japan in the world.[1]

sorry these folks don't sound particularly grateful...


----------



## JoeB131

Weatherman2020 said:


> Do you not know many fighting us on the islands were civilians?



Irrelevant to the point.  I mean, yeah, it freaked the Marines out when they committed suicide, but they weren't a military threat.


----------



## Weatherman2020

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not know many fighting us on the islands were civilians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to the point.  I mean, yeah, it freaked the Marines out when they committed suicide, but they weren't a military threat.
Click to expand...

And neither is an 11 year old with a vest, nonetheless as we see in Afghanistan and Iraq peace is unobtainable.


----------



## Weatherman2020

mikegriffith1 said:


> I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.
> 
> We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric, but in the Pacific War we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in our air raids on Japanese cities.
> 
> As for Japanese occupation, go read Hildi Kang's book _Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945_. Kang interviewed a large group of Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea and was rather stunned to discover that most of them never experienced cruelty and that quite a few of them said they had no problems with the Japanese. Yes, there were some cases of abuse and cruelty, but these were the exception, not the rule.
> 
> Or, read General Elliott Thorpe's book _East Wind, Rain. _Thorpe was very critical of the Japanese, but even he was willing to admit that the Japanese treated Dutch prisoners from Java better than Sukarno's soldiers treated them.
> 
> When the Japanese took over Korea, they spent billions of dollars building schools, bridges, power grids, water works, roads, etc. Korea's economy improved tremendously under the Japanese, thanks to these investments.
> 
> Similarly, when the Japanese took over Manchuria, they invested billions in infrastructure. Under Japanese rule, Manchuria became an economic miracle and attracted workers from all over Asia because word got out that there were jobs to be had there. Before the Japanese came to Manchuria, the region had been divided into tribal areas ruled by warlords. One of the reasons the Japanese moved on Manchuria was that the Soviets were trying to bring Communism to the region. The Japanese were fiercely anti-communist and pro-private property.
> 
> Now, was Japanese rule in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan identical to American rule in the Philippines? No, it was not. But, it was a whole lot better than Chinese Communist rule, Nazi rule, and Soviet rule.


Our POW’s appreciated the expedited plan, especially considering many were being murdered to eliminate them as war crime witnesses.


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been better if we nuked those heathen Buddhists?
> 
> Again, at the time, it was seen as "just another weapon".  70 million people had died on all sides at that point.
Click to expand...


You don't kill another batch of tens of thousands of civilians of an enemy who you know wants to surrender and who is virtually defenseless and starving. That is just basic human decency, and it is sad that you can't grasp that. 



> The rest of your post is a lot of apologetic nonsense.



No, it is not. It is a presentation of fact.



> Anti-Japanese sentiment in China - Wikipedia
> 
> According to a 2017 BBC World Service Poll, mainland Chinese people hold the largest anti-Japanese sentiment in the world, with 75% of Chinese people viewing Japan's influence negatively, and 22% expressing a positive view. Anti-Japanese sentiment in China was at its highest in 2014 since the poll was first conducted in 2006 and was up 16 percent over the previous year
> 
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea - Wikipedia
> 
> The origins of anti-Japanese attitudes in Korea can be traced back to the effects of Japanese pirate raids and later to the 1592−98 Japanese invasions of Korea. Sentiments in contemporary society are largely attributed to the Japanese rule in Korea from 1910–45. According to a BBC World Service Poll conducted in 2013, 67% of South Koreans view Japan's influence negatively, and 21% express a positive view, making South Korea, behind mainland China, the country with the second most negative feelings of Japan in the world.[1]
> 
> sorry these folks don't sound particularly grateful...



Well, yeah, given the fact that the Chinese Communists have long been brainwashing the Chinese people with anti-Japanese propaganda, I'm not a bit surprised by those numbers. 

South Korea's anti-Japanese propaganda has not been as bad or as pervasive as China's, which perhaps explains the difference in the survey numbers. Another fact to keep in mind is that after WW II, millions of Koreans emigrated to the United States. So any poll done in South Korea is not going to include those Koreans who moved to America, nor will it include the children of those Koreans who moved to America.  

Again, read Hildi Kang's book _Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945_. Kang interviewed numerous Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea. She expresses surprise that most of them never experienced cruelty. At one point, she asks, "Where are all the atrocities?" It is an eye-opening book.


----------



## sparky

Weatherman2020 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.
> 
> We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric, but in the Pacific War we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in our air raids on Japanese cities.
> 
> As for Japanese occupation, go read Hildi Kang's book _Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945_. Kang interviewed a large group of Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea and was rather stunned to discover that most of them never experienced cruelty and that quite a few of them said they had no problems with the Japanese. Yes, there were some cases of abuse and cruelty, but these were the exception, not the rule.
> 
> Or, read General Elliott Thorpe's book _East Wind, Rain. _Thorpe was very critical of the Japanese, but even he was willing to admit that the Japanese treated Dutch prisoners from Java better than Sukarno's soldiers treated them.
> 
> When the Japanese took over Korea, they spent billions of dollars building schools, bridges, power grids, water works, roads, etc. Korea's economy improved tremendously under the Japanese, thanks to these investments.
> 
> Similarly, when the Japanese took over Manchuria, they invested billions in infrastructure. Under Japanese rule, Manchuria became an economic miracle and attracted workers from all over Asia because word got out that there were jobs to be had there. Before the Japanese came to Manchuria, the region had been divided into tribal areas ruled by warlords. One of the reasons the Japanese moved on Manchuria was that the Soviets were trying to bring Communism to the region. The Japanese were fiercely anti-communist and pro-private property.
> 
> Now, was Japanese rule in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan identical to American rule in the Philippines? No, it was not. But, it was a whole lot better than Chinese Communist rule, Nazi rule, and Soviet rule.
> 
> 
> 
> Our POW’s appreciated the expedited plan, especially considering many were being murdered to eliminate them as war crime witnesses.
Click to expand...


The 23 American pow's who survived the bomb ,were beaten to death shortly afterwards

~S~


----------



## rightwinger

elektra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were plenty of targets
> 
> We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
> Terms are....next one hits Tokyo
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, there were only the effective targets. There was no guarantee the bomb would of worked, anywhere. Had it failed, then what? What if Japan did not believe the documentation. Then a bomb in which we only had two is lost. Another 30 days? While we are winning? In a fight, or war, you never stop until defeat is achieved. Too much can go wrong.
> 
> Either way, it was considered. We can refer to what the Secretary of War wrote on the matter.
> 
> http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> In reaching these conclusions the Interim Committee carefully considered such alternatives as a detailed advance warning or a demonstration in some uninhabited area. Both of these suggestions were discarded as impractical. They were not regarded as likely to be effective in compelling a surrender of Japan, and both of them involved serious risks. Even the New Mexico test would not give final proof that any given bomb was certain to explode when dropped from an airplane. Quite apart from the generally unfamiliar nature of atomic explosives, there was the whole problem of exploding a bomb at a predetermined height in the air by a complicated mechanism which could not be tested in the static test of New Mexico. Nothing would have been more damaging to our effort to obtain surrender than a warningor a demonstration followed by a dud––and this was a real possibility. Furthermore, we had no bombs to waste. It was vital that a sufficient effect be quickly obtained with the few we had
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you can see, I do not post my opinion. I also have this in Stimson's book.
Click to expand...

We showed we had a working bomb at Alamogordo
By early 1946 we were in full production of atomic bombs, under any scenario we would have had multiple bombs to drop on Japan
Even if we dropped a “dud” we had one of the original three

I don’t agree with the assumption that the only way Japan would have surrendered was by slaughtering 150,000 innocent civilians


----------



## mikegriffith1

JoeB131 said:


> The rest of your post is a lot of apologetic nonsense.



What is your basis for this claim?  Whatever information you find and cherry-pick in a hurried Internet search?  Based on your comments, I'm guessing you have not done any serious research on Japanese rule in Manchuria, Saipan (Taiwan), and Korea. What books have you read on Japanese rule in any of these places?

You label as "apologetic nonsense" the factual statement that Japan invested billions of dollars in infrastructure (school, roads, bridges, power grids, railroad lines, sewer systems) in Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria. The fact that Japan did this is documented in dozens of scholarly studies on Japanese rule in these locations.

I've cited Hildi Kang's book _Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945_. Kang discusses the fact that the Japanese brought Korea into the modern area with their enormous infrastructure projects, which included hundreds of schools for Korean children, many of whom had never been able to attend school before because there were none in their area.

Or, you might read Paul Maruyama's book _Escape from Manchuria: The Rescue of 1.7 Million Japanese Civilians Trapped in Soviet-occupied Manchuria Following the End of World War II.
_
Or, Louise Young's book _Japan's Total Empire: Manchuria and the Culture of Wartime Imperialism._ Young puts a negative spin on just about everything, but even a halfway attentive reader will notice all the discussions about the technological improvements that the Japanese brought to Manchuria: roads, schools, power plants, bridges, sewer systems, railroad lines, etc., etc., and how Manchuria (Manchukuo) became an economic success story that attracted people from all over Asia.
_
_


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> General MacArthur is awaiting your call, Rain Man.
> 
> 
> 
> LINK? to something other then an un sourced book.
Click to expand...


There are several threads many hundreds of pages long full of evidence that you ignored while in Rain Man mode. Go eat your Jell-O.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolute load of crap. "All the Japanese people I have spoken to" = fabricated bullshit. Pilots dropping incendiary bombs unable to BBQ because of the smell of burning flesh - as they flew by high and fast = poor fiction. Kids 'training' with bamboo spears was meant to be propaganda for domestic consumption to bolster rapidly waning public support for an obviously lost cause. That you are still swallowing propaganda that wasn't even meant for you over 70 years ago suggests you are a remarkably gullible buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU LYIMG PIECE of human excrement, the Japanese REFUSED to surrender I have documents to prove it, they also cut bamboo and made bamboo spears fpr the civilian population to human wave attack the invaders that is NOT propaganda they were training them to do it.
Click to expand...



Dementia has overtaken you, Rain Man. We've been through all this several times before.


----------



## Unkotare

Ernie S. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
Click to expand...



Our military leaders of the day disagreed.


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
> 
> 
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were plenty of targets
> 
> We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
> Terms are....next one hits Tokyo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 30 days????!!!!!!!!!!!
> it would mean nothing
> that was one of the thoughts----a remote island---but it would mean nothing because it would not have near the amount of infrastructure of a city
> ....if they weren't surrendering after a city is destroyed--or  ALL of their major cities ----they certainly would not have after a remote island was destroyed
Click to expand...


Choose a military target with military infrastructure and a port. The Japanese were capable of assessing the magnitude of the destruction. 

Again, give them a reasonable amount of time to assess their situation. Three days is not enough. 

If, after the time has passed and they refused to capitulate, then go to a more densely populated target. 

In any case, Nagasaki was too quick. We killed 70,000 civilians in haste.


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> ......for the millionth time--even *after* the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
> get it??
> 
> *and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!*
> How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
> 
> AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
> 
> 
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were plenty of targets
> 
> We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
> Terms are....next one hits Tokyo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 30 days????!!!!!!!!!!!
> it would mean nothing
> that was one of the thoughts----a remote island---but it would mean nothing because it would not have near the amount of infrastructure of a city
> ....if they weren't surrendering after a city is destroyed--or  ALL of their major cities ----they certainly would not have after a remote island was destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Choose a military target with military infrastructure and a port. The Japanese were capable of assessing the magnitude of the destruction.
> 
> Again, give them a reasonable amount of time to assess their situation. Three days is not enough.
> 
> If, after the time has passed and they refused to capitulate, then go to a more densely populated target.
> 
> In any case, Nagasaki was too quick. We killed 70,000 civilians in haste.
Click to expand...

ports usually are civilian areas


----------



## mikegriffith1

It is surprising to see conservatives defending FDR's provocation of Japan and Truman's nuking of Japan. As we have known for at least two decades now, both men's administrations were riddled with Soviet spies and sympathizers. 

In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, a number of Republicans pointed out that in imposing more and more sanctions on Japan, FDR was doing the bidding of the Soviets, who were deathly afraid that Japan and America would renew their friendship and that Japan would attack the Soviet Union in the east. Soviet assets and their sympathizers in the American press endlessly provided exaggerated accounts of Japanese military actions in China, in an effort to sway American public opinion and to try to provoke hostilities between Japan and America. 

Similarly, the Soviets wanted to ensure that Japan did not surrender before Soviet forces could invade Manchuria and hopefully occupy the Japanese main island of Hokkaido. Truman, in refusing to give the Japanese any assurance about the emperor's status, even though he knew from intercepts that this was the only real sticking point for surrender, carried out Soviet policy and enabled the Soviets to invade Manchuria. Had it not been for determined Japanese resistance on Hokkaido, the Soviets might have ended up in control of that island before we had a chance to get a single soldier there.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> It is surprising to see conservatives defending FDR's provocation of Japan and Truman's nuking of Japan. As we have known for at least two decades now, both men's administrations were riddled with Soviet spies and sympathizers.
> 
> In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, a number of Republicans pointed out that in imposing more and more sanctions on Japan, FDR was doing the bidding of the Soviets, who were deathly afraid that Japan and America would renew their friendship and that Japan would attack the Soviet Union in the east. Soviet assets and their sympathizers in the American press endlessly provided exaggerated accounts of Japanese military actions in China, in an effort to sway American public opinion and to try to provoke hostilities between Japan and America.
> 
> Similarly, the Soviets wanted to ensure that Japan did not surrender before Soviet forces could invade Manchuria and hopefully occupy the Japanese main island of Hokkaido. Truman, in refusing to give the Japanese any assurance about the emperor's status, even though he knew from intercepts that this was the only real sticking point for surrender, carried out Soviet policy and enabled the Soviets to invade Manchuria. Had it not been for determined Japanese resistance on Hokkaido, the Soviets might have ended up in control of that island before we had a chance to get a single soldier there.


sure--FDR wanted the Japanese to attack the US


----------



## miketx

mikegriffith1 said:


> I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.
> 
> We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric, but in the Pacific War we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in our air raids on Japanese cities.
> 
> As for Japanese occupation, go read Hildi Kang's book _Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945_. Kang interviewed a large group of Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea and was rather stunned to discover that most of them never experienced cruelty and that quite a few of them said they had no problems with the Japanese. Yes, there were some cases of abuse and cruelty, but these were the exception, not the rule.
> 
> Or, read General Elliott Thorpe's book _East Wind, Rain. _Thorpe was very critical of the Japanese, but even he was willing to admit that the Japanese treated Dutch prisoners from Java better than Sukarno's soldiers treated them.
> 
> When the Japanese took over Korea, they spent billions of dollars building schools, bridges, power grids, water works, roads, etc. Korea's economy improved tremendously under the Japanese, thanks to these investments.
> 
> Similarly, when the Japanese took over Manchuria, they invested billions in infrastructure. Under Japanese rule, Manchuria became an economic miracle and attracted workers from all over Asia because word got out that there were jobs to be had there. Before the Japanese came to Manchuria, the region had been divided into tribal areas ruled by warlords. One of the reasons the Japanese moved on Manchuria was that the Soviets were trying to bring Communism to the region. The Japanese were fiercely anti-communist and pro-private property.
> 
> Now, was Japanese rule in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan identical to American rule in the Philippines? No, it was not. But, it was a whole lot better than Chinese Communist rule, Nazi rule, and Soviet rule.


Why dont you move to japan and get the hell out of here?


----------



## mikegriffith1

harmonica said:


> sure--FDR wanted the Japanese to attack the US



Uh, yes, FDR absolutely wanted the Japanese to attack us. He wanted to provoke them to fire the first shot so that he would have an excuse to get us into WW II. Harry Stimson's diary confirms this. We also know this from the McCollum Memo. We also have hard evidence that FDR knew the Japanese were considering attacking Pearl Harbor in the event of war, and that he and others in high places knew a Japanese fleet was heading toward Pearl Harbor in late November (but they carefully avoided warning the commanders in Hawaii about any of this information).

FDR believed that the Japanese would do little damage in attacking Pearl Harbor. FDR, like many other Americans, believed the Japanese were inferior, that they were lousy soldiers, that they were lousy pilots, and that they would be a pushover in any armed conflict. FDR believed that any Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the Philippines would do minimal damage.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure--FDR wanted the Japanese to attack the US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yes, FDR absolutely wanted the Japanese to attack us. He wanted to provoke them to fire the first shot so that he would have an excuse to get us into WW II. Harry Stimson's diary confirms this. We also know this from the McCollum Memo. We also have hard evidence that FDR knew the Japanese were considering attacking Pearl Harbor in the event of war, and that he and others in high places knew a Japanese fleet was heading toward Pearl Harbor in late November (but they carefully avoided warning the commanders in Hawaii about any of this information).
> 
> FDR believed that the Japanese would do little damage in attacking Pearl Harbor. FDR, like many other Americans, believed the Japanese were inferior, that they were lousy soldiers, that they were lousy pilots, and that they would be a pushover in any armed conflict. FDR believed that any Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the Philippines would do minimal damage.
Click to expand...

that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read


----------



## elektra

rightwinger said:


> We showed we had a working bomb at Alamogordo
> By early 1946 we were in full production of atomic bombs, under any scenario we would have had multiple bombs to drop on Japan
> Even if we dropped a “dud” we had one of the original three
> 
> I don’t agree with the assumption that the only way Japan would have surrendered was by slaughtering 150,000 innocent civilians


Nobody, ever said that was the only way to win the war. It was the quickest.
150,000 innocent civilians? Yet, some were leaders in the defense industry? Some of those innocent civilians certainly believed that raping virgins made their sons strong, hence that is what they taught their sons. Many of those innocent civilians in one way or another supported the war. 

Japan was not a culture like our own, of individuals, they fought as one, for the Emperor. Innocent civilians? Why don't simply describe them as a million kittens slaughtered. Either one is about as close to reality.

"Under any scenario we would have had multiple bombs", except of course the scenario that existed in 1945.

There were two bombs, no more. If one was a dud, we would be left with one. We were lucky they worked. Very lucky. 

Of course, we did drop leaflets, in which many Japanese heeded, and left the city saving their lives.


----------



## mikegriffith1

harmonica said:


> that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read



And yours is one of the most laughably uninformed, head-in-the-sand posts I've read. Have you heard of Stimson's diary, where he talks about FDR saying that we needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot? Have you heard of the McCollum Memo, which laid out a strategy for provoking Japan to war, and that even said that if the steps could provoke Japan to war it would be "all the better"? Have you heard of the declassified FBI Hoover-Ladd memos, where we learn that Army Intelligence knew "almost the entire plans" for the attack on Pearl Harbor days before the attack? Have you heard of Admiral Raneft's diary, where he talks about U.S. Navy Intelligence advising him that there was a Japanese fleet a few hundred miles from Pearl Harbor? Have you heard of the intercepted phone conversation between FDR and Churchill, where Churchill warned FDR that British Intelligence had intercepted Japanese naval messages that indicated Pearl Harbor would be attacked? (This fact was confirmed by former CIA Director William Casey in his memoir, by the way.) Have you heard of any of these things?

Here are some books you might wanna read:

James Johns, _Reassessing Pearl Harbor: Scapegoats, a False Hero and the Myth of Surprise Attack_

Dr. George Victor, _The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable_

Dr. Timothy Wilford, _Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941_

Here are some online sources you might wanna break down and read:

Evidence of Foreknowledge: The Attack Was No Surprise to FDR


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yours is one of the most laughably uninformed, head-in-the-sand posts I've read. Have you heard of Stimson's diary, where he talks about FDR saying that we needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot? Have you heard of the McCollum Memo, which laid out a strategy for provoking Japan to war, and that even said that if the steps could provoke Japan to war it would be "all the better"? Have you heard of the declassified FBI Hoover-Ladd memos, where we learn that Army Intelligence knew "almost the entire plans" for the attack on Pearl Harbor days before the attack? Have you heard of Admiral Raneft's diary, where he talks about U.S. Navy Intelligence advising him that there was a Japanese fleet a few hundred miles from Pearl Harbor? Have you heard of the intercepted phone conversation between FDR and Churchill, where Churchill warned FDR that British Intelligence had intercepted Japanese naval messages that indicated Pearl Harbor would be attacked? (This fact was confirmed by former CIA Director William Casey in his memoir, by the way.) Have you heard of any of these things?
> 
> Here are some books you might wanna consider reading:
> 
> James Johns, _Reassessing Pearl Harbor: Scapegoats, a False Hero and the Myth of Surprise Attack_
> 
> Dr. George Victor, _The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable_
> 
> Dr. Timothy Wilford, _Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941_
> 
> Here are some online sources you might wanna break down and read:
> 
> Evidence of Foreknowledge: The Attack Was No Surprise to FDR
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
so FDR knew they were going to attack Pearl????!!
hahahahahhahahhahahahahah


----------



## elektra

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolute load of crap. "All the Japanese people I have spoken to" = fabricated bullshit. Pilots dropping incendiary bombs unable to BBQ because of the smell of burning flesh - as they flew by high and fast = poor fiction. Kids 'training' with bamboo spears was meant to be propaganda for domestic consumption to bolster rapidly waning public support for an obviously lost cause. That you are still swallowing propaganda that wasn't even meant for you over 70 years ago suggests you are a remarkably gullible buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU LYIMG PIECE of human excrement, the Japanese REFUSED to surrender I have documents to prove it, they also cut bamboo and made bamboo spears fpr the civilian population to human wave attack the invaders that is NOT propaganda they were training them to do it.
Click to expand...

look up the defintion of unkotare and find out how close to the truth you are


----------



## mikegriffith1

harmonica said:


> so FDR knew they were going to attack Pearl????!! hahahahahhahahhahahahahah



Uh, so I take it you're not going to dare yourself to ready anything that will challenge your denialism? 

FYI, Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican presidential nominee in 1944, became aware that vital intelligence had been withheld from Kimmel and Short. In September, two months before the election, he told General Marshall's top aide, Colonel Carter Clarke, that Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and that he should be impeached for not warning the commanders in Hawaii. Dewey's sources included military whistle blowers, members of Congress, and probably Admiral Kimmel's attorney, Charles Rugg, who found out about the withheld intercepts when Captain Safford told Kimmel about them. Dewey was going to expose FDR's duplicity but decided against it after General Marshall told him that doing so could harm the war effort because it would alert the Japanese that their codes had been broken. Dewey suspected that this argument was questionable, but he decided to err on the side of caution and to defer to Marshall.

And why do you keep screwing up the formatting in your replies?


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so FDR knew they were going to attack Pearl????!! hahahahahhahahhahahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, so I take it you're not going to dare yourself to ready anything that will challenge your denialism?
> 
> FYI, Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican presidential nominee in 1944, became aware that vital intelligence had been withheld from Kimmel and Short. In September, two months before the election, he told General Marshall's top aide, Colonel Carter Clarke, that Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and that he should be impeached for not warning the commanders in Hawaii. Dewey's sources included military whistle blowers, members of Congress, and probably Admiral Kimmel's attorney, Charles Rugg, who found out about the withheld intercepts when Captain Safford told Kimmel about them. Dewey was going to expose FDR's duplicity but decided against it after General Marshall told him that doing so could harm the war effort because it would alert the Japanese that their codes had been broken. Dewey suspected that this argument was questionable, but he decided to err on the side of caution and to defer to Marshall.
> 
> And why do you keep screwing up the formatting in your replies?
Click to expand...

''screwing up my replies''   hahahhahahahhahahah
FDR should've been an actor --he was good at it, yes?


----------



## elektra

JoeB131 said:


> SOOOOOOO, what they had were civilians with pitchforks. They were desperate to surrender, and that's what they did once the USSR got into it and they had no chance for a negotiated settlement that allowed them to keep some of their colonies.


Yet, they still sunk the Indianapolis killing 900 sailors? On July 30th of 1945. So desperate to surrender, trying so hard to surrender, yet still very much fighting? Killing? How are they trying to surrender yet very much fighting the war?

The USSR? They caused Japan to stop fighting. Yet the USSR fought Japan until the 20th of August. The USSR declared war against Japan on August 8th. How come that did not force the Japanese to surrender? The 8th goes by and it is the 9th, still no surrender. We then drop the bomb on the Nagasaki.

Plenty of time for Japan to react to the USSR's entry in the the Pacific War. Yet no reaction. All we know is that the Japanese fought the USSR until the 20th of August. 

The Emperor of Japan announced surrender on August 15th. Yet, they fought the USSR another 5 days? That certainly shows that the USSR did not force a surrender. 

At best the USSR was a thread on our coattail.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, so I take it you're not going to dare yourself to ready anything that will challenge your denialism?


You made a far fetched statement that I buried in the dust, I see you did not dare respond. Denial, that is where you live. There have been many facts I have posted that you have ran from.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so FDR knew they were going to attack Pearl????!! hahahahahhahahhahahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, so I take it you're not going to dare yourself to ready anything that will challenge your denialism?
> 
> FYI, Governor Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican presidential nominee in 1944, became aware that vital intelligence had been withheld from Kimmel and Short. In September, two months before the election, he told General Marshall's top aide, Colonel Carter Clarke, that Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and that he should be impeached for not warning the commanders in Hawaii. Dewey's sources included military whistle blowers, members of Congress, and probably Admiral Kimmel's attorney, Charles Rugg, who found out about the withheld intercepts when Captain Safford told Kimmel about them. Dewey was going to expose FDR's duplicity but decided against it after General Marshall told him that doing so could harm the war effort because it would alert the Japanese that their codes had been broken. Dewey suspected that this argument was questionable, but he decided to err on the side of caution and to defer to Marshall.
> 
> And why do you keep screwing up the formatting in your replies?
Click to expand...

why do you not indent/etc your posts?? they run on and on and on and on
sentences run on and on and on


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan,


There is no addressing a false premise. There is no addressing opinion not based on any fact.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> , not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target,


Civilian target, Japan's cities were part of the war. They had military headquarters. Centers of communications. Transportation links. Industry manufacturing war materials. Ship yards to repair warships. Shall I make a list for you?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is meaningless to me. I hope you are offended
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is meaningless to everyone because as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Know a lot more than you on every topic. Your life has been a waste.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric, but in the Pacific War we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in our air raids on Japanese cities.


Hyperbole, comparing surprise attacks to a war the Japanese started? Mostly women and children? Maybe so, that is war. 

Would mikegriffith of fought the war different, why yes he would. It is obvious the OP is against killing men and women and children if they start a war with us. Under the strategy of waiting. We would of simply never of fought again. We would of surrendered to the Japanese.

We would not of fought WW II. That is the argument, not to fight. 

We would be ruled by Germany and Japan. Most of us would not exist. We would not be free. We most likely would not have computers or nice TVs. Germany and Japan would rule the world. As dictators. 

Mikegriffith1 has made the point that he would of lost WW II


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

mudwhistle said:


> Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb.


A bomb detoneated anywhere the japanese could confirm it would have sufficed, in that case. So that is not a good argument.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

elektra said:


> There is no addressing a false premise.


Uh...what? Of course there is. You argue why the premise is false.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

elektra said:


> It is obvious the OP is against killing men and women and children if they start a war with us


Bullshit. Nothing he has said indicates this simple idea. Try to have an honest discussion.


----------



## elektra

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no addressing a false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? Of course there is. You argue why the premise is false.
Click to expand...

Guilty until proven innocent?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

elektra said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no addressing a false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? Of course there is. You argue why the premise is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent?
Click to expand...

No, it's discussion. Unless you are just content to say "Nuh uh!", which i suppose is fine. But then you're out of the discussion.


----------



## elektra

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious the OP is against killing men and women and children if they start a war with us
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Nothing he has said indicates this simple idea. Try to have an honest discussion.
Click to expand...

Actully, the OP has said we should not of killed Women and Children. That much is pure fact. So, when the war machine is surrounded by women and children, the men are safe to fight the war. 

An honest discussion? We are discussing someone's opinion that the USA is morally wrong? We are discussing a persons selective slices of history to make a point that is not true. There is no honesty in revisionism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

elektra said:


> Actully, the OP has said we should not of killed Women and Children.


Yes, with an indiscriminate nuke that he deemed unnecessary. And you leaving that part out is very dishonest and transparent. So you arent doing your own credibility any favors.


----------



## elektra

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, it's discussion. Unless you are just content to say "Nuh uh!", which i suppose is fine. But then you're out of the discussion.


This comment puts you out of the discussion. You just literally, stated, Nuh uh. 
Besides, you are a thief, I say you are, now prove you robbed nobody in the middle of the night.


----------



## elektra

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actully, the OP has said we should not of killed Women and Children.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, with an indiscriminate nuke that he deemed unnecessary. And you leaving that part out is very dishonest and transparent. So you arent doing your own credibility any favors.
Click to expand...

The nuke was not indiscriminate, it destroyed exactly what we knew and wanted it to destroy. I must repeat the entire OP? You know what he spoke of, I knew, now it is you who are being dishonest. Your own credibility is now destroyed by your hypocrisy.


----------



## mudwhistle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> A bomb detoneated anywhere the japanese could confirm it would have sufficed, in that case. So that is not a good argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah......keep thinking that.


----------



## elektra

What I have learned in this OP
It was morally wrong to end the War with Atomic bombs because the Japanese were very much starving to death. They were at the end of their rope. All we had to do is keep them surrounded, starving, becoming diseased. All we had to do is wait for their children to starve to death. It was over. That could of taken only a few more months? Maybe a half a year. But eventually, they would starve to death. 

And this was the humane way to end the war. To starve a entire country, the children, the babies, everyone?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Anathema said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it save lives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it did. I cannot point to some study or survey for definitive proof, but I do believe the second bomb proved to the Japanese thst we could recreate the destructive force of Hiroshima and force them to accept unconditional surrender. Without the Nagasaki attack I’m not so sure they wouldn’t have continued to fight on for longer, until we did utilize the second device.
Click to expand...

Even after thebsecond bomb, surrender nearly got Hirohito assassinated!


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one, based on what I've read, and first hand accounts of Japan leading up to, and during WW2... am I absolutely convinced that millions would have died if Japan had refused to surrender, and we had landed on the mainland in a state of war. Millions. Guaranteed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> The reality. Japan was out of war materials, most of their Navy was sunk, they had expended all their aircraft as Kamikazes to very little effect, and most of their experienced Army divisions were trapped in China.
> 
> SOOOOOOO, what they had were civilians with pitchforks. They were desperate to surrender, and that's what they did once the USSR got into it and they had no chance for a negotiated settlement that allowed them to keep some of their colonies.
Click to expand...


Then why were the civilians being trained to attack US soldiers with pitch forks?    Why would I train my civilians to attack enemy troops in waves, if my goal was surrender?

That does not follow.

And again, I have no doubt that Japan was out of substantial military hardware.  That wasn't even a question.  In fact, that's part of the reason why they were preparing to throw civilians at military soldiers.

The problem is, you seem to be ignoring what happened on Okinawa and Iwo Jima.   Which is... those Japanese troops fought without supply, almost no food, no water, and were coming out to our troops with nothing more than grenades often....  and they still...  STILL fought to the bitter end.

So you can say they would have surrendered in a day or two without the bombs....  and that's a nice thought.... and you might be even right.  It's impossible to say definitively what would happen in the counter factual. 

Again, you have to look at it from the perspective of the people there, are that time.   What we knew about the Japanese, is that soldiers literally starving to death, with zero support, and no supplies, were still fighting US troops for every square inch of Japanese islands.    We had no reason to believe they were going to just give up.   And every evidence that they would throw school girls with pitch forks at US troops, which would have been devastating to both sides.

'I Will Fight to the Last': WWII Japanese Soldier Diary, June 1943

Father repeated in his letter that I must fight to the last as an honorable warrior. I will fight to the last, always for the emperor. I will show them that we will fight to the last. March 6: “There is nothing quite so doubtful as to whether life or death be with one, yet we write at random like searching and traversing a battlefield.” March 31: “Pray for cherished glory.” My aged father wrote on April 12: “Even though your soul should remain in the South Sea Islands, follow the will of Heaven.”​
Japanese soldiers diary.

Whether they would have surrendered or not, I don't know for sure.  But every indication is that they had absolutely no intention of surrendering.


----------



## elektra

History is full of facts. We are fortunate to know what happened by well written books. Books written during and immediately after the War. 

In Japan, the military took control of the government. Period. There was still the Emperor, who went along with much, at least until the end. The specifics and context of what was happening in Japan is obscured by cherry picking the little parts that one uses to revise the history. 

Within any population, there are always number for and against. Good people and bad people. The innocent and the guilty. 

Facts are facts. Our lives were more important than that of any Japanese. We must see this from our position. That of those who were attacked. We had men dying until the end. Even the day of the surrender there were prisoners dying. 

I am glad Pappy Gregg Boyington was saved from death in a jap torture camp.

I am glad Louis Zamperini was saved from certain death.

That is the fact of history. Speculation on alternative realities is simply foolishness.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> , not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target,
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian target, Japan's cities were part of the war. They had military headquarters. Centers of communications. Transportation links. Industry manufacturing war materials. Ship yards to repair warships. Shall I make a list for you?
Click to expand...



The person you are trying to convince is yourself.


----------



## Mr Natural

The Japanese were crazy back in the day.

The A bomb droppings cured them of that affliction.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> The person you are trying to convince is yourself.





Convince you of a fact, I would have more luck trying to convince the neighbor's cat. Some discussions are only for the intelligent.


----------



## harmonica

a lot of these people think of War in terms of TV/Movies = idiocy


----------



## justinacolmena

mikegriffith1 said:


> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



It was the geisha houses.

“Geisha” is “service,” as in “customer service.”

Certainly not a vulgarity in and of itself in the appropriate context.

But there was too much of a “house” or establishment to the ideals of “service” or hospitality.

The restaurants took over the grocery stores, and the bars & taverns took over the liquor stores.

Hotels & motels took over apartments, and renting took over homeownership, made impractical by Henry Ford style 100-year mortgages.

Too much bedding and breakfasting, and not enough getting to work on time in the morning.

And the _gentlemen,_ of course, had certain expectations of services that were highly inappropriate.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would have made Fallujah look like a playground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?  These figures that came out saying, "Millions of Casualties" didn't come out until the war and the government had to justify why it vaporized hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Click to expand...

Liar


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> General MacArthur is awaiting your call, Rain Man.
> 
> 
> 
> LINK? to something other then an un sourced book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are several threads many hundreds of pages long full of evidence that you ignored while in Rain Man mode. Go eat your Jell-O.
Click to expand...

Again FUCKWAD you have NEVER linked to actual documents just un sourced books and opinions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolute load of crap. "All the Japanese people I have spoken to" = fabricated bullshit. Pilots dropping incendiary bombs unable to BBQ because of the smell of burning flesh - as they flew by high and fast = poor fiction. Kids 'training' with bamboo spears was meant to be propaganda for domestic consumption to bolster rapidly waning public support for an obviously lost cause. That you are still swallowing propaganda that wasn't even meant for you over 70 years ago suggests you are a remarkably gullible buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU LYIMG PIECE of human excrement, the Japanese REFUSED to surrender I have documents to prove it, they also cut bamboo and made bamboo spears fpr the civilian population to human wave attack the invaders that is NOT propaganda they were training them to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dementia has overtaken you, Rain Man. We've been through all this several times before.
Click to expand...

Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actully, the OP has said we should not of killed Women and Children.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, with an indiscriminate nuke that he deemed unnecessary. And you leaving that part out is very dishonest and transparent. So you arent doing your own credibility any favors.
Click to expand...

So a Nuke is bad but firebombing cities was fine right?


----------



## sparky

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yours is one of the most laughably uninformed, head-in-the-sand posts I've read. Have you heard of Stimson's diary, where he talks about FDR saying that we needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot? Have you heard of the McCollum Memo, which laid out a strategy for provoking Japan to war, and that even said that if the steps could provoke Japan to war it would be "all the better"? Have you heard of the declassified FBI Hoover-Ladd memos, where we learn that Army Intelligence knew "almost the entire plans" for the attack on Pearl Harbor days before the attack? Have you heard of Admiral Raneft's diary, where he talks about U.S. Navy Intelligence advising him that there was a Japanese fleet a few hundred miles from Pearl Harbor? Have you heard of the intercepted phone conversation between FDR and Churchill, where Churchill warned FDR that British Intelligence had intercepted Japanese naval messages that indicated Pearl Harbor would be attacked? (This fact was confirmed by former CIA Director William Casey in his memoir, by the way.) Have you heard of any of these things?
> 
> Here are some books you might wanna read:
> 
> James Johns, _Reassessing Pearl Harbor: Scapegoats, a False Hero and the Myth of Surprise Attack_
> 
> Dr. George Victor, _The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable_
> 
> Dr. Timothy Wilford, _Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941_
> 
> Here are some online sources you might wanna break down and read:
> 
> Evidence of Foreknowledge: The Attack Was No Surprise to FDR
Click to expand...


Being well read makes you a minority here Mike 

~S~


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The person you are trying to convince is yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 273942
> Convince you of a fact, I would have more luck trying to convince the neighbor's cat. Some discussions are only for the intelligent.
Click to expand...



You took a pic of some books. That is just so sad.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolute load of crap. "All the Japanese people I have spoken to" = fabricated bullshit. Pilots dropping incendiary bombs unable to BBQ because of the smell of burning flesh - as they flew by high and fast = poor fiction. Kids 'training' with bamboo spears was meant to be propaganda for domestic consumption to bolster rapidly waning public support for an obviously lost cause. That you are still swallowing propaganda that wasn't even meant for you over 70 years ago suggests you are a remarkably gullible buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU LYIMG PIECE of human excrement, the Japanese REFUSED to surrender I have documents to prove it, they also cut bamboo and made bamboo spears fpr the civilian population to human wave attack the invaders that is NOT propaganda they were training them to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dementia has overtaken you, Rain Man. We've been through all this several times before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
Click to expand...


Go review the old threads, Rain Man.


----------



## Unkotare

Mr Clean said:


> The Japanese were crazy back in the day.
> 
> The A bomb droppings cured them of that affliction.




You NEED to believe that.


----------



## Taz

Fuckng nips sneak attacked us, we should have nuked their whole worthless country.


----------



## sparky

Pearl was inevitable , the OSS (former CIA) was all over having FDR ignore it as a prelude to WW2

~S~


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolute load of crap. "All the Japanese people I have spoken to" = fabricated bullshit. Pilots dropping incendiary bombs unable to BBQ because of the smell of burning flesh - as they flew by high and fast = poor fiction. Kids 'training' with bamboo spears was meant to be propaganda for domestic consumption to bolster rapidly waning public support for an obviously lost cause. That you are still swallowing propaganda that wasn't even meant for you over 70 years ago suggests you are a remarkably gullible buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU LYIMG PIECE of human excrement, the Japanese REFUSED to surrender I have documents to prove it, they also cut bamboo and made bamboo spears fpr the civilian population to human wave attack the invaders that is NOT propaganda they were training them to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dementia has overtaken you, Rain Man. We've been through all this several times before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go review the old threads, Rain Man.
Click to expand...

I don't need to I was in them, you have NEVER linked to an official source just memoirs with no actual facts and opinion pieces. Try actually linking to Official documents LIKE I HAVE.


----------



## sparky

James Byrnes and the Atomic Bombing of Japan

https://www.history.com/news/macarthur-vs-truman-the-showdown-that-changed-america



> Truman’s decision not only ended MacArthur’s military career, it ended the president’s political career as well, setting the stage for the subsequent presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. In the first 24 hours after the president’s announcement, the White House received more than 5,000 telegrams—three-quarters of them backing the popular MacArthur, who had been named the greatest living American in a 1946 poll. “In the wake of the firing, T*ruman’s popular approval rating set a record not matched before or ever since—22 percent—lower even than Nixon’s at the depth of the Watergate scandal,”* Brands says. After what the historian calls “political suicide,” Truman did not even pursue his party’s nomination in 1952.



~S~


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolute load of crap. "All the Japanese people I have spoken to" = fabricated bullshit. Pilots dropping incendiary bombs unable to BBQ because of the smell of burning flesh - as they flew by high and fast = poor fiction. Kids 'training' with bamboo spears was meant to be propaganda for domestic consumption to bolster rapidly waning public support for an obviously lost cause. That you are still swallowing propaganda that wasn't even meant for you over 70 years ago suggests you are a remarkably gullible buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU LYIMG PIECE of human excrement, the Japanese REFUSED to surrender I have documents to prove it, they also cut bamboo and made bamboo spears fpr the civilian population to human wave attack the invaders that is NOT propaganda they were training them to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dementia has overtaken you, Rain Man. We've been through all this several times before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go review the old threads, Rain Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to I was in them....
Click to expand...



= you know you're full of shit, you doddering old fool.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU LYIMG PIECE of human excrement, the Japanese REFUSED to surrender I have documents to prove it, they also cut bamboo and made bamboo spears fpr the civilian population to human wave attack the invaders that is NOT propaganda they were training them to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dementia has overtaken you, Rain Man. We've been through all this several times before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go review the old threads, Rain Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to I was in them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> = you know you're full of shit, you doddering old fool.
Click to expand...

Really? Prove me wrong.


----------



## whitehall

It's interesting to note that the Bushido crazies holding out in a bunker in Tokyo could have been taken out easily with the nuclear option but the insane strategy at the time was to keep incinerating civilians until the crazies gave up. We wouldn't dream of such a concept today but somehow we tend to justify it in the (not so) distant past because democrats were in charge and democrats wrote the history books.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Anyone who does any serious, balanced reading on the Pacific War will learn the following facts:

* Most of Japan's leaders, military and civilian, did not want war with the U.S.

* Japan's leaders offered very reasonable concessions to try to get FDR to lift his draconian sanctions, which were crippling Japan's economy.

* The majority of Japan's leaders opposed the hardliners in the Army, but the hardliners were a powerful faction in the government that was sometimes beyond the immediate control of the government.

* Even some of the hardliners did not want war with the U.S. They, like many others in the government, wanted to invade Russia or to focus on French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies.

* At every turn, FDR aided the hardliners and impeded the moderates in the year leading up to Pearl Harbor.

* Similarly, at every turn, Truman aided the hardliners and impeded the moderates in the months leading up to Hiroshima.

* The Soviets were thrilled when the U.S. and Japan went to war. When Stalin was assured that Japan would not attack Russia, he was able to move hundreds of thousands of troops from his eastern front just in time to halt the German advance on his western front.

* The Soviets did not want Japan to surrender to the U.S. until Soviet forces were able to attack the Japanese army in Manchuria.

* Whether because of incompetence, and/or anti-Japanese bias, and/or the influence of the numerous Soviet spies and sympathizers in their administrations, FDR and Truman carried out Soviet aims in Japanese-American relations in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor and in the months leading up to Hiroshima.

* The Soviets were able to gather sufficient forces and equipment to invade Japan's northern and central Kuril Islands, in addition to invading Manchuria, thanks to Truman's stalling on the Japanese surrender. If the Soviets had not met such fierce resistance in their assaults on the Kuriles, such as at the Battle of Shumshu, they might have followed through with their plans to invade Hokkaido, one of Japan's four main home islands. According to some sources, the Soviets were about to carry out their planned invasion of Hokkaido when Truman suddenly awoke from his stupor and realized what a blunder it had been to stall the Japanese surrender so the Soviets could join the war against Japan. Eisenhower had warned Truman against involving the Soviets, and, supposedly, Truman warned the Soviets not to land on Hokkaido. That's one version. Another version is that the heavy losses the Soviets incurred at Shumshu persuaded them to focus on the Kuril Islands and to abandon their plans to invade Hokkaido. It might have been a combination of both.

* Truman and his inner circle knew from Japanese intercepts that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that the only real sticking point was the emperor's status in a surrender. Numerous military and civilian officials told Truman that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, they would surrender on acceptable terms.

* Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria, though not up to Western standards, was certainly better than Soviet rule, Chinese Communist rule, and Nazi rule. Anyone with adequate knowledge on this subject who had to choose to live in one of the above areas would choose to live under Japanese rule in a heartbeat, hands down.


----------



## Unkotare

Kids 'training' with bamboo spears was meant to be propaganda for domestic consumption to bolster rapidly waning public support for an obviously lost cause. That you are still swallowing propaganda that wasn't even meant for you over 70 years ago suggests you are a remarkably gullible buffoon.


----------



## JoeB131

Weatherman2020 said:


> And neither is an 11 year old with a vest, nonetheless as we see in Afghanistan and Iraq peace is unobtainable.



Different time.  But never mind. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> You don't kill another batch of tens of thousands of civilians of an enemy who you know wants to surrender and who is virtually defenseless and starving. That is just basic human decency, and it is sad that you can't grasp that.



again, you are applying modern sensitivities to people back then. After Pearl Harbor and 4 years of people being subjected to propaganda like THIS






Nobody was particularly concerned about the Japanese 'humanity". 



mikegriffith1 said:


> Again, read Hildi Kang's book _Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945_. k.



I don't waste my time on shit.  The Japanese were bastards during World War II.


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> * Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria, though not up to Western standards, was certainly better than Soviet rule, Chinese Communist rule, and Nazi rule. Anyone with adequate knowledge on this subject who had to choose to live in one of the above areas would choose to live under Japanese rule in a heartbeat, hands down.



If that were the case, then why did so many Chinese fight so hard against the Japanese, but amazingly, the Communists are still in power. 

Enough with the Fascist Propaganda.  We get it.  Like most Trumpkins, you are still sorry the Axis lost the war.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Does it HURT to be that stupid, Joey?


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, they were already willing to surrender.  We just refused to let them do it on their terms until Russia entered the war and we realized we might have to share the spoils of war.
Click to expand...

Um no. Russia entering surely would have crippled them further militarily, but it would have solidified their resolve to fight on. What the bombs did was to prove that continuing meant the complete and utter destruction of Japan. It demoralized them.
THAT is how you win a war. You can beat them on the battle field all you want, but patriots will join the fight until the last man. You must completely demoralize an enemy to win a war. We did that in Japan, and we have decent relations with them. We refused to destry the will of the people in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq. How'd THAT work out for us?
Screw what the world thinks of us. If we have to go to war, we can't be afraid to win.
We will never make all countries like us, no matter how much foreign aid we give or how many concessions we make. We may, however, be able to make them respect us, or failing that, FEAR us.


----------



## Picaro

lol another retarded Pity Party for vile murdering Japs. lol I guess next we get to hear about *'The Misunderstood Jeffery Dauhmer: Philantropist and Research Physician"*.


----------



## Picaro

Jarlaxle said:


> Does it HURT to be that stupid, Joey?



Mexican meth is a curse.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Um no. Russia entering surely would have crippled them further militarily, but it would have solidified their resolve to fight on. What the bombs did was to prove that continuing meant the complete and utter destruction of Japan. It demoralized them.



NO, the bombs proved we could bomb their cities... Russia in the war meant they weren't going to get a favorable peace treaty.

That's why they surrendered.  Very little to do with the bombs, we had been bombing them for months.



Ernie S. said:


> THAT is how you win a war. You can beat them on the battle field all you want, but patriots will join the fight until the last man. You must completely demoralize an enemy to win a war. We did that in Japan, and we have decent relations with them. We refused to destry the will of the people in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq. How'd THAT work out for us?



Actually, what we had in World War II was other people doing m ost of the fighting and dying. Americans just don't have the stomach for War.. particularly wars against people who weren't bothering us to start with

Did you sign up for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?  Didn't think so.



Ernie S. said:


> Screw what the world thinks of us. If we have to go to war, we can't be afraid to win.
> We will never make all countries like us, no matter how much foreign aid we give or how many concessions we make. We may, however, be able to make them respect us, or failing that, FEAR us.



Or we could learn to mind our own fucking business... that would work, too.

You see, here's my thought.  We have a universal draft.  Not only do the children of the rich get NO EXEMPTIONS like they did in Korea and Vietnam (but not WWII) but we put them all in an elite airborne unit that will be the first deployed to any war zone.  

Bet you the rich who run this country will suddenly discover how much they LOVE, LOVE, LOVE peace when their kids are the ones coming home in the body bags.


----------



## sparky

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.



But not from ACTUAL top military>>>

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It

*Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.”

&&&

The commanding general of the *US Army Air Forces*, *Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “*the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.*
_
&&&_
*Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr.*, Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. *It was a mistake to ever drop it*…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
_
_


&&&

*Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that *“the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…*”


&&&


*Gen. Dwight Eisenhower,* for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…” He later publicly declared “…*it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”*

&&&


Even the famous “hawk” *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “*the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.



~S~


*


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The person you are trying to convince is yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 273942
> Convince you of a fact, I would have more luck trying to convince the neighbor's cat. Some discussions are only for the intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You took a pic of some books. That is just so sad.
Click to expand...

Not as sad at your frustration for not being able to burn them.

I have many facts. If you actually engaged in discussion you would find anything you cut/paste from the internet I have the book the cherry picked internet quote came from. If I dont have the book I will buy it.

Google, it is only through the control of information, the censorship, the propaganda, and or fake news that Democrats retain power.

Here a user shames another for using anything other than the Google which controls the results to dictate what we are to beleive.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria, though not up to Western standards, was certainly better than Soviet rule, Chinese Communist rule, and Nazi rule. Anyone with adequate knowledge on this subject who had to choose to live in one of the above areas would choose to live under Japanese rule in a heartbeat, hands down.


Yet, today, these people hate the Japanese with a burning passion. 

Nobody would choose to live under Japanese rule. That is why there was war everywhere the Japanese invaded.

Anyone would choose Japanese rule? Sure as a teenage girl it would be better to be raped by dozens of Japanese soldiers? 

At the time, Mao Tse Tung was still fighting a war to win china? Hence no rule by communist chinese.

USSR and Germany. I have not heard that children were raped by thousands of soldiers.

You really dont know a dam thing. So you found a book that found a boy that managed to live okay. That story pales in comparison to the hell the Japanese inflicted on the population as a whole.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower,* for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…” He later publicly declared “…*it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”*


Except, of course, Eisenhower was never told we were going to use an Atomic bomb. That was top secret. Eisenhower gives two different versions, if not three or four.

Later, in order to beat the Democrats, did he change the story? After Stimson died?

Stimson never told the Vice President about the bomb, why would Stimson devuldge a top secret to a General that was well below the title of the vice president?

Eisenhower I say lied and his contradictions in his books confirms that.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The person you are trying to convince is yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 273942
> Convince you of a fact, I would have more luck trying to convince the neighbor's cat. Some discussions are only for the intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You took a pic of some books. That is just so sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as sad at your frustration for not being able to burn them.....
Click to expand...


What on earth is that supposed to mean?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ...
> 
> I have many facts. If you actually engaged in discussion you would find anything you cut/paste from the internet I have the book the cherry picked internet quote came from. If I dont have the book I will buy it.....




  Aren't you special?


----------



## HenryBHough

So many liberals so pissed off that they aren't forced to talk Jap and worship an emperor.  But they claim President Trump is an emperor yet they loath him.  He's what?  The wrong color?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ...
> Yet, today, these people hate the Japanese with a burning passion.......




Something of an exaggeration.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> .....
> 
> USSR and Germany. I have not heard that children were raped by thousands of soldiers.......




Time for you to go buy some more books. This time about the Soviet army immediately after Germany fell. Off you go.


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> So many liberals so pissed off that they aren't forced to talk Jap [sic] and worship an emperor.  ....




Do you really think that was a possible outcome of WWII? Are you really that ignorant and foolish?


----------



## Cosmos

The nuclear bombs saved hundred of thousands of American troops and hundreds of thousands of Japanese.  Plus, it possibly prevented Japan from suffering a half century of Soviet domination.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Time for you to go buy some more books. This time about the Soviet army immediately after Germany fell. Off you go.


I have those books, what would you like to know.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Something of an exaggeration.


Your proof?


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> What on earth is that supposed to mean?





> Not as sad at your frustration for not being able to burn them....


You denigrated the use of books, I replied to your statement in proper context.


----------



## mikegriffith1

For those who think that Imperial Japan was “just like” Nazi Germany, I suggest you read Israeli historian Dr. Ben-Ami Shillony’s book _The Jews and the Japanese _(Charles E. Tuttle Publishing, 1991)_. _Shillony, a professor of Japanese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, devotes an entire chapter to documenting the fact that during WW II the Japanese not only saved thousands of Jews from the reach of the Nazis, over the protests of the Nazi government, but also ensured that Jews living in China were unmolested, among other friendly and protective actions (chapter 21). The Nazi government protested numerous times about Japan’s pro-Jewish policies, but Japan’s leaders ignored their protests.

By the way, here is what Dr. Shillony says about our decision to nuke Japan:

One may question the moral justification of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. They were dropped when Japan had already been devastated by massive conventional bombing and was on the brink of collapse, when its government was sending urgent appeals through Moscow to negotiate for peace, and when there was no longer any danger of a Japanese attack on other countries. The dropping of the atomic bombs was a clear case of indiscriminate killing, the type of behavior that the Allies had always condemned. It even enraged some of President Harry S. Truman’s top advisers. Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, the president’s representative on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in his diary at the time, “It is not a bomb. It is not an explosive. It is a poisonous thing that kills people by its deadly radioactive action. . . . In being the first to use it, we have adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war by destroying women and children.” (page/location 1166, Kindle Edition)​


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something of an exaggeration.
> 
> 
> 
> Your proof?
Click to expand...



Many, many, many people from all those countries who do not harbor the hatred you want to dramatize. There are many, many, many people in all those countries who see the value of moving forward together in mutual peace and benefit while by no means forgetting or overlooking the past.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sparky said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not from ACTUAL top military>>>
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.”
> 
> &&&
> 
> The commanding general of the *US Army Air Forces*, *Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “*the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.*
> _
> &&&_
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr.*, Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. *It was a mistake to ever drop it*…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> _
> _
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that *“the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…*”
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower,* for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…” He later publicly declared “…*it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”*
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> Even the famous “hawk” *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “*the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> *
Click to expand...

And again all you have are memoirs I have ACTUAL Japanese intercept and ACTUAL Japanese Government documents that PROVE you are wrong. All you have are Opinions and not a single document to back up your moronic claim.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth is that supposed to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as sad at your frustration for not being able to burn them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You denigrated the use of books....
Click to expand...



I have done no such thing. I ridiculed your silly self-importance over the incredible feat of owning a few books. You are an amazing scholar.


----------



## Unkotare

sparky said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not from ACTUAL top military>>>
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.”
> 
> &&&
> 
> The commanding general of the *US Army Air Forces*, *Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “*the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.*
> _
> &&&_
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr.*, Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. *It was a mistake to ever drop it*…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> _
> _
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that *“the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…*”
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower,* for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…” He later publicly declared “…*it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”*
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> Even the famous “hawk” *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “*the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> *
Click to expand...




All of which and more has been presented to the doddering old fool many times before on many other threads.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not from ACTUAL top military>>>
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.”
> 
> &&&
> 
> The commanding general of the *US Army Air Forces*, *Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “*the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.*
> _
> &&&_
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr.*, Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. *It was a mistake to ever drop it*…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> _
> _
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that *“the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…*”
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower,* for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…” He later publicly declared “…*it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”*
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> Even the famous “hawk” *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “*the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which and more has been presented to the doddering old fool many times before on many other threads.
Click to expand...

Again yu have never presented a single official document EVER.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> For those who think that Imperial Japan was “just like” Nazi Germany, I suggest you read Israeli historian Dr. Ben-Ami Shillony’s book _The Jews and the Japanese _(Charles E. Tuttle Publishing, 1991)_. _Shillony, a professor of Japanese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, devotes an entire chapter to documenting the fact that during WW II the Japanese not only saved thousands of Jews from the reach of the Nazis, over the protests of the Nazi government, but also ensured that Jews living in China were unmolested, among other friendly and protective actions (chapter 21). The Nazi government protested numerous times about Japan’s pro-Jewish policies, but Japan’s leaders ignored their protests.
> 
> By the way, here is what Dr. Shillony says about our decision to nuke Japan:
> 
> One may question the moral justification of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. They were dropped when Japan had already been devastated by massive conventional bombing and was on the brink of collapse, when its government was sending urgent appeals through Moscow to negotiate for peace, and when there was no longer any danger of a Japanese attack on other countries. The dropping of the atomic bombs was a clear case of indiscriminate killing, the type of behavior that the Allies had always condemned. It even enraged some of President Harry S. Truman’s top advisers. Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, the president’s representative on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in his diary at the time, “It is not a bomb. It is not an explosive. It is a poisonous thing that kills people by its deadly radioactive action. . . . In being the first to use it, we have adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war by destroying women and children.” (page/location 1166, Kindle Edition)​


Yet, the Japanese continued to kill Americans. 900 Americans on July 30th. Thus far, Mikegriffith1 has not been able to refute on of my facts? Why is that. If Japan was beaten and it is so easy to prove, why does the author of this OP explain how Japan was still killing 100's of Americans? Over 900 on July 30th of 1945.

Competely beaten, unable to life a finger to defend themselves but able to kill 100's of Americans.

Another startling fact, posted by those who claim Russia won the war, was even though Japan was completely beaten, Japan fought Russia until August 20th!

Months after the OP and everyone else claims Japan is beaten, they are still fighting. Care for me to go on?


----------



## sparky

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not from ACTUAL top military>>>
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.”
> 
> &&&
> 
> The commanding general of the *US Army Air Forces*, *Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “*the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.*
> _
> &&&_
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr.*, Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. *It was a mistake to ever drop it*…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> _
> _
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that *“the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…*”
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower,* for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…” He later publicly declared “…*it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”*
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> Even the famous “hawk” *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “*the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which and more has been presented to the doddering old fool many times before on many other threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again yu have never presented a single official document EVER.
Click to expand...



I just did

so, we're 1 and 0

~S~


----------



## sparky

elektra said:


> Another startling fact, posted by those who claim Russia won the war, was even though Japan was completely beaten, Japan fought Russia until August 20th!



They didn't want their emperor executed, or their country communist

imagine that!

~S~


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sparky said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not from ACTUAL top military>>>
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.”
> 
> &&&
> 
> The commanding general of the *US Army Air Forces*, *Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “*the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.*
> _
> &&&_
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr.*, Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. *It was a mistake to ever drop it*…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> _
> _
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that *“the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…*”
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower,* for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…” He later publicly declared “…*it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”*
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> Even the famous “hawk” *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “*the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which and more has been presented to the doddering old fool many times before on many other threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again yu have never presented a single official document EVER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just did
> 
> so, we're 1 and 0
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

That is an opinion piece NOT an official document. Dumb ass.


----------



## Unkotare

mikegriffith1 said:


> For those who think that Imperial Japan was “just like” Nazi Germany, I suggest you read Israeli historian Dr. Ben-Ami Shillony’s book _The Jews and the Japanese _(Charles E. Tuttle Publishing, 1991)_. _Shillony, a professor of Japanese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, devotes an entire chapter to documenting the fact that during WW II the Japanese not only saved thousands of Jews from the reach of the Nazis, over the protests of the Nazi government, but also ensured that Jews living in China were unmolested, among other friendly and protective actions (chapter 21). The Nazi government protested numerous times about Japan’s pro-Jewish policies, but Japan’s leaders ignored their protests.
> 
> By the way, here is what Dr. Shillony says about our decision to nuke Japan:
> 
> One may question the moral justification of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. They were dropped when Japan had already been devastated by massive conventional bombing and was on the brink of collapse, when its government was sending urgent appeals through Moscow to negotiate for peace, and when there was no longer any danger of a Japanese attack on other countries. The dropping of the atomic bombs was a clear case of indiscriminate killing, the type of behavior that the Allies had always condemned. It even enraged some of President Harry S. Truman’s top advisers. Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, the president’s representative on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in his diary at the time, “It is not a bomb. It is not an explosive. It is a poisonous thing that kills people by its deadly radioactive action. . . . In being the first to use it, we have adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war by destroying women and children.” (page/location 1166, Kindle Edition)​


.


----------



## Unkotare

sparky said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not from ACTUAL top military>>>
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.”
> 
> &&&
> 
> The commanding general of the *US Army Air Forces*, *Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “*the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.*
> _
> &&&_
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr.*, Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. *It was a mistake to ever drop it*…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> _
> _
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that *“the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…*”
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower,* for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…” He later publicly declared “…*it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”*
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> Even the famous “hawk” *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “*the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> *
Click to expand...

.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> They didn't want their emperor executed, or their country communist
> 
> imagine that!
> 
> ~S~


so? Many people are arguing that Japan had no fight left, they were beat months before we dropped the bomb. Facts tell a different story. Japan fought the USSR until the 20th of August. 

This proves they did not surrender because the became afraid that the USSR joined the war.


----------



## Weatherman2020

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Happy Surrender Day. 
August 12 if you needed a reminder.


----------



## Staidhup

It’s easy for someone to play revisionist historian, especially if they don’t have any skin in the game. If Japan or Germany had the bomb they would have used it relentlessly. Japan waited, did not respond, for the war ministry’s position was until the last man, women, child, fall the war would not end and most importantly had ultimate control. The slaughter on both sides would have been beyond comprehension, far in excess of the lives lost resulting from the two bombs. My gut feeling is that The entire east would today be under communist control and their purges alone would have made the bombs child’s play.


----------



## karpenter

The Recurring Theme Of This Thread

WWII Was The Last Time Progs Loved America
Every Prog On This Thread Has Taken The Side Of The Enemy
In A War The Enemy Started
The Two Atomic Raids
Weren't Even The Deadliest Bombing Raids


----------



## elektra

6 more days until the anniversary of the last airman to die by japanese enemy pilots over japan, that will the 18th of August.

Japanese pilots, that would be Japanese veteran ace pilots.


----------



## sparky

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't want their emperor executed, or their country communist
> 
> imagine that!
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> so? Many people are arguing that Japan had no fight left, they were beat months before we dropped the bomb. Facts tell a different story. Japan fought the USSR until the 20th of August.
> 
> This proves they did not surrender because the became afraid that the USSR joined the war.
Click to expand...



We shut the USSR out of surrender negotiations 

Japan would not exist, because they would have been part of the USSR

and their emperor would have been publicly executed 

Annihilation differs from unconditional surrender in said sense

~S~


----------



## mikegriffith1

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again yu have never presented a single official document EVER.



First off, he has presented you with documented statements by senior American military leaders that using the atomic bomb was unnecessary and wrong.

Second, **so what** if you have "official government documents"??? Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete, and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent.

Anyway, I see a big part of the problem is that you and others are projecting the actions of _part _of the Japanese army onto most/all Japanese in that period. The vast majority of Japan's civilian leaders were good and decent men. They were aghast and ashamed when war-crimes tribunals revealed the atrocities committed by _some _Japanese forces.

Similarly, many senior Japanese military officers were good and decent men who did what they could to halt and punish war crimes when they learned of them. General Homma, for example, was very pro-American and exerted great efforts to ensure that Japanese rule in the Philippines was moderate and tolerant, but he was eventually overruled by hardliners above him. And General Homma was horrified when he heard the accounts of Japanese cruelty during the Bataan Death March at his trial. Given the structure of Japanese army command and operations, it is not at all surprising that he was unaware of the incidents of cruelty when they occurred. His HQ was hundreds of yards from any point of the march, and for long stretches of the march there were no acts of cruelty--in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.

Finally, it bears repeating that not all Japanese officers and soldiers committed war crimes. Many did not. The diaries of American and Allied soldiers in the Pacific contain numerous accounts of kindness and decency shown to them by Japanese soldiers. See, for example, Richard Aldrich's award-winning book _The Far Away War: Personal Diaries of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific._


----------



## Picaro

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't want their emperor executed, or their country communist
> 
> imagine that!
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> 
> so? Many people are arguing that Japan had no fight left, they were beat months before we dropped the bomb. Facts tell a different story. Japan fought the USSR until the 20th of August.
> 
> This proves they did not surrender because the became afraid that the USSR joined the war.
Click to expand...


Stalin didn't even declare war on Japan until we had already crushed it. All they did was rush to seize as much of it as possible. the bombs also sent a message to Mao and Stalin that we would use them if they sought to push us out.

In any case, Japan still had millions of soldiers under arms in Asia, so defeating the homeland was imperative.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> General Homma, for example, was very pro-American and exerted great efforts to ensure that Japanese rule in the Philippines was moderate and tolerant, but he was eventually overruled by hardliners above him. And General Homma was horrified when he heard the accounts of Japanese cruelty during the Bataan Death March at his trial. Given the structure of Japanese army command and operations, it is not at all surprising that he was unaware of the incidents of cruelty when they occurred. His HQ was hundreds of yards from any point of the march, and for long stretches of the march there were no acts of cruelty--in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.


They were horrified? It was samurai culture and traditions they practiced, that was the horror. You will make the claim that the Japanese Army Generals knew nothing of their culture and traditions?

Pictures were sent back to Japan, to their parents! Who sent them to the local paper for publication! 

The General knew nothing? Bullshit! The torture and horror even made the news papers!


----------



## mikegriffith1

Picaro said:


> so? Many people are arguing that Japan had no fight left, they were beat months before we dropped the bomb. Facts tell a different story. Japan fought the USSR until the 20th of August.



Oh, sheesh. Come on. In all but a few places, the Soviets mowed down the depleted, hungry Japanese army like a knife cutting through butter. Only in a few cases did Japanese forces manage to put up stiff resistance to the Soviet onslaught.



> This proves they did not surrender because the became afraid that the USSR joined the war.



How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.



> Stalin didn't even declare war on Japan until we had already crushed it. All they did was rush to seize as much of it as possible. the bombs also sent a message to Mao and Stalin that we would use them if they sought to push us out.



Truman never should have let the Soviets enter the Pacific War. That was a horrific act of cruelty that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The Soviets murdered most of the tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers they took prisoner.

A few years later, Truman handed China over to Mao's Communists, who proceeded to murder at least 20 million Chinese people.



> In any case, Japan still had millions of soldiers under arms in Asia, so defeating the homeland was imperative.



This is just obscene, inhumane nonsense. The ease with which the Soviets plowed through Japanese forces in Manchuria shows the depleted, pitiful state of the once powerful Japanese Kwantung Army.

Yes, the Japanese had just over 2 million men on the home islands. Yeah, and they had no air cover--none, zilch, zippo. The U.S. Navy was bombarding Japan's coastal cities at will, because the Japanese navy had ceased to function as any kind of a credible fighting force. The U.S. Air Force was bombing Japanese cities at will. The Japanese people were not getting enough food to maintain basic health. Most of those 2 million Japanese troops had no combat experience and were surviving on meager rations. Weeks before Truman decided to vaporize a defenseless city with an atomic bomb, the Japanese had been putting out peace feelers, and we knew all about those feelers and knew that Japan's only ironclad condition was the retention of the emperor.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Finally, it bears repeating that not all Japanese officers and soldiers committed war crimes. Many did not. The diaries of American and Allied soldiers in the Pacific contain numerous accounts of kindness and decency shown to them by Japanese soldiers. See, for example, Richard Aldrich's award-winning book _The Far Away War: Personal Diaries of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific._



It may be a good book, but it seems to paint a very picture than the one you speak of. 
Ordinary Japanese should just abandon the ship whose Elites are just using the masses for last minute overtaxing before bailing.


> The book also features the memoir of a New Zealand soldier working with a Fijian regiment who came across the bodies of two native women, pegged out on an earthen mound.
> 
> They had been "raped to death" by Japanese soldiers. Then they found a dead American soldier who had stakes driven through each shoulder and his hands cut off. "As we moved away again, one of my corporals said to me: "No more prisoners, turaga[sir]." I agreed with him.'


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again yu have never presented a single official document EVER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, he has presented you with documented statements by senior American military leaders that using the atomic bomb was unnecessary and wrong.
> 
> Second, **so what** if you have "official government documents"??? Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete, and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent.
> 
> Anyway, I see a big part of the problem is that you and others are projecting the actions of _part _of the Japanese army onto most/all Japanese in that period. The vast majority of Japan's civilian leaders were good and decent men. They were aghast and ashamed when war-crimes tribunals revealed the atrocities committed by _some _Japanese forces.
> 
> Similarly, many senior Japanese military officers were good and decent men who did what they could to halt and punish war crimes when they learned of them. General Homma, for example, was very pro-American and exerted great efforts to ensure that Japanese rule in the Philippines was moderate and tolerant, but he was eventually overruled by hardliners above him. And General Homma was horrified when he heard the accounts of Japanese cruelty during the Bataan Death March at his trial. Given the structure of Japanese army command and operations, it is not at all surprising that he was unaware of the incidents of cruelty when they occurred. His HQ was hundreds of yards from any point of the march, and for long stretches of the march there were no acts of cruelty--in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.
> 
> Finally, it bears repeating that not all Japanese officers and soldiers committed war crimes. Many did not. The diaries of American and Allied soldiers in the Pacific contain numerous accounts of kindness and decency shown to them by Japanese soldiers. See, for example, Richard Aldrich's award-winning book _The Far Away War: Personal Diaries of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific._
Click to expand...

The Government of Japan was not civilians at all the Army and Navy ran the Government. The Army was in charge and REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic bombs and when the Emperor over ruled them attempted a Coup to stop the surrender. As for those America Generals? NONE of them had anything to do with the Atomic Bombs and had no knowledge of the bomb until after it was dropped. NONE were involved in anyway with the decision to drop or not drop and MOST of them never served in the Pacific and had NO first hand experience with the Japanese. I have Documents from the JAPANESE that clearly shows the Government had NO INTENTION of surrendering and the Atomic Bombs 2 of them, convinced the Emperor to over rule the Military. You have OPINIONS from Generals not even involved in the war with Japan. I repeat provide an actual document from the Japanese or American Government that says anything you claim.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> so? Many people are arguing that Japan had no fight left, they were beat months before we dropped the bomb. Facts tell a different story. Japan fought the USSR until the 20th of August.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sheesh. Come on. In all but a few places, the Soviets mowed down the depleted, hungry Japanese army like a knife cutting through butter. Only in a few cases did Japanese forces manage to put up stiff resistance to the Soviet onslaught.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This proves they did not surrender because the became afraid that the USSR joined the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin didn't even declare war on Japan until we had already crushed it. All they did was rush to seize as much of it as possible. the bombs also sent a message to Mao and Stalin that we would use them if they sought to push us out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman never should have let the Soviets enter the Pacific War. That was a horrific act of cruelty that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The Soviets murdered most of the tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers they took prisoner.
> 
> A few years later, Truman handed China over to Mao's Communists, who proceeded to murder at least 20 million Chinese people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, Japan still had millions of soldiers under arms in Asia, so defeating the homeland was imperative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just obscene, inhumane nonsense. The ease with which the Soviets plowed through Japanese forces in Manchuria shows the depleted, pitiful state of the once powerful Japanese Kwantung Army.
> 
> Yes, the Japanese had just over 2 million men on the home islands. Yeah, and they had no air cover--none, zilch, zippo. The U.S. Navy was bombarding Japan's coastal cities at will, because the Japanese navy had ceased to function as any kind of a credible fighting force. The U.S. Air Force was bombing Japanese cities at will. The Japanese people were not getting enough food to maintain basic health. Most of those 2 million Japanese troops had no combat experience and were surviving on meager rations. Weeks before Truman decided to vaporize a defenseless city with an atomic bomb, the Japanese had been putting out peace feelers, and we knew all about those feelers and knew that Japan's only ironclad condition was the retention of the emperor.
Click to expand...

The Hardliners REFUSED to surrender moron. It took the Emperor to order the surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to stop that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> so? Many people are arguing that Japan had no fight left, they were beat months before we dropped the bomb. Facts tell a different story. Japan fought the USSR until the 20th of August.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sheesh. Come on. In all but a few places, the Soviets mowed down the depleted, hungry Japanese army like a knife cutting through butter. Only in a few cases did Japanese forces manage to put up stiff resistance to the Soviet onslaught.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This proves they did not surrender because the became afraid that the USSR joined the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin didn't even declare war on Japan until we had already crushed it. All they did was rush to seize as much of it as possible. the bombs also sent a message to Mao and Stalin that we would use them if they sought to push us out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman never should have let the Soviets enter the Pacific War. That was a horrific act of cruelty that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The Soviets murdered most of the tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers they took prisoner.
> 
> A few years later, Truman handed China over to Mao's Communists, who proceeded to murder at least 20 million Chinese people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, Japan still had millions of soldiers under arms in Asia, so defeating the homeland was imperative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just obscene, inhumane nonsense. The ease with which the Soviets plowed through Japanese forces in Manchuria shows the depleted, pitiful state of the once powerful Japanese Kwantung Army.
> 
> Yes, the Japanese had just over 2 million men on the home islands. Yeah, and they had no air cover--none, zilch, zippo. The U.S. Navy was bombarding Japan's coastal cities at will, because the Japanese navy had ceased to function as any kind of a credible fighting force. The U.S. Air Force was bombing Japanese cities at will. The Japanese people were not getting enough food to maintain basic health. Most of those 2 million Japanese troops had no combat experience and were surviving on meager rations. Weeks before Truman decided to vaporize a defenseless city with an atomic bomb, the Japanese had been putting out peace feelers, and we knew all about those feelers and knew that Japan's only ironclad condition was the retention of the emperor.
Click to expand...

MORON, wanna know what the Japanese offered to "surrender"? I have the documents from the Japanese, they offered a Ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, No concessions in China, no occupation NO disarming and no consequences for the war.


----------



## Markle

This?  Again?  What a waste.


----------



## Picaro

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Homma, for example, was very pro-American and exerted great efforts to ensure that Japanese rule in the Philippines was moderate and tolerant, but he was eventually overruled by hardliners above him. And General Homma was horrified when he heard the accounts of Japanese cruelty during the Bataan Death March at his trial. Given the structure of Japanese army command and operations, it is not at all surprising that he was unaware of the incidents of cruelty when they occurred. His HQ was hundreds of yards from any point of the march, and for long stretches of the march there were no acts of cruelty--in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.
> 
> 
> 
> They were horrified? It was samurai culture and traditions they practiced, that was the horror. You will make the claim that the Japanese Army Generals knew nothing of their culture and traditions?
> 
> Pictures were sent back to Japan, to their parents! Who sent them to the local paper for publication!
> 
> The General knew nothing? Bullshit! The torture and horror even made the news papers!
Click to expand...


He found two or three Jap Generals and for or so American Generals that said something he liked, and goes forth to proclaim this as evidence they all represented the views of the hundreds and thousands of the rest. They do the same thing when they run around claiming 'The Founders Were Atheists and Deists N Stuff' based on Frankiln, Jefferson, and Paine, never mind the some 5 thousand others who ran things in that era; they don't count when one is blathering a pet narrative.


----------



## Picaro

RetiredGySgt said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> so? Many people are arguing that Japan had no fight left, they were beat months before we dropped the bomb. Facts tell a different story. Japan fought the USSR until the 20th of August.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sheesh. Come on. In all but a few places, the Soviets mowed down the depleted, hungry Japanese army like a knife cutting through butter. Only in a few cases did Japanese forces manage to put up stiff resistance to the Soviet onslaught.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This proves they did not surrender because the became afraid that the USSR joined the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin didn't even declare war on Japan until we had already crushed it. All they did was rush to seize as much of it as possible. the bombs also sent a message to Mao and Stalin that we would use them if they sought to push us out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman never should have let the Soviets enter the Pacific War. That was a horrific act of cruelty that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The Soviets murdered most of the tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers they took prisoner.
> 
> A few years later, Truman handed China over to Mao's Communists, who proceeded to murder at least 20 million Chinese people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, Japan still had millions of soldiers under arms in Asia, so defeating the homeland was imperative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just obscene, inhumane nonsense. The ease with which the Soviets plowed through Japanese forces in Manchuria shows the depleted, pitiful state of the once powerful Japanese Kwantung Army.
> 
> Yes, the Japanese had just over 2 million men on the home islands. Yeah, and they had no air cover--none, zilch, zippo. The U.S. Navy was bombarding Japan's coastal cities at will, because the Japanese navy had ceased to function as any kind of a credible fighting force. The U.S. Air Force was bombing Japanese cities at will. The Japanese people were not getting enough food to maintain basic health. Most of those 2 million Japanese troops had no combat experience and were surviving on meager rations. Weeks before Truman decided to vaporize a defenseless city with an atomic bomb, the Japanese had been putting out peace feelers, and we knew all about those feelers and knew that Japan's only ironclad condition was the retention of the emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Hardliners REFUSED to surrender moron. It took the Emperor to order the surrender and then the Army staged a Coup to stop that.
Click to expand...


Yep. These far right nutjobs are why Conservatives and the GOP have trouble winning by more than  tiny percentage points; time to purge them from respectable politics as Buckley did with the John Birchers in the 1960's.

If one hates FDR, that's fine, hate him for real reasons; it doesn't mean everybody else has to pretend this sort of ludicrous bullshit is a valid propaganda gimmick. It isn't, it's just infantile stupidity, no different than the fake news the left destroyed it's credibility with re Trump.


----------



## Unkotare

Staidhup said:


> It’s easy for someone to play revisionist historian, especially if they don’t have any skin in the game. If Japan or Germany had the bomb they would have used it relentlessly. Japan waited, did not respond, for the war ministry’s position was until the last man, women, child, fall the war would not end and most importantly had ultimate control. The slaughter on both sides would have been beyond comprehension, far in excess of the lives lost resulting from the two bombs. My gut feeling is that The entire east would today be under communist control and their purges alone would have made the bombs child’s play.




Another one hiding behind “no choice!” to avoid the central moral issue.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s easy for someone to play revisionist historian, especially if they don’t have any skin in the game. If Japan or Germany had the bomb they would have used it relentlessly. Japan waited, did not respond, for the war ministry’s position was until the last man, women, child, fall the war would not end and most importantly had ultimate control. The slaughter on both sides would have been beyond comprehension, far in excess of the lives lost resulting from the two bombs. My gut feeling is that The entire east would today be under communist control and their purges alone would have made the bombs child’s play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one hiding behind “no choice!” to avoid the central moral issue.
Click to expand...

You wanna compare Morals? Then you need to know the morals at the time the attacks took place. Not 75 years later.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Homma, for example, was very pro-American and exerted great efforts to ensure that Japanese rule in the Philippines was moderate and tolerant, but he was eventually overruled by hardliners above him. And General Homma was horrified when he heard the accounts of Japanese cruelty during the Bataan Death March at his trial. Given the structure of Japanese army command and operations, it is not at all surprising that he was unaware of the incidents of cruelty when they occurred. His HQ was hundreds of yards from any point of the march, and for long stretches of the march there were no acts of cruelty--in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.
> 
> 
> 
> They were horrified? It was samurai culture and traditions they practiced, that was the horror. ....
Click to expand...



Stop watching so many cartoons.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s easy for someone to play revisionist historian, especially if they don’t have any skin in the game. If Japan or Germany had the bomb they would have used it relentlessly. Japan waited, did not respond, for the war ministry’s position was until the last man, women, child, fall the war would not end and most importantly had ultimate control. The slaughter on both sides would have been beyond comprehension, far in excess of the lives lost resulting from the two bombs. My gut feeling is that The entire east would today be under communist control and their purges alone would have made the bombs child’s play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one hiding behind “no choice!” to avoid the central moral issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanna compare Morals? Then you need to know the morals at the time the attacks took place. Not 75 years later.
Click to expand...





Many US military leaders of that time knew what was morally wrong. Too bad you’re not half the man they were.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again yu have never presented a single official document EVER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, he has presented you with documented statements by senior American military leaders that using the atomic bomb was unnecessary and wrong.
> 
> Second, **so what** if you have "official government documents"??? Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete, and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent.
Click to expand...

I see a glaring error in your understanding.

First you claim that statements from senior military officials are relevant.

Second, you contradict your first statement, 





> Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete, and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent./QUOTE]
> 
> Are the senior American leaders who made accurate statements not the same people you also claim made misleading and fraudulent documents.
> 
> The answer is yes. You have destroyed the credibility of the senior american military leaders.
> 
> By your own words, senior American military leaders were making false, misleading, fraudulent, statements.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see you dig yourself out of that. You just destroyed the premise of your OP.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Stop watching so many cartoons.


Learning the definition of your user name leads me to believe the credibility of those who wrote about the japanese.

They were pretty sick.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop watching so many cartoons.
> 
> 
> 
> Learning the definition of your user name ...
Click to expand...




Which you haven’t.


----------



## HenryBHough

Unkotare said:


> Do you really think that was a possible outcome of WWII? Are you really that ignorant and foolish?



Beware of mirrors.

They may cause you to soil yourself.


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that was a possible outcome of WWII? Are you really that ignorant and foolish?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beware of mirrors.
> 
> They may cause you to soil yourself.
Click to expand...



Do you really think that Japan (or Germany for that matter) occupying, holding and completely overthrowing all of the United States and somehow forcing all Americans to speak Japanese was in any way a possible outcome of the war? Stop emoting and think for a minute.


----------



## M14 Shooter




----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s easy for someone to play revisionist historian, especially if they don’t have any skin in the game. If Japan or Germany had the bomb they would have used it relentlessly. Japan waited, did not respond, for the war ministry’s position was until the last man, women, child, fall the war would not end and most importantly had ultimate control. The slaughter on both sides would have been beyond comprehension, far in excess of the lives lost resulting from the two bombs. My gut feeling is that The entire east would today be under communist control and their purges alone would have made the bombs child’s play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one hiding behind “no choice!” to avoid the central moral issue.
Click to expand...


lol at this deviant troll claiming some higher moral authority.


----------



## HenryBHough

Unkotare said:


> Do you really think that Japan (or Germany for that matter) occupying, holding and completely overthrowing all of the United States and somehow forcing all Americans to speak Japanese was in any way a possible outcome of the war? Stop emoting and think for a minute.



Hey, it's you liberal shits who want authoritarian government so why would you not have been much happier to live under a Jap emperor? Please refrain from projecting your own demented desires onto others.


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that Japan (or Germany for that matter) occupying, holding and completely overthrowing all of the United States and somehow forcing all Americans to speak Japanese was in any way a possible outcome of the war? Stop emoting and think for a minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, it's you liberal .......
Click to expand...



Who liberal? To whom are you addressing this comment?


----------



## HenryBHough

Unkotare said:


> Who liberal? To whom are you addressing this comment?



Your reading comprehension issue grows daily.  Is it something in the water?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that Japan (or Germany for that matter) occupying, holding and completely overthrowing all of the United States and somehow forcing all Americans to speak Japanese was in any way a possible outcome of the war? Stop emoting and think for a minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, it's you liberal .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who liberal? To whom are you addressing this comment?
Click to expand...

Well you ARE a liar, you have yet to EVER link to an official source for your claims.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Which you haven’t.


No, I have, but, the meaning translated, is pretty bad. It is the Japanese culture. I realized how perverted they were a long time ago. Way before I learned how sadistic the japanese soldiers were in WWII. Simply things, like Ivory carved into a very explicit non-missionary sexual scene. The eating of Rhino tusks and nuts, to make one viral. All that abnormal behavior. It just made me realize that a part of that culture is very much sadistic sexual perverted. And that is not a judgement or opinion. Just on observation of their behavior, art, customs, tradition, and culture.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> First off, he has presented you with documented statements by senior American military leaders that using the atomic bomb was unnecessary and wrong.
> 
> Second, **so what** if you have "official government documents"??? Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete, and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent.


You contradict yourself and thus discredit your post, your opinion, the premise of this OP.

You can not claim "senior american military leader" made statements that are documented that indicate the Atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary and wrong, and then state, "Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent."

You have thus stated, that at one point, American Military Leaders were misleading and fraudulent? The source is thus discredited. You can not cherry pick and have it both ways, they are to be trusted here, but there they were lying scoundrels. 

You have discredited the premise of your OP with your own words. Thank you. Nothing more need be said, by you.


----------



## anynameyouwish

harmonica said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a bomb
> Nobody else did
> 
> There was no reason to invade
> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
> 
> 
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nuked an army or a navy....
> 
> heck....both.
> 
> if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
> 
> 
> now you see em....
> 
> now ya don't!
> 
> 
> now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
> 
> other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
> not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country
Click to expand...



"not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"


you sure are real smart about WWII

for an idiot.....

so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...


ok

you win

you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> General Homma, for example, was very pro-American and exerted great efforts to ensure that Japanese rule in the Philippines was moderate and tolerant, but he was eventually overruled by hardliners above him. And General Homma was horrified when he heard the accounts of Japanese cruelty during the Bataan Death March at his trial.


If, as you claim, General Homma new nothing of the horror, why do you state he went to great efforts to make sure Japanese rule was moderant and tolerant. 

According to mr mikegriffith1, Japanese rule was always good everywhere, so why did this one General have to go to great lengths to correct the horror that did not exist and that he never learned of? 

Again you contradict yourself, again you prove your opinion is not based on fact. This is the 2nd gross error I am pointing out. 

You have failed at supporting your opinion and the premise of your OP.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> .


Lets start with one study, it should be easy, quote and link to a study. I have never seen one, not that I have looked for one. So link to a study, quoted the study, with at least a page number, so that we can see exactly what you are talking about. 

Simply stating, "study says so", does nobody any good, the least of all you.


----------



## sparky

one can set one's watch on how fast threads do this here>>>>








~S~


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> They were aghast and ashamed when war-crimes tribunals revealed the atrocities committed by _some _Japanese forces.


That would be the wrong time to be "aghast and ashamed". Of course, those who did stand trial FAILED to commit Hari Kari, as required. So what kind of men were they, really? At least from the Japanese view. 

From our view, it was way to late to be aghast and ashamed after they had committed the crimes. The time to be aghast and ashamed is when those under their command committed the crimes.


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nuked an army or a navy....
> 
> heck....both.
> 
> if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
> 
> 
> now you see em....
> 
> now ya don't!
> 
> 
> now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
> 
> other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
> not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"
> 
> 
> you sure are real smart about WWII
> 
> for an idiot.....
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
Click to expand...

hahahahha--thanks for the chuckle


----------



## RetiredGySgt

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start with one study, it should be easy, quote and link to a study. I have never seen one, not that I have looked for one. So link to a study, quoted the study, with at least a page number, so that we can see exactly what you are talking about.
> 
> Simply stating, "study says so", does nobody any good, the least of all you.
Click to expand...

I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it.


----------



## elektra

anynameyouwish said:


> for an idiot.....
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because *CONSERVATIVES * love killing people...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"


Uh, late breaking news, all demoRAT liberal leftist progressive garbage dumps, pull your head out of you ass so you can hear something loud and clear!!!!

The war, WW II was a Democrat war fought by Democrats. It was the DEMOCRATS THAT MADE AND DROPPED THE BOMB.

We are to place blame? Democrats killed the grandpa's and grandmas and all the little children.

You people are evil fuck faced murderers.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that Japan (or Germany for that matter) occupying, holding and completely overthrowing all of the United States and somehow forcing all Americans to speak Japanese was in any way a possible outcome of the war? Stop emoting and think for a minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, it's you liberal .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who liberal? To whom are you addressing this comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you ARE a liar, you have yet to EVER link to an official source for your claims.
Click to expand...



Time for Wapner, Rain Man.


----------



## anynameyouwish

elektra said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> for an idiot.....
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because *CONSERVATIVES * love killing people...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, late breaking news, all demoRAT liberal leftist progressive garbage dumps, pull your head out of you ass so you can hear something loud and clear!!!!
> 
> The war, WW II was a Democrat war fought by Democrats. It was the DEMOCRATS THAT MADE AND DROPPED THE BOMB.
> 
> We are to place blame? Democrats killed the grandpa's and grandmas and all the little children.
> 
> You people are evil fuck faced murderers.
Click to expand...


Being a conservative republican I have no doubt you OPPOSED the DEMOCRAT war and gave your full support to HITLER and the NAZIS.

YOU conservatives are evil fuck faced murderers who LOVE to blow up cities full of old men, old women and children.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you haven’t.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have, ...
Click to expand...



No, you haven’t. You’re just trolling now.


----------



## anynameyouwish

RetiredGySgt said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start with one study, it should be easy, quote and link to a study. I have never seen one, not that I have looked for one. So link to a study, quoted the study, with at least a page number, so that we can see exactly what you are talking about.
> 
> Simply stating, "study says so", does nobody any good, the least of all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it.
Click to expand...


"I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it."

I am certain that had the 2 nukes been dropped on MILITARY INSTALLATIONS then the emperor would have been just as willing to surrender.

NOT cities full of old people

MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

anynameyouwish said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start with one study, it should be easy, quote and link to a study. I have never seen one, not that I have looked for one. So link to a study, quoted the study, with at least a page number, so that we can see exactly what you are talking about.
> 
> Simply stating, "study says so", does nobody any good, the least of all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it."
> 
> I am certain that had the 2 nukes been dropped on MILITARY INSTALLATIONS then the emperor would have been just as willing to surrender.
> 
> NOT cities full of old people
> 
> MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.
Click to expand...

Both targets WERE military targets.


----------



## 22lcidw

Does anyone think that maybe the Japanese had an atomic weapon program and we did not know how close to having the bomb if they did?


----------



## HenryBHough

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you haven’t.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven’t. You’re just trolling now.
Click to expand...


Beware mirrors.


----------



## Unkotare

anynameyouwish said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nuked an army or a navy....
> 
> heck....both.
> 
> if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
> 
> 
> now you see em....
> 
> now ya don't!
> 
> 
> now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
> 
> other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
> not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"
> 
> 
> you sure are real smart about WWII
> 
> for an idiot.....
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
Click to expand...




It was democrats who dropped the bomb, just like it was democrats who threw Americans into concentration camps.


----------



## Borillar

It was the Japanese who attacked us. Mess with the bull and you get the horns. Wait for them to decide whether to surrender or not while American servicemen were dying every day fighting them? Fuck that shit. Besides, if we didn't use them, Japan would likely have been partitioned up like Germany, and Korea would have been overrun too.


----------



## Agit8r

I mean, if they hadn't been saved for that purpose, they would have been burned up with napalm before that.


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you haven’t.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven’t. You’re just trolling now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beware mirrors.
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## elektra

anynameyouwish said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> for an idiot.....
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because *CONSERVATIVES * love killing people...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, late breaking news, all demoRAT liberal leftist progressive garbage dumps, pull your head out of you ass so you can hear something loud and clear!!!!
> 
> The war, WW II was a Democrat war fought by Democrats. It was the DEMOCRATS THAT MADE AND DROPPED THE BOMB.
> 
> We are to place blame? Democrats killed the grandpa's and grandmas and all the little children.
> 
> You people are evil fuck faced murderers.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a conservative republican I have no doubt you OPPOSED the DEMOCRAT war and gave your full support to HITLER and the NAZIS.
> 
> YOU conservatives are evil fuck faced murderers who LOVE to blow up cities full of old men, old women and children.
Click to expand...

And I have no doubt that you are a bold faced liar without a brain, a nitwit,


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which you haven’t.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven’t. You’re just trolling now.
Click to expand...

Do tell


----------



## elektra

anynameyouwish said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start with one study, it should be easy, quote and link to a study. I have never seen one, not that I have looked for one. So link to a study, quoted the study, with at least a page number, so that we can see exactly what you are talking about.
> 
> Simply stating, "study says so", does nobody any good, the least of all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it."
> 
> I am certain that had the 2 nukes been dropped on MILITARY INSTALLATIONS then the emperor would have been just as willing to surrender.
> 
> NOT cities full of old people
> 
> MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.
Click to expand...

You are certain, well hells bells, let us rewrite the history books. Nitwit!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Agit8r said:


> I mean, if they hadn't been saved for that purpose, they would have been burned up with napalm before that.


Funny how no one cares about burning Japanese cities to the ground with incendiaries - but a nuke?  OMFG!!!


----------



## HenryBHough

Unkotare said:


> Beware mirrors.



Why?[/QUOTE]

Because you snowflakes tend to shit your drawers when seeing scary stuff.


----------



## martybegan

RetiredGySgt said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start with one study, it should be easy, quote and link to a study. I have never seen one, not that I have looked for one. So link to a study, quoted the study, with at least a page number, so that we can see exactly what you are talking about.
> 
> Simply stating, "study says so", does nobody any good, the least of all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it.
Click to expand...


And due to the fact that once a 2nd one detonated, they knew it wasn't a one-off weapon (although it would have been a while before the US had another one).


----------



## Picaro

anynameyouwish said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you not understand?
> ...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
> we destroyed all of their major cities
> and they were *NOT surrendering*
> there--in big black letters
> 
> also---Germany was *NOT surrendering *UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
> they were *NOT surrendering*
> 
> please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nuked an army or a navy....
> 
> heck....both.
> 
> if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
> 
> 
> now you see em....
> 
> now ya don't!
> 
> 
> now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
> 
> other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
> not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"
> 
> 
> you sure are real smart about WWII
> 
> for an idiot.....
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
Click to expand...


Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins, only concerned about saving the lives of theri own people, completely unlike the rest of the world, which has always been poor hapless hippies victimized by the Evul Amurkins. Wonder how many Pandas died?


----------



## anynameyouwish

Picaro said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> nuked an army or a navy....
> 
> heck....both.
> 
> if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
> 
> 
> now you see em....
> 
> now ya don't!
> 
> 
> now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
> 
> other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
> not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"
> 
> 
> you sure are real smart about WWII
> 
> for an idiot.....
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins, only concerned about saving the lives of theri own people, completely unlike the rest of the world, which has always been poor hapless hippies victimized by the Evul Amurkins. Wonder how many Pandas died?
Click to expand...



"Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins,"


I am truly sorry you are an idiot.

We are talking about the morality of nuking 2 cities.

I never said that the Americans who dropped the bomb were "Evul Racist Amurkins". You are lying and accusing me of words and beliefs that I do not agree with.  Are you truly this despicable and deplorable?  must you resort to lies?

I have maintained that instead of nuking 2 cities the bombs should have been dropped on military targets.

If the intent was to get japan to surrender then an army or two or even the royal palace would have been more appropriate and just as effective.

I sincerely hope that you can stop playing the conservative-stooge victim and just try  to discuss the issue.

""Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins"


I am not surprised that someone that would say "all life is precious" when it comes to abortion has no feelings whatsoever about murdering thousands of old people and children.


----------



## martybegan

anynameyouwish said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
> 
> other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
> not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"
> 
> 
> you sure are real smart about WWII
> 
> for an idiot.....
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins, only concerned about saving the lives of theri own people, completely unlike the rest of the world, which has always been poor hapless hippies victimized by the Evul Amurkins. Wonder how many Pandas died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins,"
> 
> 
> I am truly sorry you are an idiot.
> 
> We are talking about the morality of nuking 2 cities.
> 
> I never said that the Americans who dropped the bomb were "Evul Racist Amurkins". You are lying and accusing me of words and beliefs that I do not agree with.  Are you truly this despicable and deplorable?  must you resort to lies?
> 
> I have maintained that instead of nuking 2 cities the bombs should have been dropped on military targets.
> 
> If the intent was to get japan to surrender then an army or two or even the royal palace would have been more appropriate and just as effective.
> 
> I sincerely hope that you can stop playing the conservative-stooge victim and just try  to discuss the issue.
> 
> ""Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins"
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that someone that would say "all life is precious" when it comes to abortion has no feelings whatsoever about murdering thousands of old people and children.
Click to expand...


The cities were military targets. 

Armies by nature don't just stack 10 divisions in one camp and say "please bomb me!"

Most naval units were already destroyed, and most of their remaining aircraft were dispersed to allow for kamikaze attacks.

Meanwhile their Armed forces had HQ units in those cities, and those cities were production centers for war materiel.


----------



## M14 Shooter

anynameyouwish said:


> We are talking about the morality of nuking 2 cities.


The USAAF burned every major Japanese city to the ground - significantly, mostly, or _in toto_.
Of all these cities, 2 were destroyed by nuclear weapons.
Where's the moral question?


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
> 
> http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is obscenely absurd and revisionist. Stimson didn't even really write that article. He was pressured into "writing" it, and then his "draft" was heavily edited by others. By the time he "wrote" it, he was quite ill.
> 
> Months before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already prostrate, starving, and virtually powerless. The home islands were cut off from China. The Japanese people were approaching the point of starvation. Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attacks. Consider:
> 
> -- 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.
> 
> -- By October 1944, many new fighter pilots were being trained with films instead of live flight training in order to save fuel:
> 
> The Toho Motion Picture Company constructed a lake in Setagaya and filled it with six-foot models of U.S. warships. Atop a tower a movie camera on a boom took pictures of the vessels from various angles, simulating different speeds of approach. These films were shown as a substitute for flight training in order to save fuel. (John Toland, _The Rising Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, _New York: Random House, 2003 Modern Library Paperback Edition, p. 536)​
> -- 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. Many 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 Navy’s 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 air force 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 and the Air Force. 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 in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.
> 
> 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)​
> So this nonsense that we had to use nukes to "save hundreds of thousands of lives" is gross revisionism of the basest kind. Again, weeks before Hiroshima, we knew from multiple sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that their only condition was that the emperor not be deposed, which was exactly the arrangement that we later accepted--after we had nuked two cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow and amazingly STUPID Japan WOULD NOT surrender. We were faced with an invasion that would probably have killed 6 million Japanese and we would have lost a million troops. Again the FACTS after 2 ATOMIC Bombs the Government oif Japan REFUSED to surrender, they REFUSED. The Emperor over rode them and order the surrender and the response from the Army was an attempted Coup to stop that from happening.
> 
> Even assuming we did not invade in November, the winter months would have killed millions of starving and freezing Japanese citizens. And the Army which ran the Government DID NOT CARE.
> 
> The only terms they offered were a ceasefire return to 41 start Lines except in China where they offered no concessions and NO disarmament, no troops in Japan and NO sacking of the Emperor.
Click to expand...

Once we had an atomic bomb there was never any need for an invasion

The only question was how we should use our new nuclear superiority

Current position was that killing 150,000 civilians was the only way to get Japan to surrender. There is no proof that says a lesser act would not have yielded the same result


----------



## rightwinger

Ernie S. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender. 

Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary. 

70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
> 
> http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is obscenely absurd and revisionist. Stimson didn't even really write that article. He was pressured into "writing" it, and then his "draft" was heavily edited by others. By the time he "wrote" it, he was quite ill.
> 
> Months before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already prostrate, starving, and virtually powerless. The home islands were cut off from China. The Japanese people were approaching the point of starvation. Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attacks. Consider:
> 
> -- 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.
> 
> -- By October 1944, many new fighter pilots were being trained with films instead of live flight training in order to save fuel:
> 
> The Toho Motion Picture Company constructed a lake in Setagaya and filled it with six-foot models of U.S. warships. Atop a tower a movie camera on a boom took pictures of the vessels from various angles, simulating different speeds of approach. These films were shown as a substitute for flight training in order to save fuel. (John Toland, _The Rising Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, _New York: Random House, 2003 Modern Library Paperback Edition, p. 536)​
> -- 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. Many 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 Navy’s 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 air force 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 and the Air Force. 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 in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.
> 
> 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)​
> So this nonsense that we had to use nukes to "save hundreds of thousands of lives" is gross revisionism of the basest kind. Again, weeks before Hiroshima, we knew from multiple sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that their only condition was that the emperor not be deposed, which was exactly the arrangement that we later accepted--after we had nuked two cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow and amazingly STUPID Japan WOULD NOT surrender. We were faced with an invasion that would probably have killed 6 million Japanese and we would have lost a million troops. Again the FACTS after 2 ATOMIC Bombs the Government oif Japan REFUSED to surrender, they REFUSED. The Emperor over rode them and order the surrender and the response from the Army was an attempted Coup to stop that from happening.
> 
> Even assuming we did not invade in November, the winter months would have killed millions of starving and freezing Japanese citizens. And the Army which ran the Government DID NOT CARE.
> 
> The only terms they offered were a ceasefire return to 41 start Lines except in China where they offered no concessions and NO disarmament, no troops in Japan and NO sacking of the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once we had an atomic bomb there was never any need for an invasion
> 
> The only question was how we should use our new nuclear superiority
> 
> Current position was that killing 150,000 civilians was the only way to get Japan to surrender. There is no proof that says a lesser act would not have yielded the same result
Click to expand...

LOL even after 2 nukes the Japanese Government REFUSED to surrender but hey we are to believe that cute puppies and wishful thinking would have got them to surrender.


----------



## elektra

rightwinger said:


> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.


Yes, you are right, no evidence, other than, that is how it happened in history


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
Click to expand...

No doubt the death toll was horrific, but in my not so humble opinion, it was necessary to indicate to the Japanese people that we were willing to and capable of wiping out the entire population. They were completely demoralized and the military realized that there would be no more willing participants in their effort.


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beware mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Because you snowflakes tend to shit your drawers when seeing scary stuff.[/QUOTE]


?????


----------



## Unkotare

Ernie S. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt the death toll was horrific, but in my not so humble opinion, it was necessary to indicate to the Japanese people that we were willing to and capable of wiping out the entire population.
Click to expand...




We were neither of those.


----------



## Ernie S.

Unkotare said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt the death toll was horrific, but in my not so humble opinion, it was necessary to indicate to the Japanese people that we were willing to and capable of wiping out the entire population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the point. The point was to make them think we were.
> 
> 
> We were neither of those.
Click to expand...


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.


This is my 2nd time asking for you to link to one of these numerous studies. Should be easy for you, you refer to them frequently.

Simply stating, "study says so". Is lazy fi not outright lying.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> 
> 
> 
> This is my 2nd time asking for you to link to one of these numerous studies. Should be easy for you, you refer to them frequently.
> 
> Simply stating, "study says so". Is lazy fi not outright lying.
Click to expand...

He can not link to them since they don't exist I have actual documents that show clearly the the emperor of japan surrendered because if the 2nd atomic bomb and that the Japanese Army staged a coup to stop that surrender......


----------



## Picaro

anynameyouwish said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahah
> you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
> their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
> 
> other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
> not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"
> 
> 
> you sure are real smart about WWII
> 
> for an idiot.....
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins, only concerned about saving the lives of theri own people, completely unlike the rest of the world, which has always been poor hapless hippies victimized by the Evul Amurkins. Wonder how many Pandas died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins,"
> 
> 
> I am truly sorry you are an idiot.
> 
> We are talking about the morality of nuking 2 cities.
> 
> I never said that the Americans who dropped the bomb were "Evul Racist Amurkins". You are lying and accusing me of words and beliefs that I do not agree with.  Are you truly this despicable and deplorable?  must you resort to lies?
> 
> I have maintained that instead of nuking 2 cities the bombs should have been dropped on military targets.
> 
> If the intent was to get japan to surrender then an army or two or even the royal palace would have been more appropriate and just as effective.
> 
> I sincerely hope that you can stop playing the conservative-stooge victim and just try  to discuss the issue.
> 
> ""Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins"
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that someone that would say "all life is precious" when it comes to abortion has no feelings whatsoever about murdering thousands of old people and children.
Click to expand...


Nobody cares what you faggots think about anything; we know you don't actually give a shit about people, just anti-American rhetoric, so crawl off and find a pedophile to defend like a good Democrat.


----------



## Picaro

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
Click to expand...


We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.
Click to expand...



You indulge your emotions like a little girl.


----------



## rightwinger

Picaro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.
Click to expand...

Damn...what a stupid response
I’m not even going to bother to reply


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You indulge your emotions like a little girl.
Click to expand...

You meanwhile make excuses for inexcusable actions.


----------



## Picaro

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
> 
> http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is obscenely absurd and revisionist. Stimson didn't even really write that article. He was pressured into "writing" it, and then his "draft" was heavily edited by others. By the time he "wrote" it, he was quite ill.
> 
> Months before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already prostrate, starving, and virtually powerless. The home islands were cut off from China. The Japanese people were approaching the point of starvation. Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attacks. Consider:
> 
> -- 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.
> 
> -- By October 1944, many new fighter pilots were being trained with films instead of live flight training in order to save fuel:
> 
> The Toho Motion Picture Company constructed a lake in Setagaya and filled it with six-foot models of U.S. warships. Atop a tower a movie camera on a boom took pictures of the vessels from various angles, simulating different speeds of approach. These films were shown as a substitute for flight training in order to save fuel. (John Toland, _The Rising Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, _New York: Random House, 2003 Modern Library Paperback Edition, p. 536)​
> -- 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. Many 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 Navy’s 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 air force 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 and the Air Force. 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 in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.
> 
> 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)​
> So this nonsense that we had to use nukes to "save hundreds of thousands of lives" is gross revisionism of the basest kind. Again, weeks before Hiroshima, we knew from multiple sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that their only condition was that the emperor not be deposed, which was exactly the arrangement that we later accepted--after we had nuked two cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow and amazingly STUPID Japan WOULD NOT surrender. We were faced with an invasion that would probably have killed 6 million Japanese and we would have lost a million troops. Again the FACTS after 2 ATOMIC Bombs the Government oif Japan REFUSED to surrender, they REFUSED. The Emperor over rode them and order the surrender and the response from the Army was an attempted Coup to stop that from happening.
> 
> Even assuming we did not invade in November, the winter months would have killed millions of starving and freezing Japanese citizens. And the Army which ran the Government DID NOT CARE.
> 
> The only terms they offered were a ceasefire return to 41 start Lines except in China where they offered no concessions and NO disarmament, no troops in Japan and NO sacking of the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once we had an atomic bomb there was never any need for an invasion
> 
> The only question was how we should use our new nuclear superiority
> 
> Current position was that killing 150,000 civilians was the only way to get Japan to surrender. There is no proof that says a lesser act would not have yielded the same result
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL even after 2 nukes the Japanese Government REFUSED to surrender but hey we are to believe that cute puppies and wishful thinking would have got them to surrender.
Click to expand...


We didn't try group hugs, sitting around campfires passing joints around, and singing along with Joan Baez tunes. that always worked with psycho mass murdering vermin before, didn't it?


----------



## Picaro

rightwinger said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn...what a stupid response
> I’m not even going to bother to reply
Click to expand...


Well, that's because you know you're full of shit and don't have anything sane to say, since you mostly just parrot commie propaganda like the rest of your peers.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You indulge your emotions like a little girl.
Click to expand...


You're a whiny little girl who hates being handed your ass on pretty much every topic. Go cruise the public toilets and find some feces to play with, sicko.


----------



## sparky

M14 Shooter said:


> Where's the moral question?



It doesn't need to be a question of morality , it can be purely militant 

~S~


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You indulge your emotions like a little girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You meanwhile make excuses for inexcusable actions.
Click to expand...



Of the two of us, only you have done such a thing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You indulge your emotions like a little girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You meanwhile make excuses for inexcusable actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of the two of us, only you have done such a thing.
Click to expand...

Really? so excuses the murder of millions is acceptable? Cause that is what you are doing.


----------



## mikegriffith1

M14 Shooter said:


> Funny how no one cares about burning Japanese cities to the ground with incendiaries - but a nuke?  OMFG!!!



Who said no one cares? Many people have condemned our conventional bombing of Japanese cities. 

Professor Sean Malloy has written a book on Henry Stimson’s role in the decision to nuke Japan. Therein he examines Truman’s failure to follow the advice of so many of his advisers who were telling him that clarifying the emperor’s status might very well induce Japan to surrender without an invasion. Malloy also notes Truman’s failure to include the Soviets in the Potsdam Declaration, even though he knew they were going to enter the war no later than mid-August. This is from Professor Malloy’s book _Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb Against Japan _(Cornell University Press, 2008):

The Potsdam Declaration issued on July 26, 1945, contained no guarantee or reassurance on the postwar status of the emperor. Nor was the Soviet Union invited to sign the document, despite the fact that Stalin had formally agreed to enter the war in mid-August and was eager to join in a public ultimatum to Japan. While the declaration did contain a partial clarification of what unconditional surrender would entail—denying that the Allies intended to exterminate the Japanese people or permanently occupy that country—it had been stripped of the two important incentives to surrender that Stimson and others had recommended earlier in the month. Without the immediate threat of Soviet entry or the atomic bomb and a clear statement on the postwar status of the emperor, the Potsdam Declaration was publicly dismissed by the Japanese government as representing nothing more than “a rehash of the Cairo Declaration.” As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has observed, the decision to release the declaration in a public broadcast, rather than through formal or informal diplomatic channels, further encouraged the belief in Japan that it was intended primarily for propaganda purposes.​
Why Truman failed at Potsdam to make use of the full arsenal of diplomatic threats and incentives is a matter of some mystery. . . .​
The failure to offer any reassurance on the emperor is particularly troublesome. Nobody on the American side could guarantee that such reassurance would lead to a speedy Japanese surrender. Diplomatic cables intercepted and decrypted by the Americans in summer 1945 revealed that the Japanese government was badly divided on the issue of surrender terms. But amid this uncertainty, it was widely agreed by American military and diplomatic experts that _failure _to clarify the emperor’s postwar status would almost certainly delay surrender and prolong the war. According to a State Department analysis from mid-June, “every evidence, without exception, that we are able to obtain of the views of the Japanese with regard to the institution of the throne indicates that the non-molestation of the person of the present emperor and the preservation of the institution of the throne _comprise irreducible Japanese terms_.” It was this belief that had led Stimson to push for such a reassurance on the grounds that “the country will not be satisfied unless every effort is made to shorten the war.” Recognizing the “irreducible” importance of the emperor, Truman did eventually allow Hirohito to remain on the throne _after _two atomic bombs and Soviet entry into the war in early August. Why did he not follow Stimson’s advice and make such an offer at Potsdam? Even if it did not produce immediate capitulation, it would at the very least have presented a clear set of terms to Japanese leaders in late July rather than forcing them to guess or intuit the American position on this pivotal question. (pp. 128-129)​

Indeed, giving reassurance on the emperor’s post-war status would have also taken away from the Japanese hardliners their main argument against surrender and would have greatly strengthened the position of the moderates.

Japan’s militarists and their backers seek to minimize Japanese war crimes. America’s militarists and their backers seek to deny that nuking Japan was unnecessary and immoral.

It is beyond obvious that, at the bare minimum, Truman blundered horrendously by allowing Byrnes to remove from the Potsdam Declaration the most powerful military threat (Soviet entry into the war) and the most powerful diplomatic incentive for surrender (an assurance about the emperor’s post-war status). Whether he did this because he was unable to withstand his own hardliners’ pressure or because he wanted to nuke Japan to exact revenge and to show the Soviets the bomb’s power, the fact remains that he tragically failed to use two powerful diplomatic tools that provided an excellent chance of ending the war early and without an invasion.


----------



## sparky

and how is it then millions seem acceptable ,when one can become a howling fit of ascii?

~S~


----------



## sparky

mikegriffith1 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how no one cares about burning Japanese cities to the ground with incendiaries - but a nuke?  OMFG!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said no one cares? Many people have condemned our conventional bombing of Japanese cities.
> 
> Professor Sean Malloy has written a book on Henry Stimson’s role in the decision to nuke Japan. Therein he examines Truman’s failure to follow the advice of so many of his advisers who were telling him that clarifying the emperor’s status might very well induce Japan to surrender without an invasion. Malloy also notes Truman’s failure to include the Soviets in the Potsdam Declaration, even though he knew they were going to enter the war no later than mid-August. This is from Professor Malloy’s book _Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb Against Japan _(Cornell University Press, 2008):
> 
> The Potsdam Declaration issued on July 26, 1945, contained no guarantee or reassurance on the postwar status of the emperor. Nor was the Soviet Union invited to sign the document, despite the fact that Stalin had formally agreed to enter the war in mid-August and was eager to join in a public ultimatum to Japan. While the declaration did contain a partial clarification of what unconditional surrender would entail—denying that the Allies intended to exterminate the Japanese people or permanently occupy that country—it had been stripped of the two important incentives to surrender that Stimson and others had recommended earlier in the month. Without the immediate threat of Soviet entry or the atomic bomb and a clear statement on the postwar status of the emperor, the Potsdam Declaration was publicly dismissed by the Japanese government as representing nothing more than “a rehash of the Cairo Declaration.” As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has observed, the decision to release the declaration in a public broadcast, rather than through formal or informal diplomatic channels, further encouraged the belief in Japan that it was intended primarily for propaganda purposes.​
> Why Truman failed at Potsdam to make use of the full arsenal of diplomatic threats and incentives is a matter of some mystery. . . .​
> The failure to offer any reassurance on the emperor is particularly troublesome. Nobody on the American side could guarantee that such reassurance would lead to a speedy Japanese surrender. Diplomatic cables intercepted and decrypted by the Americans in summer 1945 revealed that the Japanese government was badly divided on the issue of surrender terms. But amid this uncertainty, it was widely agreed by American military and diplomatic experts that _failure _to clarify the emperor’s postwar status would almost certainly delay surrender and prolong the war. According to a State Department analysis from mid-June, “every evidence, without exception, that we are able to obtain of the views of the Japanese with regard to the institution of the throne indicates that the non-molestation of the person of the present emperor and the preservation of the institution of the throne _comprise irreducible Japanese terms_.” It was this belief that had led Stimson to push for such a reassurance on the grounds that “the country will not be satisfied unless every effort is made to shorten the war.” Recognizing the “irreducible” importance of the emperor, Truman did eventually allow Hirohito to remain on the throne _after _two atomic bombs and Soviet entry into the war in early August. Why did he not follow Stimson’s advice and make such an offer at Potsdam? Even if it did not produce immediate capitulation, it would at the very least have presented a clear set of terms to Japanese leaders in late July rather than forcing them to guess or intuit the American position on this pivotal question. (pp. 128-129)​
> 
> Indeed, giving reassurance on the emperor’s post-war status would have also taken away from the Japanese hardliners their main argument against surrender and would have greatly strengthened the position of the moderates.
> 
> Japan’s militarists and their backers seek to minimize Japanese war crimes. America’s militarists and their backers seek to deny that nuking Japan was unnecessary and immoral.
> 
> It is beyond obvious that, at the bare minimum, Truman blundered horrendously by allowing Byrnes to remove from the Potsdam Declaration the most powerful military threat (Soviet entry into the war) and the most powerful diplomatic incentive for surrender (an assurance about the emperor’s post-war status). Whether he did this because he was unable to withstand his own hardliners’ pressure or because he wanted to nuke Japan to exact revenge and to show the Soviets the bomb’s power, the fact remains that he tragically failed to use two powerful diplomatic tools that provided an excellent chance of ending the war early and without an invasion.
Click to expand...


Byrnes seems to be the only Truman advocate

Stimson and the top brass all bailed on the bomb

~S~


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how no one cares about burning Japanese cities to the ground with incendiaries - but a nuke?  OMFG!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said no one cares? Many people have condemned our conventional bombing of Japanese cities.
> 
> Professor Sean Malloy has written a book on Henry Stimson’s role in the decision to nuke Japan. Therein he examines Truman’s failure to follow the advice of so many of his advisers who were telling him that clarifying the emperor’s status might very well induce Japan to surrender without an invasion. Malloy also notes Truman’s failure to include the Soviets in the Potsdam Declaration, even though he knew they were going to enter the war no later than mid-August. This is from Professor Malloy’s book _Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb Against Japan _(Cornell University Press, 2008):
> 
> The Potsdam Declaration issued on July 26, 1945, contained no guarantee or reassurance on the postwar status of the emperor. Nor was the Soviet Union invited to sign the document, despite the fact that Stalin had formally agreed to enter the war in mid-August and was eager to join in a public ultimatum to Japan. While the declaration did contain a partial clarification of what unconditional surrender would entail—denying that the Allies intended to exterminate the Japanese people or permanently occupy that country—it had been stripped of the two important incentives to surrender that Stimson and others had recommended earlier in the month. Without the immediate threat of Soviet entry or the atomic bomb and a clear statement on the postwar status of the emperor, the Potsdam Declaration was publicly dismissed by the Japanese government as representing nothing more than “a rehash of the Cairo Declaration.” As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has observed, the decision to release the declaration in a public broadcast, rather than through formal or informal diplomatic channels, further encouraged the belief in Japan that it was intended primarily for propaganda purposes.​
> Why Truman failed at Potsdam to make use of the full arsenal of diplomatic threats and incentives is a matter of some mystery. . . .​
> The failure to offer any reassurance on the emperor is particularly troublesome. Nobody on the American side could guarantee that such reassurance would lead to a speedy Japanese surrender. Diplomatic cables intercepted and decrypted by the Americans in summer 1945 revealed that the Japanese government was badly divided on the issue of surrender terms. But amid this uncertainty, it was widely agreed by American military and diplomatic experts that _failure _to clarify the emperor’s postwar status would almost certainly delay surrender and prolong the war. According to a State Department analysis from mid-June, “every evidence, without exception, that we are able to obtain of the views of the Japanese with regard to the institution of the throne indicates that the non-molestation of the person of the present emperor and the preservation of the institution of the throne _comprise irreducible Japanese terms_.” It was this belief that had led Stimson to push for such a reassurance on the grounds that “the country will not be satisfied unless every effort is made to shorten the war.” Recognizing the “irreducible” importance of the emperor, Truman did eventually allow Hirohito to remain on the throne _after _two atomic bombs and Soviet entry into the war in early August. Why did he not follow Stimson’s advice and make such an offer at Potsdam? Even if it did not produce immediate capitulation, it would at the very least have presented a clear set of terms to Japanese leaders in late July rather than forcing them to guess or intuit the American position on this pivotal question. (pp. 128-129)​
> 
> Indeed, giving reassurance on the emperor’s post-war status would have also taken away from the Japanese hardliners their main argument against surrender and would have greatly strengthened the position of the moderates.
> 
> Japan’s militarists and their backers seek to minimize Japanese war crimes. America’s militarists and their backers seek to deny that nuking Japan was unnecessary and immoral.
> 
> It is beyond obvious that, at the bare minimum, Truman blundered horrendously by allowing Byrnes to remove from the Potsdam Declaration the most powerful military threat (Soviet entry into the war) and the most powerful diplomatic incentive for surrender (an assurance about the emperor’s post-war status). Whether he did this because he was unable to withstand his own hardliners’ pressure or because he wanted to nuke Japan to exact revenge and to show the Soviets the bomb’s power, the fact remains that he tragically failed to use two powerful diplomatic tools that provided an excellent chance of ending the war early and without an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Byrnes seems to be the only Truman advocate
> 
> Stimson and the top brass all bailed on the bomb
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Where do you get that idea?


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.
> 
> Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.
> 
> 70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You indulge your emotions like a little girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You meanwhile make excuses for inexcusable actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of the two of us, only you have done such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? so excuses the murder of millions is acceptable? Cause that is what you are doing.
Click to expand...



Quote, liar?


----------



## sparky

elektra said:


> Where do you get that idea?



*Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.…

*US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”


*Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan

*Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr*., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”

*Gen. Dwight Eisenhower*, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…

*Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

~S~


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.…
> 
> *US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
> 
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan
> 
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr*., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower*, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…
> 
> *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

All after the fact, back benchers. 

I will look into these statements one by one, it will take time to cross reference them to proper sources.

I can say at this time Eisenhower gave a misleading statement if not an outright lie. In Eisenhower's diary there is no mention that Stimson told him of an atomic bomb. Hell, Stinson did not tell vice pres. Truman this top secret so why would he tell Eisenhower who had nothing to do with the Pacific. Further if you read what Eisenhower wrote you will find he wrote 3 different versions of what he claims. Politics, nothing more.

Stinson made the statement that all who were part of the decision to drop the bomb were in complete agreement.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower*, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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



How about links for all your quotes. Eisenhower thought that no lives would be lost if the bomb was not used?  This statement is part of the Stinson conversation? At potsdam? It would have to be according to Eisenhower's diary. After potsdam the Japanese sunk the Indianapolis, 900 Americans dead. 18th of August, after the Japanese surrender and 9 days after the bomb is dropped a B29 is shot down over Japan, 1 American dead. How many more Americans died in prison camps after the surrender? Eisenhower is a moron if he stated this.

So link so we can see if there is any truth in any of this.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You indulge your emotions like a little girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You meanwhile make excuses for inexcusable actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of the two of us, only you have done such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? so excuses the murder of millions is acceptable? Cause that is what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quote, liar?
Click to expand...

You keep claiming we are wrong when we point out Japan killed 10 million people, you keep claiming we got it wrong.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> []
> *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”


M Gen Lemay, famously stated,  "that if the war is shortened by a single day, the attack will have served its purpose"

I guess, the man in charge of fire bombing thought he could end the war in one big fire? 

In regards to the fire bombing that he commanded.
Again, I need a link for this ons.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sparky said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the moral question?
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to be a question of morality , it can be purely militant
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Sure - but the person I responded to wants to discuss morality.


----------



## M14 Shooter

mikegriffith1 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how no one cares about burning Japanese cities to the ground with incendiaries - but a nuke?  OMFG!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Who said no one cares? Many people have condemned our conventional bombing of Japanese cities.
Click to expand...

By "many" you mean a handful of academics who had no iron in the fire.
How do you win a war?  Force the other side in a position where it no longer wants to fight you.
What is the most moral way to do this?  As quickly as possible, as to prolong a war is to increase suffering.
That's what we did.


----------



## Unkotare

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.…
> 
> *US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
> 
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan
> 
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr*., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower*, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…
> 
> *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


The simpletons who can't help but hide from the central moral issue of this matter won't even bother to read these pertinent quotes. They have been presented with this evidence many, many times by now.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You indulge your emotions like a little girl.
> 
> 
> 
> You meanwhile make excuses for inexcusable actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of the two of us, only you have done such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? so excuses the murder of millions is acceptable? Cause that is what you are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quote, liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep claiming we are wrong when we point out Japan killed 10 million people, you keep claiming we got it wrong.
Click to expand...


When did I say that, liar? Do you have anything to say that doesn't rely on lying about what I have or have not said, old fool?


----------



## McFury

Immorality doesn't exist in military mentality.
It's either kill or get killed.
A fight to Survive .
The rest is all BS.
End of story.


----------



## Unkotare

McFury said:


> Immorality doesn't exist in military mentality.
> It's either kill or get killed.
> A fight to Survive .
> The rest is all BS.
> End of story.




That's not what Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy said. How long have you been an admiral?


----------



## mikegriffith1

I agree with what former MacArthur aide and Far East expert Lester Brooks said about what Truman should have done when he learned that Emperor Hirohito wanted to end the war as soon as possible, namely, that he should have opened up a diplomatic channel with the Japanese to end the war:

The Soviet move, less than 72 hours after the Hiroshima bombing, was staggering. None knew this better than [Foreign Minister] Togo, who, through the Japanese ambassador in Moscow [Ambassador Naotake Sato], had been trying since Germany’s surrender in May to get the Soviets to act as peace mediator with the Allies.​
The Americans knew this also, because the U.S. had cracked the Japanese code and was diligently monitoring and reading Japanese communications. One of the most important messages of the war was Togo’s cable of July 12 to Sato in Moscow: “. . . it is His Majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war. In the Greater East Asia War, however, as long as America and England insist on unconditional surrender our country has no alternative but to see it through in an all-out effort for the sake of survival and the honor of the homeland.” Though this flat statement should have caused the U.S. to make quick and direct diplomatic efforts to end the war at that point, no action was taken to capitalize on this golden opportunity. (_Behind Japan’s Surrender: The Secret Struggle that Ended an Empire_, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968, pp. 15-16)​So Truman knew from Togo’s July 12 cable, at least three weeks before Hiroshima, that the emperor himself wanted to end the war swiftly, and that the only obstacle was the demand for unconditional surrender. From other sources—such as Grew, McCloy, Forrestal, and Leahy—Truman knew that Japan’s main concern about unconditional surrender was the status of the emperor in such a surrender.

Truman ended up agreeing to allow the emperor and the imperial court to remain in place anyway, but he did not give the Japanese any indication that he would do so until after he had nuked Hiroshima and after the Soviets had invaded. If he had done this immediately after learning of Togo’s July 12 cable, as so many of his advisers urged him to do, Japan might well have surrendered in late July, and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives would have been saved. Providing clarification on the emperor’s status would have simultaneously given the moderates powerful ammunition against the hardliners and would have deprived the hardliners of their main argument against surrender.

_Keep in mind that even after the Japanese had been nuked twice and the Soviets had attacked them, they named retention of the emperor as their one condition for accepting the Potsdam Declaration's surrender terms._ Debate raged in the White House over this condition, but, finally, finally, finally, Truman listened to all the advisers who had long been telling him that the Japanese would fight to the death if we did not agree to retain the emperor.

However, Truman almost undid his good decision by entrusting his Japan-hating Secretary of States, James Byrnes, with crafting the language of our reply to the Japanese surrender offer. In his reply, Byrnes implied that we would not depose the emperor, but he did not expressly state this, and his verbiage left room for an alternative interpretation. The Japanese hardliners seized on this ambiguity and for a few hours it looked like they might be able to continue to block surrender. Fortunately, however, the Japanese Foreign Ministry was getting indications through back channels that Truman was not going to depose the emperor, and all of this created a situation that enabled the emperor to intervene and order the military to surrender.

Perhaps we should keep in mind that, either because of surreal incompetence or the influence of the Soviet spies and Soviet sympathizers in his administration, Truman was the one who handed over China to the Communists, which resulted in the deaths of millions of Chinese and the subjugation of the Chinese people to totalitarian rule to this day.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.



This is my 3rd time asking for you to link to one of these numerous studies. Should be easy for you, you refer to them frequently.

Simply stating, "study says so", is lazy if not outright lying.

mikegriffith1 has posted many times since I requested some sort of link or inkling that there is a study which supports his claim. He has not produced a study. Maybe he is lazy, yet he has posted a couple of essays withing this thread and others? Maybe there are no studies? Or the studies do not state what is claimed. 

Either way, it is a lousy author of an OP the makes a statement and refuses to link to his source. Yes, this is an opinion piece, not facts. There are many errors and contradictions that discredits the OP. Failing to link or even offer the name of the study, mikegriffith1 is using to substantiate the many claims made in the OP, shows this OP has no credibility.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> First off, he has presented you with documented statements by senior American military leaders that using the atomic bomb was unnecessary and wrong.
> 
> Second, **so what** if you have "official government documents"??? Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete, and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent.


For the third time I am pointing out your failure! 

You contradict yourself and thus discredit your post, your opinion, the premise of this OP.

You can not claim "senior american military leader" made statements that are documented that indicate the Atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary and wrong, and then state, "Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent."

You have thus stated, that at one point, American Military Leaders were misleading and fraudulent? The source is thus discredited. You can not cherry pick and have it both ways, they are to be trusted here, but there they were lying scoundrels.

You have discredited the premise of your OP with your own words. 
Thank you. Nothing more need be said, by you. And nothing was, you can not defend your words or the OP.


----------



## sparky

Unkotare said:


> The simpletons who can't help but hide from the central moral issue of this matter won't even bother to read these pertinent quotes. They have been presented with this evidence many, many times by now.



The truth _s*cks , a_nd some will simply do_ anything _to avoid it Unkotare 



elektra said:


> You can not claim "senior american military leader" made statements that are documented that indicate the Atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary and wrong, and then state, "Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent."



Yes we can, because those senior officials _did_ make those statements, the Truman administration created a _gag order_ for them, them revised history to claim the bomb was entirely _necessary_ to save lives.

~S~


----------



## HenryBHough

A lot of the world's troubles can be traced to the simple fact that Truman (the last president who understood wars are for winning) didn't have enough to sink *all* of Japland to some lumps on the bottom of the sea.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simpletons who can't help but hide from the central moral issue of this matter won't even bother to read these pertinent quotes. They have been presented with this evidence many, many times by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth _s*cks , a_nd some will simply do_ anything _to avoid it Unkotare
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not claim "senior american military leader" made statements that are documented that indicate the Atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary and wrong, and then state, "Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we can, because those senior officials _did_ make those statements, the Truman administration created a _gag order_ for them, them revised history to claim the bomb was entirely _necessary_ to save lives.
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

No, they did not. Provide a link, can you do that? Cite a book, can you do that? 

I already replied two, three times. You were not able to respond, at all. I will busy for awhile, posting facts to show your opinion is based on lies. 

It is easy for you to go to a liberal, biased, search engine and have your opinion reinforced by propaganda. Me, I will refer to first hand accounts and witness as recorded in books.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> i
> *US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”


Thus far this will be my forth response with facts. Tackling three or your "top officials". Not one of the first three posts have been responded to. You are not getting any help from anyone? Even the author of this OP is unable to offer any help. This will be my seventh posting of fact. This OP is a failure at this point.

HAP did not say what you attribute to him. HAP was on board and helped select the targets.

HAP by Thomas M. Coffey


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> The simpletons who can't help but hide from the central moral issue of this matter won't even bother to read these pertinent quotes. They have been presented with this evidence many, many times by now.


Your user name? Funny, you speaking of morals. Is there nothing you would not do. I should keep my mouth shut. I would not want decent people to be horrified if they look up your user name on google.


----------



## sparky

elektra said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> i
> *US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
> 
> 
> 
> Thus far this will be my forth response with facts. Tackling three or your "top officials". Not one of the first three posts have been responded to. You are not getting any help from anyone? Even the author of this OP is unable to offer any help. This will be my seventh posting of fact. This OP is a failure at this point.
> 
> HAP did not say what you attribute to him. HAP was on board and helped select the targets.
> 
> HAP by Thomas M. Coffey
> 
> View attachment 274583 View attachment 274584
Click to expand...

Wings of Judgment

~S~


----------



## sparky

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a330223.pdf

~S~


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> View attachment 274583 View attachment 274584


Wings of Judgment

~S~[/QUOTE]
The page you linked to, references the book I own and have referenced. So now you have confirmed the statement you first attributed to HAP is false.

You do not own the book, you have not read the book, you certainly did not quote from the link you gave. If you did quote from the link, go ahead, to that spot, and link that spot.

You got your information elsewhere and have scrambled to google for a source, hence your source is google books.

Nice try, not really, you got busted not reading and not knowing and trying to make google searches cover your previous google searches.

Only a idiot solely relies on google. Until you buy some books and invest in an education you know nothing. Which is apparent by how easy it was to prove you wrong. And, it was very funny to see you link to the book I just quoted which refuted what you posted.

Your link, proved you wrong!!!! It affirms my response, you linked to my source! You really should of read what you linked to.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a330223.pdf
> 
> ~S~


so? Another link you did not use in your original post. You are really reaching. And where is your quote from this link. Again, you are assuming this link will confirm your statement. I say it does not and you can not quote from this link to prove otherwise. 

Like the last link, which you did not read, and only referenced the book I used to show what you posted was a false statement, this link will not help you either. 

But if you like, go ahead and try, but do not pretend that somehow, after the fact, your original quote came from either of these sources. 

I have proved it did not come from the first source, and you kind of dumbly did not read my response. You should of, and you should of read your first link, you would of discovered the humiliating error you were about to make.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.…
> 
> *US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
> 
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan
> 
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr*., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower*, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…
> 
> *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Three down, a few more to go. Your quotes are proving false, quickly. I will be back to this. It takes time to do proper research. It takes time to acquire the material. 

I will have to look through my library and see if I have something on Nimitz, I think I do but maybe not. I have ordered at least one book. I will order more to see what these people actually did say. 

Your links, thus far, have proven me right, and you wrong. Read the links, just do not copy and paste from google. This is not a race. I would rather you be accurate than sloppy. I will take days responding. Because that is what it does take, unless one has no job and has access to a very good library. 

I am lucky, I have a job and my own personal library. Discussions like this enlighten me as to what to add to my library so that I can respond properly, accurately, with facts. 

Leahy's book is coming, I hope, it is not cheap, used. Pretty damn expensive really.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simpletons who can't help but hide from the central moral issue of this matter won't even bother to read these pertinent quotes. They have been presented with this evidence many, many times by now.
> 
> 
> 
> Your user name? Funny, you speaking of morals. Is there nothing you would not do. I should keep my mouth shut. I would not want decent people to be horrified if they look up your user name on google.
Click to expand...



You won’t find it on google translate, dope.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> You won’t find it on google translate, dope.


Okay, We will simply google search, "definition unkotare"

Warning, do not perform this search, it is a sick, gross classless sexual depravity no normal person would care to even know exists.

Maybe you should stick to the topic, you certainly ain't good at trolling and flaming  You never will be with that user name.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won’t find it on google translate, dope.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, We will simply google search, "definition unkotare"
> 
> Warning, do not perform this search, it is a sick, gross classless sexual depravity no normal person would care to even know exists.
> 
> Maybe you should stick to the topic, you certainly ain't good at trolling and flaming  You never will be with that user name.
Click to expand...



You won’t find it that way, stupid.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a330223.pdf
> 
> ~S~


what do you believe you posted here? again it does not support anything you have posted previously? 
do you understand what it means to provide a link to things you have quoted? 
you have not


----------



## sparky

elektra said:


> what do you believe you posted here? again it does not support anything you have posted previously?



Do you believe a biography by a _biased _author written 40 odd years_ after _an incident trumps what the actual person was *quoted* at the time ?

~S~


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> Do you believe a biography by a _biased _author written 40 odd years_ after _an incident trumps what the actual person was *quoted* at the time ?


You linked to my biography to confirm what you quoted, so now you want to state your link is biased? Now that you see you fucked up you set up a strawman argument as to why you are right?

Well, again, link to the original quote, as in where it originally appeared. 

I do not rely on one book. I cross reference the quote or event with many other books. I also use magazines.

So link to your quote. Nothing has stopped you yet, other than you seem to not know where the quotes came from. Why won't you link your quotes?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ... I should keep my mouth shut. ....




Good luck with that.


----------



## mikegriffith1

In his radio address to announce the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Harry Truman claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base," and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians." Either Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima or he was ignorantly repeating what others had told him.

Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:

Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."​
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 U.S. 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 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage." 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." Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​
The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur. 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.” (The War Criminal Harry Truman - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com)​
Many books incorrectly claim there were 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers stationed in Hiroshima, but there were actually only about 10,000, and they were reservists and supply troops (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 410).

The British scientific mission to Japan, aka the British Mission, concluded that at the time of the attack there were 10,000 soldiers in Hiroshima and that the city’s population might have been as high as 320,000:

The census figures quoted are probably what Japanese call the “registered” population, used for such purposes as rationing. This is usually thought to be about 80 per cent, of the actual population which, with about 10,000 troops, and perhaps 5,000 workers brought in to cut fire breaks, may therefore have been as high as 320,000 at the time of the attack. (_The Effects of the Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Report of the British Mission to Japan, _London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1946, p. 1)​
I might add that Hiroshima had no fortifications and that its troops were garrison troops.

Why do we suppose that the _Enola Gay_ flew with no fighter escorts? There was a weather plane and another plane to take photos and footage of the blast. But there were no fighters. Why? Because we knew that Hiroshima was not a military target, certainly not a “military base,” and because we also knew that Japan was virtually defenseless against air attack.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his radio address to announce the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Harry Truman claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base," and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians." Either Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima or he was ignorantly repeating what others had told him.
> 
> Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:
> 
> Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."​
> 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 U.S. 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 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage." 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." Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​
> The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur. 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.” (The War Criminal Harry Truman - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com)​
> Many books incorrectly claim there were 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers stationed in Hiroshima, but there were actually only about 10,000, and they were reservists and supply troops (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 410).
> 
> The British scientific mission to Japan, aka the British Mission, concluded that at the time of the attack there were 10,000 soldiers in Hiroshima and that the city’s population might have been as high as 320,000:
> 
> The census figures quoted are probably what Japanese call the “registered” population, used for such purposes as rationing. This is usually thought to be about 80 per cent, of the actual population which, with about 10,000 troops, and perhaps 5,000 workers brought in to cut fire breaks, may therefore have been as high as 320,000 at the time of the attack. (_The Effects of the Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Report of the British Mission to Japan, _London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1946, p. 1)​
> I might add that Hiroshima had no fortifications and that its troops were garrison troops.
> 
> Why do we suppose that the _Enola Gay_ flew with no fighter escorts? There was a weather plane and another plane to take photos and footage of the blast. But there were no fighters. Why? Because we knew that Hiroshima was not a military target, certainly not a “military base,” and because we also knew that Japan was virtually defenseless against air attack.


Meanwhile in Reality land Japan REFUSED to surrender and even after the first Bomb refused to surrender. And after the second bomb when the emperor surrendered the Government run by the Army staged a Coup to stop that.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his radio address to announce the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Harry Truman claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base,"


You have time to post this, yet you can not refute your past posts which show you do not know what you speak of. So be it, I will continue to repeat those posts when I have time. To show everyone how you can not support the premise of your OP and how you contradict yourself and destroy the credibility of your sources. But for now, this one is easy. 

Hiroshima was a military base in every sense of the word. 

Go ahead, show us how it was not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.


Fourth time on this one, where are the links to the studies. 
I think it is apparent you are simply a low life liar. Seriously, when you spread lies and propaganda, that you can not even link to, that does make you a low life. 

Four times, where is the study? You have time to post 5, 6, 7x's? But not the time to prove you are not a liar. 

Maybe now that I call you a liar, which you are if you do not post a study, maybe now you will actually post what you claim exists. 

Of course, all the revisionist history is easily refuted, as i have done over a dozen times in this OP, so I suspect the reason you wont post a study is because it will be easily refuted as well. 

Or maybe I am right, your a low life liar making things up as you go, with a little bit of fact, to support your boat loads of fiction, just to make it seem real to those who are brain handicapped.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.




300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.


----------



## sparky

mikegriffith1 said:


> Why do we suppose that the _Enola Gay_ flew with no fighter escorts? There was a weather plane and another plane to take photos and footage of the blast. But there were no fighters. Why? Because we knew that Hiroshima was not a military target, certainly not a “military base,” and because we also knew that Japan was virtually defenseless against air attack.



Good one!



elektra said:


> Fourth time on this one, where are the links to the studies.



another internet _link dink_......eat this>

Truman Revisted: Historian Says Harry Gave 'Em Racism

*In 1911, the year he turned 27, Truman wrote to his future wife, Bess: ″I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a ****** or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a ****** from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.″



″(Uncle Will) does hate Chinese and Japs,″ Truman continued. ″So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.″

~S~*


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.
Click to expand...

300000 civilians did not die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we suppose that the _Enola Gay_ flew with no fighter escorts? There was a weather plane and another plane to take photos and footage of the blast. But there were no fighters. Why? Because we knew that Hiroshima was not a military target, certainly not a “military base,” and because we also knew that Japan was virtually defenseless against air attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good one!
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth time on this one, where are the links to the studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another internet _link dink_......eat this>
> 
> Truman Revisted: Historian Says Harry Gave 'Em Racism
> 
> *In 1911, the year he turned 27, Truman wrote to his future wife, Bess: ″I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a ****** or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a ****** from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.″
> 
> 
> 
> ″(Uncle Will) does hate Chinese and Japs,″ Truman continued. ″So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.″
> 
> ~S~*
Click to expand...

Ha, ha, ha, you quote Griffinth  and me yet you dont refute what I stated.

And did you forget about linking to the quotes you posted?


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we suppose that the _Enola Gay_ flew with no fighter escorts? There was a weather plane and another plane to take photos and footage of the blast. But there were no fighters. Why? Because we knew that Hiroshima was not a military target, certainly not a “military base,” and because we also knew that Japan was virtually defenseless against air attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good one!
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth time on this one, where are the links to the studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another internet _link dink_......eat this>
> 
> Truman Revisted: Historian Says Harry Gave 'Em Racism
> 
> *In 1911, the year he turned 27, Truman wrote to his future wife, Bess: ″I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a ****** or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a ****** from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.″
> 
> 
> 
> ″(Uncle Will) does hate Chinese and Japs,″ Truman continued. ″So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.″
> 
> ~S~*
Click to expand...

Yes, Democrats not only invented the racial slur, they also used it. Surprise, surprise, surprise. 

Yes, links, as the rule states, so we can keep you lying liberal revisionists at least address your posted bull shit
​


----------



## sparky

elektra said:


> Yes, links, as the rule states, so we can keep you* lying liberal revisionists* at least address your posted bull shit




Misdirected comments like that are entirely WHY historic revisionism exists

~S~


----------



## sparky

elektra said:


> And did you forget about linking to the quotes you posted?



meaning the top brass quotes

yes i've linked to them many times , in many threads

and so could YOU Einstein

welcome to my ignore list 

~S~


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.
Click to expand...

You are the one IGNORING facts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> And did you forget about linking to the quotes you posted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaning the top brass quotes
> 
> yes i've linked to them many times , in many threads
> 
> and so could YOU Einstein
> 
> welcome to my ignore list
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

You have NOT every linked to an actual source that proves those quotes.


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> welcome to my ignore list
> 
> ~S~


I am so, so, so, sorry I made you cry. I deserve to be ignored. I was so unfair, asking where you got a quote. I hope I did not completely crush you. I had no idea how weak you are. Maybe you should change your user name to, "D student". Then we will know to be extra sensitive with you.


----------



## sparky

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have NOT every linked to an actual source that proves those quotes.



yeah i have, and any idiot could as well

~S~


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one IGNORING facts.
Click to expand...



The facts disagree with you, Rain Man.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sparky said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have NOT every linked to an actual source that proves those quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah i have, and any idiot could as well
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Prove me wrong LINK now.


----------



## sparky

RetiredGySgt said:


> Prove me wrong LINK now.



how 'bout a 'prove me right LINK' now

~S~


----------



## elektra

sparky said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong LINK now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how 'bout a 'prove me right LINK' now
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

You ain't linked the quotes I questioned. You did link to stuff unrelated.


----------



## mikegriffith1

I’m guessing that those who are defending the government’s version of Japan’s surrender have never read any of the mountain of scholarly research that has debunked that version. One such research piece is Professor Ward Wilson’s famous article “The Winning Weapon? Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima,” published in the prestigious journal _International Security _in 2007_._

Wilson documents what numerous other scholars have documented, namely, that Soviet entry into the war, not the atomic bombs, caused the moderates to push harder than ever for surrender and caused some key hardliners to soften their opposition to surrender. Wilson notes, for example, that after the nuking of Hiroshima was confirmed, this was _not_ enough to cause the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to meet (this council is commonly referred to as the Supreme Council or the Supreme War Council). However, when news of the Soviet invasion reached Tokyo, the Supreme War Council met almost immediately. Here is an excerpt from Wilson’s article:

When Japanese responses to the Hiroshima bombing are placed side by side with responses to the Soviet intervention, it is clear that the Soviet intervention touched off a crisis, while the Hiroshima bombing did not.​
Japanese governing bodies did not display a sense of crisis after Hiroshima. First reports of an attack on that city reached Tokyo on August 6 and were confirmed the next day by fuller reports and an announcement by President Truman that a nuclear weapon had been used in the attack. Even after the attack was confirmed, however, the Supreme Council did not meet for two days. If the bombing of Hiroshima touched off a crisis, this delay is inexplicable. . . .​
In all, three full days elapsed after the bombing of Hiroshima in which the Supreme Council did not meet to discuss the bombing. When the Soviets intervened on August 9 and word of the invasion reached Tokyo at around 4:30 a.m., on the other hand, the Supreme Council met by 10:30 that same morning. . . .​
Following the bombing of Hiroshima, Emperor Hirohito took no action except to repeatedly request “more details.” When word of the Soviet invasion reached him, however, the emperor immediately summoned Lord Privy Seal Kido and told him, “In light of the Soviet entry . . . it was all the more urgent to “find a means to end the war.” He commanded Kido to “have a heart-to-heart talk” with Prime Minister Suzuki without delay. (https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/is3104_pp162-179_wilson.pdf)​
Literally hundreds of other scholars have documented these same facts. For example, Dr. Noriko Kawamura, a professor of history at the University of Washington, in her recent book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, _using previously unexploited Japanese sources, presents additional evidence that it was the Soviet invasion, not the nukes, that caused the moderates to push harder for surrender than they had ever done before and that created the circumstances that enabled the emperor to order the military to surrender.


Incidentally, Dr. Kawamura also debunks the slanted portrayals of Hirohito and the Japanese government painted by scholars like Herbert Bix and Robert Maddox. She points out that Bix mistranslated several of the Japanese sources that he used.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I’m guessing that those who are defending the government’s version of Japan’s surrender have never read any of the mountain of scholarly research that has debunked that version. One such research piece is Professor Ward Wilson’s famous article “The Winning Weapon? Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima,” published in the prestigious journal _International Security _in 2007_._
> 
> Wilson documents what numerous other scholars have documented, namely, that Soviet entry into the war, not the atomic bombs, caused the moderates to push harder than ever for surrender and caused some key hardliners to soften their opposition to surrender. Wilson notes, for example, that after the nuking of Hiroshima was confirmed, this was _not_ enough to cause the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to meet (this council is commonly referred to as the Supreme Council or the Supreme War Council). However, when news of the Soviet invasion reached Tokyo, the Supreme War Council met almost immediately. Here is an excerpt from Wilson’s article:
> 
> When Japanese responses to the Hiroshima bombing are placed side by side with responses to the Soviet intervention, it is clear that the Soviet intervention touched off a crisis, while the Hiroshima bombing did not.​
> Japanese governing bodies did not display a sense of crisis after Hiroshima. First reports of an attack on that city reached Tokyo on August 6 and were confirmed the next day by fuller reports and an announcement by President Truman that a nuclear weapon had been used in the attack. Even after the attack was confirmed, however, the Supreme Council did not meet for two days. If the bombing of Hiroshima touched off a crisis, this delay is inexplicable. . . .​
> In all, three full days elapsed after the bombing of Hiroshima in which the Supreme Council did not meet to discuss the bombing. When the Soviets intervened on August 9 and word of the invasion reached Tokyo at around 4:30 a.m., on the other hand, the Supreme Council met by 10:30 that same morning. . . .​
> Following the bombing of Hiroshima, Emperor Hirohito took no action except to repeatedly request “more details.” When word of the Soviet invasion reached him, however, the emperor immediately summoned Lord Privy Seal Kido and told him, “In light of the Soviet entry . . . it was all the more urgent to “find a means to end the war.” He commanded Kido to “have a heart-to-heart talk” with Prime Minister Suzuki without delay. (https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/is3104_pp162-179_wilson.pdf)​
> Literally hundreds of other scholars have documented these same facts. For example, Dr. Noriko Kawamura, a professor of history at the University of Washington, in her recent book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, _using previously unexploited Japanese sources, presents additional evidence that it was the Soviet invasion, not the nukes, that caused the moderates to push harder for surrender than they had ever done before and that created the circumstances that enabled the emperor to order the military to surrender.
> 
> 
> Incidentally, Dr. Kawamura also debunks the slanted portrayals of Hirohito and the Japanese government painted by scholars like Herbert Bix and Robert Maddox. She points out that Bix mistranslated several of the Japanese sources that he used.



Mikegriffter, still ignoring your posts I challenged you to support and substantiate.

You lost this debate a long time ago. You already stated that the leaders are liars and frauds. Now we are to believe you when you claim they are not?

Japan fought Russia until Aug 20th. 8 days after japan announced their surrender to the USA.

That fact is a bitch.


----------



## mikegriffith1

RetiredGySgt said:


> Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.



This is sick, especially coming from someone who claims to be a former Marine. Yes, Hiroshima had a port, since it was on a coast, but the port was hardly used anymore by then--it was somewhat clogged with sunken ships and port-bound ships that didn't dare leave the port. ALL Japanese civilians were being trained for an invasion, so that proves nothing, unless you're going to tell me that women and children wielding bamboo spears were a serious threat to us. Yes, Hiroshima had a fair amount of factories; most of them were on the outskirts of the city, and they were almost completely _unharmed _in the nuking because the nuke was dropped near the center of the city. Troops and an HQ? Yeah, they were garrison troops. An airbase?! Yeah, a small one. The city had no fortifications, no outer defenses, etc. I ask again, why do you suppose we felt confident enough to send the _Enola Gay _totally unprotected by any fighters? Hey? We both know the answer to that question.

It is sad and obscene to see an alleged former Marine trying to justify the murder of over 100,000 people, at least half of them women and children, by making the ludicrous claim that Hiroshima was a valid military target. The factories on the outskirts of the city were valid targets, and the small unfortified compound where the troops stayed was a fair target, but those were only a small part of the city and contained a very small part of the population.



> 300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.



We don't bomb civilian centers. What is wrong with you? You are as inhumane as some of the Japanese soldiers you excoriate.



elektra said:


> 300,000 civilians did not die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.



Over 200,000 died from those two nuke attacks, and tens of thousands more suffered from radiation effects for the rest of their lives.

FDR screamed because the Japanese bombed a handful of cities in China. We bombed dozens of cities in Japan and dropped far more bombs on them than the Japanese dropped on the cities they bombed.



RetiredGySgt said:


> You have not provided a single Government document to prove your claims YET. And all you have on MacArthur is an unsourced book.
> 
> I have linked to the ACTUAL Japanese Government documents ACTUAL Intercepts of Japanese Government and ACTUAL US documents you have not done any of that at all.



First of all, you realize that Eisenhower and Leahy stated in their own memoirs that they had opposed nuking Japan and that they still thought it was wrong and unnecessary, right?  You realize that Admiral, the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, indicated in his memoir that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that Japan could have been defeated by naval blockade alone, right? We’re not talking about second-hand accounts in these cases.

Second, MacArthur’s opposition to nuking Japan was confirmed by his biographer, William Manchester, and by his former consultant during our occupation of Japan, Norman Cousins. What’s more, Richard Nixon said that MacArthur told him that he believed we should not have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Hiroshima: Quotes

We didn't need to drop the bomb -- and even our WW II military icons knew it

You wanna see a link to a “Government document”? Okay, how about the report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), which concluded that Japan would have surrendered without nukes and without an invasion by no later than December 1945, even if the Soviets had not invaded? The USSBS spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan, interviewing former Japanese officials, and interviewing former Japanese generals and admirals, and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:

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. (page 26, available at United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War))​


----------



## Frannie

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Yea but payback is a bitch.

PS. The Japanese actually had several scientific teams in Hiroshima during the attack.

Oh well...……….……………….!


----------



## mikegriffith1

Frannie said:


> Yea but payback is a bitch. PS. The Japanese actually had several scientific teams in Hiroshima during the attack. Oh well!



Those were not scientific teams that were equipped or trained to identify a nuke attack. Such a team did not arrive until the day after. Plus, you had elements in the military trying to persuade the government that the attack was a conventional one and that the damage was not much worse than the Tokyo bombing.

Payback? Eee-gads, we had paid back the Japanese for Pearl Harbor 100 times over by then, including the killing of hundreds of thousands of women and children.


----------



## Frannie

mikegriffith1 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but payback is a bitch. PS. The Japanese actually had several scientific teams in Hiroshima during the attack. Oh well!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not scientific teams that were equipped or trained to identify a nuke attack. Such a team did not arrive until the day after. Plus, you had elements in the military trying to persuade the government that the attack was a conventional one and that the damage was not much worse than the Tokyo bombing.
> 
> Payback? Eee-gads, we had paid back the Japanese for Pearl Harbor 100 times over by then, including the killing of hundreds of thousands of women and children.
Click to expand...

Actually the scientific teams were designing weapons you dumb shit.  The USA could have destroyed Tokyo, but chose instead to let the emperor see his errors in judgement...…………….

Precious

I'm lucky and here because my father returned from Okinawa, too many didn't, but you don't seem to know or care.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sparky said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong LINK now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how 'bout a 'prove me right LINK' now
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

As I thought you can not link to any such source thanks for admitting it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong LINK now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how 'bout a 'prove me right LINK' now
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I thought you can not link to any such source thanks for admitting it.
Click to expand...

Then that means you just admitted the same thing. That sword cuts bith ways.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources SOURCE documents. Proving that the Emperor surrendered because of the Nukes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong LINK now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how 'bout a 'prove me right LINK' now
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I thought you can not link to any such source thanks for admitting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then that means you just admitted the same thing. That sword cuts bith ways.
Click to expand...

I have linked to my source numerous times and just did again.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Frannie said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but payback is a bitch. PS. The Japanese actually had several scientific teams in Hiroshima during the attack. Oh well!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not scientific teams that were equipped or trained to identify a nuke attack. Such a team did not arrive until the day after. Plus, you had elements in the military trying to persuade the government that the attack was a conventional one and that the damage was not much worse than the Tokyo bombing.
> 
> Payback? Eee-gads, we had paid back the Japanese for Pearl Harbor 100 times over by then, including the killing of hundreds of thousands of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the scientific teams were designing weapons you dumb ##$%.
Click to expand...


They had no training in radiation or nuclear science. You are arguing something that no serious scholar argues. Again, the Japanese were not able to get a radiation specialist to Hiroshima until the next day. I see you did not address the other point I made on this issue.  



> The USA could have destroyed Tokyo, but chose instead to let the emperor see his errors in judgement. Precious.



It seems apparent that you've done no serious study on this subject, but you might be interested to know that the emperor did not want war with the U.S., that he did all he felt he could to avoid war, and that after the fall of Saipan he decided that Japan had lost the war and that Japan needed to surrender. In her book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, _Professor Kawamura documents these facts from Japanese sources, some of which were unavailable until she found them in the course of her research.



> I'm lucky and here because my father returned from Okinawa, too many didn't, but you don't seem to know or care.



Oh, don't try to wrap your barbaric attitude in the flag or pretend that questioning the nuking of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians somehow equals not caring about our soldiers who fought in the Pacific. When your arguments have to crawl that deeply into the sewer, that should tell you that your position is terribly flawed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong LINK now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how 'bout a 'prove me right LINK' now
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I thought you can not link to any such source thanks for admitting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then that means you just admitted the same thing. That sword cuts bith ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have linked to my source numerous times and just did again.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the bombs and russia declaring war made japan change its mind practically overnight.


----------



## Frannie

mikegriffith1 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but payback is a bitch. PS. The Japanese actually had several scientific teams in Hiroshima during the attack. Oh well!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not scientific teams that were equipped or trained to identify a nuke attack. Such a team did not arrive until the day after. Plus, you had elements in the military trying to persuade the government that the attack was a conventional one and that the damage was not much worse than the Tokyo bombing.
> 
> Payback? Eee-gads, we had paid back the Japanese for Pearl Harbor 100 times over by then, including the killing of hundreds of thousands of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the scientific teams were designing weapons you dumb ##$%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had no training in radiation or nuclear science. You are arguing something that no serious scholar argues. Again, the Japanese were not able to get a radiation specialist to Hiroshima until the next day. I see you did not address the other point I made on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA could have destroyed Tokyo, but chose instead to let the emperor see his errors in judgement. Precious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems apparent that you've done no serious study on this subject, but you might be interested to know that the emperor did not want war with the U.S., that he did all he felt he could to avoid war, and that after the fall of Saipan he decided that Japan had lost the war and that Japan needed to surrender. In her book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, _Professor Kawamura documents these facts from Japanese sources, some of which were unavailable until she found them in the course of her research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lucky and here because my father returned from Okinawa, too many didn't, but you don't seem to know or care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, don't try to wrap your barbaric attitude in the flag or pretend that questioning the nuking of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians somehow equals not caring about our soldiers who fought in the Pacific. When your arguments have to crawl that deeply into the sewer, that should tell you that your position is terribly flawed.
Click to expand...


Dude the only nuclear radiation specialist at the time if any were in the USA, you can't have specialist for something that did not exist yesterday in Japanese terms at the time.  You need a brain tuning

Seriously, you are using Japanese documents to show that Japan did not want war with the USA that they fucking started.  Again you need a brain tuning

The reason that the bombs ended the war is because men, women, children and infants all evaporated.  If someone had the balls no US soldiers would have died in Afghanistan, but we chose to kill the terrorist and let the wives raise the new terrorist telling the kids that the USA killed their Daddy.

Dumb, nuking Japan, smart

PS the only reason Japan surrendered is because the Emperor was informed that Tokyo was next and he pooped his pants...………………..

Bombs away, all raw fish will now be fully be cooked


----------



## Kilroy2

Yes they bombed Pearl Harbor first but it was a military target and yeah civilians probably died but it was a military target. They could have bombed the city next to the base

Dropping a bomb on cities which were primarily civilian targets can never be justified. Thus the secondary argument that the city had a weapons factory or some other such nonsense probably makes some feel good about it. 

The fact remains Japan was defeated, they had lost all territories gain, there military was defeated, Kamikaze is interesting but in the end you are destroying your military assets.  they could have blockade the island into submission but the president decided that its best to bring the boys home and they wanted that signed surrender

also it was a test and show for the destructive power of nuclear weapons

Still we have military bases there and Japan military spending is so low that its even less than Chad. 

Yet the their GDP is 3rd on the list with US and China being the top dogs, German is 4th no wonder

This does indicate what an economy would look like with low military spending.  

US had a strong case for a just war but they put a question mark on it by the last act of targeting a civilian city which had no defense 

to put it in prospective the death tolls

*Japan  * 2,120,000  military          580,000- 1,000,000 civilian

US       416,800                             418,500 and that is a WW2 total


----------



## Frannie

Kilroy2 said:


> Yes they bombed Pearl Harbor first but it was a military target and yeah civilians probably died but it was a military target. They could have bombed the city next to the base
> 
> Dropping a bomb on cities which were primarily civilian targets can never be justified. Thus the secondary argument that the city had a weapons factory or some other such nonsense probably makes some feel good about it.
> 
> The fact remains Japan was defeated, they had lost all territories gain, there military was defeated, Kamikaze is interesting but in the end you are destroying your military assets.  they could have blockade the island into submission but the president decided that its best to bring the boys home and they wanted that signed surrender
> 
> also it was a test and show for the destructive power of nuclear weapons
> 
> Still we have military bases there and Japan military spending is so low that its even less than Chad.
> 
> Yet the their GDP is 3rd on the list with US and China being the top dogs, German is 4th no wonder
> 
> This does indicate what an economy would look like with low military spending.
> 
> US had a strong case for a just war but they put a question mark on it by the last act of targeting a civilian city which had no defense
> 
> to put it in prospective the death tolls
> 
> *Japan  * 2,120,000  military          580,000- 1,000,000 civilian
> 
> US       416,800                             418,500 and that is a WW2 total


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the industrial cities building the weapons that were used in Pearl Harbor.

Were you born stupid or did you study?

Mitsubishi Nagasaki shipyard


----------



## karpenter

M14 Shooter said:
			
		

> Funny how no one cares about burning Japanese cities to the ground with incendiaries - but a nuke?  OMFG!!!


English, German, And Russian Cities 
All Got The Bombing Treatment


----------



## Frannie

mikegriffith1 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is sick, especially coming from someone who claims to be a former Marine. Yes, Hiroshima had a port, since it was on a coast, but the port was hardly used anymore by then--it was somewhat clogged with sunken ships and port-bound ships that didn't dare leave the port. ALL Japanese civilians were being trained for an invasion, so that proves nothing, unless you're going to tell me that women and children wielding bamboo spears were a serious threat to us. Yes, Hiroshima had a fair amount of factories; most of them were on the outskirts of the city, and they were almost completely _unharmed _in the nuking because the nuke was dropped near the center of the city. Troops and an HQ? Yeah, they were garrison troops. An airbase?! Yeah, a small one. The city had no fortifications, no outer defenses, etc. I ask again, why do you suppose we felt confident enough to send the _Enola Gay _totally unprotected by any fighters? Hey? We both know the answer to that question.
> 
> It is sad and obscene to see an alleged former Marine trying to justify the murder of over 100,000 people, at least half of them women and children, by making the ludicrous claim that Hiroshima was a valid military target. The factories on the outskirts of the city were valid targets, and the small unfortified compound where the troops stayed was a fair target, but those were only a small part of the city and contained a very small part of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't bomb civilian centers. What is wrong with you? You are as inhumane as some of the Japanese soldiers you excoriate.
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 civilians did not die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 200,000 died from those two nuke attacks, and tens of thousands more suffered from radiation effects for the rest of their lives.
> 
> FDR screamed because the Japanese bombed a handful of cities in China. We bombed dozens of cities in Japan and dropped far more bombs on them than the Japanese dropped on the cities they bombed.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not provided a single Government document to prove your claims YET. And all you have on MacArthur is an unsourced book.
> 
> I have linked to the ACTUAL Japanese Government documents ACTUAL Intercepts of Japanese Government and ACTUAL US documents you have not done any of that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you realize that Eisenhower and Leahy stated in their own memoirs that they had opposed nuking Japan and that they still thought it was wrong and unnecessary, right?  You realize that Admiral, the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, indicated in his memoir that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that Japan could have been defeated by naval blockade alone, right? We’re not talking about second-hand accounts in these cases.
> 
> Second, MacArthur’s opposition to nuking Japan was confirmed by his biographer, William Manchester, and by his former consultant during our occupation of Japan, Norman Cousins. What’s more, Richard Nixon said that MacArthur told him that he believed we should not have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Hiroshima: Quotes
> 
> We didn't need to drop the bomb -- and even our WW II military icons knew it
> 
> You wanna see a link to a “Government document”? Okay, how about the report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), which concluded that Japan would have surrendered without nukes and without an invasion by no later than December 1945, even if the Soviets had not invaded? The USSBS spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan, interviewing former Japanese officials, and interviewing former Japanese generals and admirals, and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:
> 
> 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. (page 26, available at United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War))​
Click to expand...

Mitsubishi Nagasaki shipyard, presumably you know what a submarine is


----------



## Wry Catcher

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?  Think about that.  My father-in-law was a gunner on a Billy Mitchel,  My dad was a sonar tech on a DD.


----------



## Kilroy2

Frannie said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they bombed Pearl Harbor first but it was a military target and yeah civilians probably died but it was a military target. They could have bombed the city next to the base
> 
> Dropping a bomb on cities which were primarily civilian targets can never be justified. Thus the secondary argument that the city had a weapons factory or some other such nonsense probably makes some feel good about it.
> 
> The fact remains Japan was defeated, they had lost all territories gain, there military was defeated, Kamikaze is interesting but in the end you are destroying your military assets.  they could have blockade the island into submission but the president decided that its best to bring the boys home and they wanted that signed surrender
> 
> also it was a test and show for the destructive power of nuclear weapons
> 
> Still we have military bases there and Japan military spending is so low that its even less than Chad.
> 
> Yet the their GDP is 3rd on the list with US and China being the top dogs, German is 4th no wonder
> 
> This does indicate what an economy would look like with low military spending.
> 
> US had a strong case for a just war but they put a question mark on it by the last act of targeting a civilian city which had no defense
> 
> to put it in prospective the death tolls
> 
> *Japan  * 2,120,000  military          580,000- 1,000,000 civilian
> 
> US       416,800                             418,500 and that is a WW2 total
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the industrial cities building the weapons that were used in Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Were you born stupid or did you study?
> 
> Well u certain seem to be either stupid or do selective reading
> 
> what part of  2,120,000 miltary dead fails to move u to believe that even though it had military industrial machinery it is hard to believe that at the end they were operational and producing with most of the men dead that would be using them.
> If written numbers cause your brain to hurt then how about 2 million deaths
> 
> Still conventional weapons worked in Germany so why the overkill
> 
> Wake up and smell the roses and you will find that it does stink
> 
> 
> Mitsubishi Nagasaki shipyard
Click to expand...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Wry Catcher said:


> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?


Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientists would have gotten the picture.


----------



## Unkotare

Kilroy2 said:


> ....
> 
> Still we have military bases there and Japan military spending is so low that its even less than Chad....





Not in total $$ amount, of course. 7th most powerful military in the world.


----------



## Dick Foster

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.


Nor was the rape of Nanjing and all the other crap and atrocities  thise assholes pulled. Hell lets nuke em again. But as I said before I guess the assholes nuked themselves with Fukushima.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientists would have gotten the picture.
Click to expand...


They only had two bombs, they didn't know for sure if they would work.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientists would have gotten the picture.
Click to expand...

Japanese scientist...………………………….

These fucking turds were crashing themselves into ships

Scientist

The Germans had scientist, all the Japs had and have are baby whale butchers


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Wry Catcher said:


> They only had two bombs, they d



When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.


And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?


----------



## Wry Catcher

BTW, more Japanese Civilians could have died during an invasion than died in both bombings.  Women and children were training to fight with sticks and rocks and never surrender.  Consider this:
Suicide Cliff - Wikipedia


----------



## karpenter

Fort Fun Indiana said:
			
		

> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientists would have gotten the picture.


'Shit !! They're Going To Vaporize Our Remote Areas !!'


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

karpenter said:


> 'Shit !! They're Going To Vaporize Our Remote Areas !!'


Of course, that is not the message they would have taken. They would have immediately puzzled out the danger to a city from the destruction they found. Cities, like Tokyo.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only had two bombs, they d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.
> 
> 
> And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?
Click to expand...

Then they should have waited and dropped 15


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
Click to expand...



The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.


----------



## karpenter

Fort Fun Indiana said:
			
		

> And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks.


Surre....





> So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.


No,
They Had Two


----------



## Frannie

karpenter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,
> They Had Two
Click to expand...

They had 2 that no one knew would really go off


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
Click to expand...

Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.
Click to expand...

How many kids do you have Jr.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

karpenter said:


> No,
> They Had Two


Actually, when they dropped the first bomb, they only had 1. So, if you say they had two. .because the second was almost operational in a few days, then you can say they had 15, as the same is true of the other 13 bombs.

In reality, it is even  more correct to say they had about as many as they wanted.


----------



## karpenter

Frannie said:
			
		

> They had 2 that no one knew would really go off


And You Get Weapons Grade Uranium And Plutonium
At The Local Army/Navy Store


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,
> They Had Two
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when they dropped the first bomb, they only had 1. So, if you say they had two. .because the second was almost operational in a few days, then you can say they had 15, as the same is true of the other 13 bombs.
> 
> In reality, it is even  more correct to say they had about as many as they wanted.
Click to expand...

No the fuel had to be refined, it was not unlimited.

But you keep on farting


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only had two bombs, they d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.
> 
> 
> And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then they should have waited and dropped 15
Click to expand...



Why?


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.
Click to expand...



If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.


----------



## Picaro

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientists would have gotten the picture.
Click to expand...


We could have put flowers in our hair, rolled up a bunch of joints, and walked in singing folk songs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable,


Leaving the Emperor in place was pretty much untenable. But, given pearl harbor, we should have agreed, then put him to death or in prison anyway.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable,
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving the Emperor in place was pretty much untenable. ....
Click to expand...



Evidently not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.
Click to expand...

I have REPEATEDLY ASK you for a link to a credible source for that claim. The overtures to the Soviet Union were a Ceasefire, return to 41 start lines NO concessions in China and no disarmament or occupation. Keep lying it suits you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable,
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving the Emperor in place was pretty much untenable. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently not.
Click to expand...

Right, I see what you are saying. I should have been more clear.


----------



## Vandalshandle

The military rulers of Japan were committed to total war. They were training their children to kill invaders with bamboo lances. They had made the decision that they preferred death of the entire nation before dishonor (surrender). In fact, even after they surrendered, the Japanese government never used that word until the early 1950's in talking to their own citizens. They referred to the end of the war as having "agreed to peace terms" with the USA. They had not been defeated in 1000 years. The emperor recorded the capitulation statement for broadcast the following day, and had to lock it in a safe under guard, for fear that their would be a coup and it would be destroyed before it was broadcast. There was such a coup, which resulted in many killings, but still failed.

In addition to all of the above, LeMay's fire bombings had killed more civilians than both atomic bombs together, with no impact whatsoever on the Japanese rulers toward making a decision to surrender.


----------



## Markle

anynameyouwish said:


> Being a conservative republican I have no doubt you OPPOSED the DEMOCRAT war and gave your full support to HITLER and the NAZIS.
> 
> YOU conservatives are evil fuck faced murderers who LOVE to blow up cities full of old men, old women and children.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have REPEATEDLY ASK you for a link to a credible source for that claim. .......
Click to expand...



Mountains of evidence have been provided on many previous threads, you doddering old fool. You just revert to Rain Man mode again and again.


----------



## Unkotare

The conditions offered ended up being the same ones we accepted after fdr got his wish in hell.


----------



## Unkotare

anynameyouwish said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> for an idiot.....
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because *CONSERVATIVES * love killing people...
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, late breaking news, all demoRAT liberal leftist progressive garbage dumps, pull your head out of you ass so you can hear something loud and clear!!!!
> 
> The war, WW II was a Democrat war fought by Democrats. It was the DEMOCRATS THAT MADE AND DROPPED THE BOMB.
> 
> We are to place blame? Democrats killed the grandpa's and grandmas and all the little children.
> 
> You people are evil fuck faced murderers.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a conservative republican I have no doubt you OPPOSED the DEMOCRAT war and gave your full support to HITLER and the NAZIS.
> 
> YOU conservatives are evil fuck faced murderers who LOVE to blow up cities full of old men, old women and children.
Click to expand...



Then why was it the democrats who dropped the bombs, just as it was democrats who threw innocent, loyal Americans into concentration camps.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Vandalshandle said:


> In addition to all of the above, LeMay's fire bombings had killed more civilians than both atomic bombs together, with no impact whatsoever on the Japanese rulers toward making a decision to surrender.


That's part of a  good argument against the necessity of the nuclear bombs...


----------



## toobfreak

mikegriffith1 said:


> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*



BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have REPEATEDLY ASK you for a link to a credible source for that claim. .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mountains of evidence have been provided on many previous threads, you doddering old fool. You just revert to Rain Man mode again and again.
Click to expand...

No they haven't and here you are refusing to source your claims again. I source mine every time I am asked cause I am not a lying ASSHOLE that has no sources.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> The conditions offered ended up being the same ones we accepted after fdr got his wish in hell.


No they were not all the Japanese offered was a cease fire return to 41 start lines NO concessions in China no disarming and no occupation. Even after an atomic Bomb they demanded that the Emperor remain God of Japan no occupation and no disarmament. I have already provided the link.


----------



## 22lcidw

The Japanese were tough warriors. Taking those small pacific islands was not a pushover and we lost plenty of lives.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> ..... They were training their children to kill invaders with bamboo lances. They had made the decision that they preferred death of the entire nation before dishonor (surrender). ......




Another numbskull clinging to 74 year old propaganda that was meant for someone else in the first place.


----------



## Markle

Stupid senseless thread threw up (pun intended) by desperate Troll.

*Bottom Line
Battle of Okinawa*
The 82-day battle lasted from April 1 until June 22, 1945.
The battle was one of the bloodiest in the Pacific, with approximately 160,000 casualties on both sides: at least 75,000 Allied and 84,166–117,000 Japanese,[26] including drafted Okinawans wearing Japanese uniforms.[16] 149,425 Okinawans were killed, committed suicide or went missing, a significant proportion of the estimated pre-war 300,000 local population.

That horrific battle foretold the casualties to come from an invasion of the mainland.

Something no one here, in their uninformed opposition to the two bombs, have taken into account.  That is the horrific impact the viciousness and brutality of the fighting.  The Japanese had permeated the island with caves.  Soldiers and civilians were under orders to kill anyone surrendering.  Soldiers and civilians were brainwashed to such an extent that they committed suicide rather than surrender.  Women slashed the throats of their children before leaping to their own death from the cliffs.

Soldiers would not come out of the caves even there was no hope of escape.  US soldiers were forced to go cave to cave using either flame throwers or grenades to kill the folks they knew would not and did not surrender.  This was not just a few but had to be done hundreds of times by individual soldiers.  None of the anti-bomb psudo-outraged folks here care to consider that impact.

On Monday, August 6, 1945, at 8:15 a.m., the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima.

Japan refused to surrender.

Nuclear strike (August 9, 1945)  on Nagasaki.

Vote to surrender is a tie with Emperor Hirohito himself breaking the tie.

The *surrender of Imperial Japan* was announced by Hirohito on August 15 and formally signed on September 2, 1945, bringing the hostilities of World War II to a close.

*BOTTOM LINE, the bombs ended the war and saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives.*
*QED*


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions offered ended up being the same ones we accepted after fdr got his wish in hell.
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not all the Japanese offered was a cease fire return to 41 start lines NO concessions in China no disarming and no occupation. Even after an atomic Bomb they demanded that the Emperor remain God of Japan no occupation and no disarmament. I have already provided the link.
Click to expand...



Did you call General MacArthur yet, Rain Man?


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> ...They had not been defeated in 1000 years.......




Did you really think about this before posting?


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> ...
> 
> *BOTTOM LINE, the bombs ended the war and saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives.*
> *QED*





This is the simplistic slogan behind which those who lack the character to address the central moral issue hide. 




The ignorance behind the constant reference to Okinawa from people who clearly do not understand how mainlanders viewed the people of the outer islands at the time is also telling.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... They were training their children to kill invaders with bamboo lances. They had made the decision that they preferred death of the entire nation before dishonor (surrender). ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another numbskull clinging to 74 year old propaganda that was meant for someone else in the first place.
Click to expand...


Actually, I got my information from my step-father, who was in Okinawa. I am very much aware that you have a revisionist agenda, but it does not fly with us who were directly impacted by the war. I'm really not impressed at all by theories from people who are, at most, next generation to what dramatically affected my life, first hand. In short, The Japanese rulers where on a collision course with karma, and it was a bitch.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... They were training their children to kill invaders with bamboo lances. They had made the decision that they preferred death of the entire nation before dishonor (surrender). ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another numbskull clinging to 74 year old propaganda that was meant for someone else in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I got my information from my step-father, who was in Okinawa. I am very much aware that you have a revisionist agenda, but it does not fly with us who were directly impacted by the war. I'm really not impressed at all by theories from people who are, at most, next generation to what dramatically affected my life, first hand. In short, The Japanese rulers where on a collision course with karma, and it was a bitch.
Click to expand...



Looking at history  honestly is not "revision." Clinging to simplistic talking points that enable avoidance of the moral problems inherent in war is NOT legitimate study of history.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... They were training their children to kill invaders with bamboo lances. They had made the decision that they preferred death of the entire nation before dishonor (surrender). ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another numbskull clinging to 74 year old propaganda that was meant for someone else in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I got my information from my step-father, who was in Okinawa. I am very much aware that you have a revisionist agenda, but it does not fly with us who were directly impacted by the war. I'm really not impressed at all by theories from people who are, at most, next generation to what dramatically affected my life, first hand. In short, The Japanese rulers where on a collision course with karma, and it was a bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at history  honestly is not "revision." Clinging to simplistic talking points that enable avoidance of the moral problems inherent in war is NOT legitimate study of history.
Click to expand...


Well, when a country establishes an official war policy of recruiting suicide kamikaze pilots to sink our ships, it is very easy to draw a line between that, and a policy of "no surrender". In fact, it is self evident.


----------



## elektra

anynameyouwish said:


> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"


July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.

And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.

How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture. 

Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions. 

Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.


----------



## karpenter

Fort Fun Indiana said:
			
		

> Of course, that is not the message they would have taken. They would have immediately puzzled out the danger to a city from the destruction they found. Cities, like Tokyo.


Speaking Of Tokyo
That Was The Most Deadly Bombing Raid Of WWII
It Was Done With Incendiaries
NOT An Atomic Bomb

And Before You Even Say It
I'll Say:
'That Presumes No One Died After The Firestorm From Injuries'


----------



## MoonPie

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.
> 
> The real game changer was the USSR entering the war.  It opened a whole new front and hundreds of battle hardened divisions, with the potential of Japan itself being partitioned like Germany was.
> 
> The other key thing was that the US had dropped it's insistence that Hirohito had to abdicate AFTER the Soviets got into it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender. 
The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.


----------



## elektra

MoonPie said:


> They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender.
> The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.


Oh, yet there is no proof of that. I guess under your version of history it was the Soviet navy that was preparing to attack Japan? It was the Soviet air force dropping bombs on Japan? 

The Japanese were so afraid of the Soviets, they fought the Soviets another week after they surrendered to the USA?


----------



## sparky

MoonPie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.
> 
> The real game changer was the USSR entering the war.  It opened a whole new front and hundreds of battle hardened divisions, with the potential of Japan itself being partitioned like Germany was.
> 
> The other key thing was that the US had dropped it's insistence that Hirohito had to abdicate AFTER the Soviets got into it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender.
> The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.
Click to expand...


Because unconditional to the USA was a _universe apart_ from communist oblivion's epic casualties





~S~


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Looking at history  honestly is not "revision." Clinging to simplistic talking points that enable avoidance of the moral problems inherent in war is NOT legitimate study of history.


War is strategy, moral points during war is politics, politics loses wars.


----------



## MoonPie

elektra said:


> MoonPie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender.
> The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yet there is no proof of that. I guess under your version of history it was the Soviet navy that was preparing to attack Japan? It was the Soviet air force dropping bombs on Japan?
> 
> The Japanese were so afraid of the Soviets, they fought the Soviets another week after they surrendered to the USA?
Click to expand...

They weren't still holding out for terms after Hiroshima?? 
What navy or air force? I didn't say anything about the navy or air force. The Soviet Army was 3 days out. I don't know if they were already at Manchuria when we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. 

So you're saying we dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima but they were still holding out because.... they didn't realize the damage it had done? Then suddenly capitulated when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, like "oh shit, the Americans are serious about this!"


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only had two bombs, they d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.
> 
> 
> And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then they should have waited and dropped 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Because the bombs dropped might have failed or the planes downed, I suppose that was one reason to drop them sooner so as to test them.

Anyway it all worked out for the better

The fish was all cooked


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.
Click to expand...

When did the Japs offer to surrender before they did?  Okinawa had almost as much allied losses as the entire Vietnam war.  Kid you are really living inside your pill bottle...………………..

Refill your prescription and take with alcohol, grain alcohol


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable,
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving the Emperor in place was pretty much untenable. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, I see what you are saying. I should have been more clear.
Click to expand...

You would understand the other idiot...…………………...


----------



## elektra

MoonPie said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MoonPie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender.
> The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yet there is no proof of that. I guess under your version of history it was the Soviet navy that was preparing to attack Japan? It was the Soviet air force dropping bombs on Japan?
> 
> The Japanese were so afraid of the Soviets, they fought the Soviets another week after they surrendered to the USA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They weren't still holding out for terms after Hiroshima??
> What navy or air force? I didn't say anything about the navy or air force. The Soviet Army was 3 days out. I don't know if they were already at Manchuria when we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.
> 
> So you're saying we dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima but they were still holding out because.... they didn't realize the damage it had done? Then suddenly capitulated when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, like "oh shit, the Americans are serious about this!"
Click to expand...

For a country who's culture is, never surrender, death before surrender, it takes much to surrender.

You actually think that Soviet troops in mainland China that had zero chance of ever invading Japan caused the Japanese to be afraid?

After Hiroshima, japan was not holding out for better terms. The Army and Navy insisted on fighting to the last man.

The Emperor was trying to find a way to surrender without being killed by the Japanese army or navy leaders.

It was a real internal fight to surrender under any terms.


----------



## toobfreak

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have REPEATEDLY ASK you for a link to a credible source for that claim. .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mountains of evidence have been provided on many previous threads, you doddering old fool. You just revert to Rain Man mode again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they haven't and here you are refusing to source your claims again. I source mine every time I am asked cause I am not a lying ASSHOLE that has no sources.
Click to expand...

ShitferBrrains MO:

No source cited for name claims.
No source sited for his mountains of evidence.
Insults and name calling as always used as a deflection away from the fact that the dude never has shit to back up a thing he ever says.
Well, maybe shit is all he has...


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.
Click to expand...



Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.


----------



## Unkotare

Vandalshandle said:


> ...
> 
> Well, when a country establishes an official war policy of recruiting suicide kamikaze pilots to sink our ships....




There's another subject you probably don't understand much at all. You should start another thread about that.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
Click to expand...


This appeal to emotion fallacy is a failed and transparent attempt at changing the subject. The frequent brutality of the Japanese military against prisoners of war is not in contention here.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at history  honestly is not "revision." Clinging to simplistic talking points that enable avoidance of the moral problems inherent in war is NOT legitimate study of history.
> 
> 
> 
> War is strategy, moral points during war is politics, politics loses wars.
Click to expand...



You have been provided with quote after quote after quote from US military leaders of the day.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> MoonPie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MoonPie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender.
> The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yet there is no proof of that. I guess under your version of history it was the Soviet navy that was preparing to attack Japan? It was the Soviet air force dropping bombs on Japan?
> 
> The Japanese were so afraid of the Soviets, they fought the Soviets another week after they surrendered to the USA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They weren't still holding out for terms after Hiroshima??
> What navy or air force? I didn't say anything about the navy or air force. The Soviet Army was 3 days out. I don't know if they were already at Manchuria when we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.
> 
> So you're saying we dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima but they were still holding out because.... they didn't realize the damage it had done? Then suddenly capitulated when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, like "oh shit, the Americans are serious about this!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a country who's culture is, never surrender, death before surrender,.........
Click to expand...



Stop watching so many cartoons.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Japs [sic] offer to surrender before they did?  Okinawa had almost as much allied losses as the entire Vietnam war. ....
Click to expand...



General MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page letter informing him of Japanese overtures to surrender well before the Battle of Okinawa. If American lives meant anything to that scumbag he might have followed up on those possibilities instead of dismissing them as politically inconvenient.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

karpenter said:


> That Was The Most Deadly Bombing Raid Of WWII
> It Was Done With


And...? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. We are discussing the timing and context of the atomic bombs.


----------



## harmonica

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only had two bombs, they d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.
> 
> 
> And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then they should have waited and dropped 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the bombs dropped might have failed or the planes downed, I suppose that was one reason to drop them sooner so as to test them.
> 
> Anyway it all worked out for the better
> 
> The fish was all cooked
Click to expand...

they did test them at the Trinity test


----------



## harmonica

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only had two bombs, they d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.
> 
> 
> And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then they should have waited and dropped 15
Click to expand...

no--NO--they are not waiting weeks and MONTHS---the war had been going on for 3.5 *YEARS*


----------



## harmonica

again--all of Japan's major cities had been bombed and burned to shit
hundreds of thousands of Japanese killed
and they are still *NOT surrendering--*plain and simple
you don't fk around in war----
you can't wait weeks and months---and HOPE they surrender
hahahahahahahahahhahahah


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

harmonica said:


> and they are still *NOT surrendering--*


But also no longer a threat.


----------



## Pogo

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



Well of course.  Giving the USSR a window to finish that war TOO would have made the rah-rah revisionism that much more an uphill battle.  Share the limelight?  The Narrative can't have _that_.

Truman was a shallow menial little fart of a man who could be led around by the nose by purely emotional arguments, and those who led him by the nose knew it.


----------



## Kilroy2

There is a reason they say history is written by the victor

Yet morality is even lost by those who won

The sinking of the cruiser US Indianapolis where 900 men were lost delivering key components to be used in the atomic bomb that would be dropped 10 days later

The survivors of the initial attacked floated in the sea for 4 days

Eventually the survivors were rescued and the US  captain was court martial because he failed to use a zig zagging technique 



His own men who survived testified in his behalf. He was court-martialed  and lost some seniority. Still he eventually became a rear admiral. The navy secretary even lifted the sentence because of prior bravery in the war.

But he was court martialed and it was still on his record and eventually committed suicide because of the ordeal in 1968 shot himself 

56 Years later after he was vindicated/enorated by the Senate.  It was noted that he had the discretion to zig zag but it was not a order  

The Japanese commander of the sub that sank the ship testified that zig zagging would not have stopped the torpedo

For years the story was that he had carried a top secret cargo and he did.

The mission was so secret that it took them 4 days to find them and rescue the survivors where many had died during the 4 days drifting in the sea.

It was suggested that the Navy might have know a sub was in the area but they had just cracked the Japanese code and did not want to warn the cruiser out of fear that the japanese would find out about cracking the code

The Japanese commander wrote this to the Senators

''Our peoples have forgiven each other for that terrible war,'' he said. ''Perhaps it is time your peoples forgave Captain McVay for the humiliation of his unjust conviction.''

Was he a scapegoat?

It is funny as various government make agreements on how to wage a war in a way that tries to make it civilized or moral

yet in the heat of battle, individual have to make life and death decisions. Then those in power make life and death decisions when they are not putting their lives on the line.


----------



## Camp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> and they are still *NOT surrendering--*
> 
> 
> 
> But also no longer a threat.
Click to expand...

The threat was Russia entering the war with Japan in Manchuria with the goal of invading Japan and gaining a seat at the surrender negotiations.


----------



## Pogo

rightwinger said:


> Maxdeath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always fun to second guess history from the modern moral high ground.
> First we need to understand that the Japanese were not going to surrender. There are many times civillians and military chose death rather then surrender. They committed suicide by jumping off cliffs. They rammed planes into ships. They hid out in jungles for years.
> The second thing we need to understand is that there were not unlimited funds, resources or men that we were willing to commit to the war against Japan.
> Japan was convinced that we only had one atomic bomb. At least that was what they convinced their people of. I do not know for sure if the high command was convinced because of the enormous cost of such a weapon at that time or what the real reason was.
> To have used only one would have proven the leaders right so even if the origanal bomb was demoralizing to have proven them right would have increased the Japanese resolve.
> Could we have won without the second bomb? Perhaps. At what cost in men and material? We will never know. We do know that the war ended abruptly after the second.
> As I said it is always fun to second guess history from our moral high ground but that assumes we are willing to understand the whole of history and the thought processes that went on at the time. It is also nice if we stop to think about such things as cost of lives and material if our understanding is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had three bombs
> One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
> 
> We had the bomb, nobody else did
> 
> At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.
Click to expand...


The whole (alleged) argument that "they only have one bomb" is inherently illogical.  If you can make one bomb, then you can make any number of the same thing, because you already did it.  This idea just smacks of revisionist mythology and should be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Camp said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> and they are still *NOT surrendering--*
> 
> 
> 
> But also no longer a threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat was Russia entering the war with Japan in Manchuria with the goal of invading Japan and gaining a seat at the surrender negotiations.
Click to expand...

The Soviets had a seat at the Potsdam conference, just like we did. We engineered their invasion with them.


----------



## Pogo

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had three bombs
> One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
> 
> We had the bomb, nobody else did
> 
> At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it really wasn't.
> 
> What we were realizing by 1945 is that the Soviets couldn't really be trusted.  they were installing Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe, and now they were in a position to send  hundreds of divisions into China, Korea and Japan.
> 
> We'd have gotten to the same place, but with the Sovietns firmly in charge of the region...  As it was, we still ended up losing China in 1949, and the Korean war in 1950.  Imagine if the USSR had completely occupied Korea and maybe half of Japan.
Click to expand...


USSR wasn't "installing puppet states in Eastern Europe" until _after _that date, when they saw a mustering of force in _western _Europe, particularly Germany, by the same country that had pre-empted them out of Japan with the world's then-only Nuke, and after hiding out in Africa while they (the USSR) did all the heavy work in Europe.  And they had nothing to do with Korea.  

And China was never "ours" to "lose" anyway.  Perhaps you're thinking of the Philippines?

Moreover, Japan and the USSR were neighboring states that had already been in conflict; Russia had the same concern about Japan to its east that it had about Germany to its west.  That gives them more of an interest in containing Japanese imperialism than it does us, several thousand miles away.  They'd never been invaded by Alaska.

This whole fantasy of USSR-as-invader bent on world domination is a sicko fantasy contrived in the warped minds of the Dulles Brothers and their ilk.  History tells us how far off the mark it is.  USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe.  They were in need of reconstruction, which btw they also got snubbed out of when we were getting Germany and the UK back on their feet.

See the whole picture.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This appeal to emotion fallacy is a failed and transparent attempt at changing the subject. The frequent brutality of the Japanese military against prisoners of war is not in contention here.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot, how else do you explain such a sexually deprived user name.

Yes, I understand you wish to deflect from the subject, ending the war so that the american prisoners of war may live.

Of all the arguments, this is the one you desire to be talked about the least, if at all.

Dropping two bombs saved the lives of American pow, 

It ended thier horror.

Your protest is pitiful and disgusting.


----------



## Pogo

mikegriffith1 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese had been carrying out a genocidal war in China for nearly a decade... you think FDR should have rewarded them for THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If FDR did nothing to punish the Soviets for their brutality and oppression, why did he choose to pick a fight with the anti-communist Japanese over their arguably justified war in China?
> 
> The Japanese were not any more vicious than Mao's Communist Chinese forces were, and the Nationalist Chinese forces certainly did not follow the rules of warfare either in many cases. The Japanese had entirely valid interests in seeking to keep the Communists from coming to power in China, as the whole world saw after the war when Mao came to power and murdered over 20 million Chinese.
> 
> Instead of joining with Japan to defeat the Maoist Communnists, Chang Kaishek oddly chose to form an alliance with the Communists against the Japanese. Surely no one in their right mind would say that China was better off under the Communists than Manchuria had been under the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis in WWII... we just don't hear that much about it because the Jews run Hollywood and just can't stop whining about Hitler.   Now, if the Chinese ran Hollywood, that'd be a different story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that is total hogwash. The Japanese were nothing like the Nazis. Tojo was a mild leader compared to Hitler and Stalin. The Japanese people enjoyed far more rights and freedoms during WW II than did the Russians under Stalin and the Germans under Hitler.
> 
> One book that documents this fact is Israeli historian Ben Shillony's book _Politics and Culture in Wartime Japan_ (Clarendon Press, 1991). Two other good books on the subject are Meron Medzini's _Under the Shadow of the Rising Sun: Japan and the Jews during the Holocaust Era_ (Academic Studies Press, 2016) and Samuel Yamashita's _Daily Life in Wartime Japan, 1940-1945_ (University of Kansas Press, 2017).
> 
> Many readers will be astounded to learn of the degree and frequency of political opposition and criticism that was tolerated in wartime Japan. They will also be surprised to learn that much more often than not Japan's legal system protected citizens against unjust actions by the government. Japan was certainly not as free and open as America and England were during the war, but open criticism/opposition and the rule of law existed in Japan to a degree that was unheard of in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Click to expand...


We tend to conflate the mass of "World War Two" into a single entity due to timing but it was really two different wars that happened to have allies or temporary allies in common.  It was German/Italian (and domestically, Spanish) fascism in Europe threatening British/French imperialism, while coincidentally Japanese imperialism threatened its broader region in Asia.  But the Japanese were not fascists.  Japan and Germany may have had opponents in common but Japan didn't send troops to Europe and Germany wasn't sailing to Asia.  Different wars for different reasons.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> You have been provided with quote after quote after quote from US military leaders of the day.


A quote without a source is a fable, a lie, nothing more.

The OP author can not link.
The user who posted can not source his quotes.
You can not offer facts or even an opinion to discuss.

You simply cry, " but they said so, so they are right"


----------



## elektra

,


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> and they are still *NOT surrendering--*
> 
> 
> 
> But also no longer a threat.
Click to expand...

Yet, in July of 1945 a thousand american men died. How is that not a threat? I guess it is just life that does not matter?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.


----------



## M14 Shooter

mikegriffith1 said:


> The city had no fortifications, no outer defenses, etc. I ask again, why do you suppose we felt confident enough to send the _Enola Gay _totally unprotected by any fighters? Hey? We both know the answer to that question.


Apparently, you don't.
The Japanese rarely, if ever, put fighters up to oppose 2-3 ship recon/weather flights.  The Japanese did not put fighters up to stop the EG for this reason.


> It is sad and obscene to see an alleged former Marine trying to justify the murder of over 100,000 people...


Murder?   As in these people were killed ilegally?
It's illegal to kill civilians when attacking a military target?


----------



## Pogo

Vandalshandle said:


> Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.



The Soviets were _supposed to_ join in.  We asked them to.

Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had three bombs
> One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
> 
> We had the bomb, nobody else did
> 
> At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it really wasn't.
> 
> What we were realizing by 1945 is that the Soviets couldn't really be trusted.  they were installing Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe, and now they were in a position to send  hundreds of divisions into China, Korea and Japan.
> 
> We'd have gotten to the same place, but with the Sovietns firmly in charge of the region...  As it was, we still ended up losing China in 1949, and the Korean war in 1950.  Imagine if the USSR had completely occupied Korea and maybe half of Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> USSR wasn't "installing puppet states in Eastern Europe" until _after _that date, when they saw a mustering of force in _western _Europe, particularly Germany, by the same country that had pre-empted them out of Japan with the world's then-only Nuke, and after hiding out in Africa while they (the USSR) did all the heavy work in Europe.  And they had nothing to do with Korea.
> 
> And China was never "ours" to "lose" anyway.  Perhaps you're thinking of the Philippines?
> 
> Moreover, Japan and the USSR were neighboring states that had already been in conflict; Russia had the same concern about Japan to its east that it had about Germany to its west.  That gives them more of an interest in containing Japanese imperialism than it does us, several thousand miles away.  They'd never been invaded by Alaska.
> 
> This whole fantasy of USSR-as-invader bent on world domination is a sicko fantasy contrived in the warped minds of the Dulles Brothers and their ilk.  History tells us how far off the mark it is.  USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe.  They were in need of reconstruction, which btw they also got snubbed out of when we were getting Germany and the UK back on their feet.
> 
> See the whole picture.
Click to expand...

Ha, ha, ha. You are so full of bull crap. East Germany comes to mind. 

The USSR was a lousy marxists socialist hell hole that should of been nuked along with mao.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.
Click to expand...

Says the third grade art teacher


----------



## Frannie

harmonica said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only had two bombs, they d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.
> 
> 
> And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then they should have waited and dropped 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the bombs dropped might have failed or the planes downed, I suppose that was one reason to drop them sooner so as to test them.
> 
> Anyway it all worked out for the better
> 
> The fish was all cooked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they did test them at the Trinity test
Click to expand...

They were not dropped from planes nor were there enemy planes to shoot down the B29

Next

A tower was used no altitude fuse needed


----------



## dannyboys

The lesson every country can learn from history is never underestimate your enemies ability to surprise the shit out of you.
The US learned that.......supposedly, in VN. Saddam learned that in Kuwait. Throughout history it's never changed.
The Japanese learned it.
Iran is about to learn a history lesson.


----------



## Frannie

harmonica said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only had two bombs, they d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.
> 
> 
> And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then they should have waited and dropped 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no--NO--they are not waiting weeks and MONTHS---the war had been going on for 3.5 *YEARS*
Click to expand...

Just me but I would have destroyed Tokyo and Nagoya as well.  Nagoya had the armory making rifles, I would have melted it

Just me, I like to fuck stuff up

I would have melted every Honda, Toyota and Mitsubishi Zero factory as well.

Just for Karma


----------



## dannyboys

Unkotare said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Well, when a country establishes an official war policy of recruiting suicide kamikaze pilots to sink our ships....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's another subject you probably don't understand much at all. You should start another thread about that.
Click to expand...

Japan had to resort to getting the kamikaze pilots drunk on rice wine before they took off.
Real class act way to treat those who were about to die.


----------



## Pogo

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had three bombs
> One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
> 
> We had the bomb, nobody else did
> 
> At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it really wasn't.
> 
> What we were realizing by 1945 is that the Soviets couldn't really be trusted.  they were installing Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe, and now they were in a position to send  hundreds of divisions into China, Korea and Japan.
> 
> We'd have gotten to the same place, but with the Sovietns firmly in charge of the region...  As it was, we still ended up losing China in 1949, and the Korean war in 1950.  Imagine if the USSR had completely occupied Korea and maybe half of Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> USSR wasn't "installing puppet states in Eastern Europe" until _after _that date, when they saw a mustering of force in _western _Europe, particularly Germany, by the same country that had pre-empted them out of Japan with the world's then-only Nuke, and after hiding out in Africa while they (the USSR) did all the heavy work in Europe.  And they had nothing to do with Korea.
> 
> And China was never "ours" to "lose" anyway.  Perhaps you're thinking of the Philippines?
> 
> Moreover, Japan and the USSR were neighboring states that had already been in conflict; Russia had the same concern about Japan to its east that it had about Germany to its west.  That gives them more of an interest in containing Japanese imperialism than it does us, several thousand miles away.  They'd never been invaded by Alaska.
> 
> This whole fantasy of USSR-as-invader bent on world domination is a sicko fantasy contrived in the warped minds of the Dulles Brothers and their ilk.  History tells us how far off the mark it is.  USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe.  They were in need of reconstruction, which btw they also got snubbed out of when we were getting Germany and the UK back on their feet.
> 
> See the whole picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha, ha, ha. You are so full of bull crap. East Germany comes to mind.
> 
> The USSR was a lousy marxists socialist hell hole that should of been nuked along with mao.
Click to expand...


Why would we nuke our own ally?  Think things through much?

Feel free to (try to) find a way to counter my historical citations with actual contraindicating history.  All you have here is...

​All I did was set the facts on the floor.  You have a tantrum about it.


----------



## harmonica

Frannie said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.
> 
> 
> And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?
> 
> 
> 
> Then they should have waited and dropped 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the bombs dropped might have failed or the planes downed, I suppose that was one reason to drop them sooner so as to test them.
> 
> Anyway it all worked out for the better
> 
> The fish was all cooked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they did test them at the Trinity test
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not dropped from planes nor were there enemy planes to shoot down the B29
> 
> Next
> 
> A tower was used no altitude fuse needed
Click to expand...

yes--I know
........but you don't want to *'''test'''* an air droppable ''device'' that cost mucho $$$$$$$ and took years to make ..that would be idiotic


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> Why would we nuke our own ally?  Think things through much?
> 
> Feel free to (try to) find a way to counter my historical citations with actual contraindicating history.  All you have here is...
> 
> ​All I did was set the facts on the floor.  You have a tantrum about it.


Tantrum? Ha, ha, ha. Is that all you got? 

USSR, was not our ally at the end of WW II. Sure on paper yes, but their actions were not of an ally.

Why nuke the Marxist Socialists. To save millions of Russians a horrific death. To save the Chinese, the cambodians, the vietnamese, and even the Cubans.


----------



## Camp

Pogo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets were _supposed to_ join in.  We asked them to.
> 
> Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
Click to expand...

An interesting read is a book on Soviet involvement with allies from as far back as the Tehran Conference called Racing The Enemy by Tsuyoshi Hasagawa.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pogo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets were _supposed to_ join in.  We asked them to.
> 
> Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
Click to expand...


I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.


----------



## harmonica

dannyboys said:


> The lesson every country can learn from history is never underestimate your enemies ability to surprise the shit out of you.
> The US learned that.......supposedly, in VN. Saddam learned that in Kuwait. Throughout history it's never changed.
> The Japanese learned it.
> Iran is about to learn a history lesson.





mikegriffith1 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is sick, especially coming from someone who claims to be a former Marine. Yes, Hiroshima had a port, since it was on a coast, but the port was hardly used anymore by then--it was somewhat clogged with sunken ships and port-bound ships that didn't dare leave the port. ALL Japanese civilians were being trained for an invasion, so that proves nothing, unless you're going to tell me that women and children wielding bamboo spears were a serious threat to us. Yes, Hiroshima had a fair amount of factories; most of them were on the outskirts of the city, and they were almost completely _unharmed _in the nuking because the nuke was dropped near the center of the city. Troops and an HQ? Yeah, they were garrison troops. An airbase?! Yeah, a small one. The city had no fortifications, no outer defenses, etc. I ask again, why do you suppose we felt confident enough to send the _Enola Gay _totally unprotected by any fighters? Hey? We both know the answer to that question.
> 
> It is sad and obscene to see an alleged former Marine trying to justify the murder of over 100,000 people, at least half of them women and children, by making the ludicrous claim that Hiroshima was a valid military target. The factories on the outskirts of the city were valid targets, and the small unfortified compound where the troops stayed was a fair target, but those were only a small part of the city and contained a very small part of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't bomb civilian centers. What is wrong with you? You are as inhumane as some of the Japanese soldiers you excoriate.
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 civilians did not die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 200,000 died from those two nuke attacks, and tens of thousands more suffered from radiation effects for the rest of their lives.
> 
> FDR screamed because the Japanese bombed a handful of cities in China. We bombed dozens of cities in Japan and dropped far more bombs on them than the Japanese dropped on the cities they bombed.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not provided a single Government document to prove your claims YET. And all you have on MacArthur is an unsourced book.
> 
> I have linked to the ACTUAL Japanese Government documents ACTUAL Intercepts of Japanese Government and ACTUAL US documents you have not done any of that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you realize that Eisenhower and Leahy stated in their own memoirs that they had opposed nuking Japan and that they still thought it was wrong and unnecessary, right?  You realize that Admiral, the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, indicated in his memoir that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that Japan could have been defeated by naval blockade alone, right? We’re not talking about second-hand accounts in these cases.
> 
> Second, MacArthur’s opposition to nuking Japan was confirmed by his biographer, William Manchester, and by his former consultant during our occupation of Japan, Norman Cousins. What’s more, Richard Nixon said that MacArthur told him that he believed we should not have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Hiroshima: Quotes
> 
> We didn't need to drop the bomb -- and even our WW II military icons knew it
> 
> You wanna see a link to a “Government document”? Okay, how about the report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), which concluded that Japan would have surrendered without nukes and without an invasion by no later than December 1945, even if the Soviets had not invaded? The USSBS spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan, interviewing former Japanese officials, and interviewing former Japanese generals and admirals, and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:
> 
> 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. (page 26, available at United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War))​
Click to expand...

'''murder'''-----hahahhahahahahhahahhahahah
they were *NOT surrendering* AFTER the bombs were dropped--the vote was TIED 3-3
so, you *think* they would've surrendered with NO ABombs??

hahahahah  their *''OPINION''*


> it is the Survey's *opinion *


and it was Kimmel's *OPINION* that they wouldn't attack Pearl
and Stalin's *OPINION* that the Germans wouldn't attack Russia
and Ike's *OPINION* that the Germans would not attack through the Ardennes
and the US intel's* OPINION* that terrorists would not fly planes into buildings
etc to infinity


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

harmonica said:


> so, you *think* they would've surrendered with NO ABombs??


Yes, given time. That's pretty much the topic of the entire thread.


----------



## Camp

Vandalshandle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets were _supposed to_ join in.  We asked them to.
> 
> Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.
Click to expand...

They were damn close. They began their attack on Manchuria on 6 August and quickly decimated Japanese forces.


----------



## Pogo

Vandalshandle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets were _supposed to_ join in.  We asked them to.
> 
> Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.
Click to expand...


That doesn't add up.  The Soviet advance was _part of_ defeating Japan.  It was faced with nukes from afar _plus_ Russians up close.  Simultaneous, not serial.


----------



## Frannie

harmonica said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they should have waited and dropped 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the bombs dropped might have failed or the planes downed, I suppose that was one reason to drop them sooner so as to test them.
> 
> Anyway it all worked out for the better
> 
> The fish was all cooked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they did test them at the Trinity test
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not dropped from planes nor were there enemy planes to shoot down the B29
> 
> Next
> 
> A tower was used no altitude fuse needed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes--I know
> ........but you don't want to *'''test'''* an air droppable ''device'' that cost mucho $$$$$$$ and took years to make ..that would be idiotic
Click to expand...


Not for the first test perhaps, but would you want to give the enemy unexploded plutonium if the altitude fuse failed?  Testing is crucial, test test and test again, then start testing


----------



## Pogo

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we nuke our own ally?  Think things through much?
> 
> Feel free to (try to) find a way to counter my historical citations with actual contraindicating history.  All you have here is...
> 
> ​All I did was set the facts on the floor.  You have a tantrum about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Tantrum? Ha, ha, ha. Is that all you got?
> 
> USSR, was not our ally at the end of WW II. Sure on paper yes, but their actions were not of an ally.
> 
> Why nuke the Marxist Socialists. To save millions of Russians a horrific death. To save the Chinese, the cambodians, the vietnamese, and even the Cubans.
Click to expand...


No, apparently it's all YOU got.  I put out histories with dates and places, you put out ad homs.

And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.  None of which has anything to do with either nation's economic system.  It's a bit late to be  "saving millions of horrific Russian deaths" when they've already paid with twenty million of them turning the tide of Naziism back.

That doesn't "save" any Chinese, who had already been invaded by Japan, as had Korea a generation earlier. And here you are cutting off part of that resistance "nuking socialists" in your ignorance.  Great plan there.  As I said, think it through much?

It has zero to do with the Cambodians and even less with the Vietnamese, who were *also* our ally fighting off Japan at the time.  Want to nuke them too?  And it has less-than-zero to do with the Cubans, who were nowhere near the USSR and utterly unrelated.  Now if you want to nuke United Fruit and the Dullesocracy on that last one --- and on Vietnam as well --- well you'd be much closer to the mark.

This is all flying blithely over your  head, isn't it.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> [
> 
> And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.
> This is all flying blithely over your  head, isn't it.


Yes, it is all over my head, how you can make one claim such as this:


> USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe



Then making this claim just a little bit later:


> invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.



You can not have it both ways, if russia could invade Manchuria, it could invade and dominate other countries as well. So yes, your illogical assumption is over my head.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> None of which has anything to do with either nation's economic system.
> 
> This is all flying blithely over your  head, isn't it.


Yes, how you can describe Marxism only as an economic system, when it is not, is definitely over my head. 

You really do not know anything, do you, Marxism is only an economic system?


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> [  It's a bit late to be  "saving millions of horrific Russian deaths" when they've already paid with twenty million of them turning the tide of Naziism back.
> 
> This is all flying blithely over your  head, isn't it.


It is late to be saving millions of russian from death at the hands of Marxism? Then you do not know history, period. Millions died of Marxism, of socialism, after WW II. Millions in Russia, Millions sent to the Gulag. It is said the roads were laid with dead Russians, literally. 

Marxism spread to China, Mao Tse Tung? From the USSR? And on to Cambodia and Vietnam. How many died? Millions. How many suffered, millions. Tens of millions? A hundred million? 

Marxism is a way of life, not simply an economic system. Anyone who has lived under Marxism knows that deadly truth. Only those who have never lived under Marxism ignore the truth as you do.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> That doesn't add up.  The Soviet advance was _part of_ defeating Japan.  It was faced with nukes from afar _plus_ Russians up close.  Simultaneous, not serial.


What does not add up is your math. 1+2=russia? 

Japan was not faced with nukes from afar, they were faced with nukes and ground zero, in two major cities. 

Russians up close? The russians never set foot in japan, the russians never stepped into the water from china? 
The Russians never ever were going to be a threat to Japan on the Japanese mainland. 

And like we are told here, the Japanese were starving and defeated, when Russia entered China to attack those already beaten by the USA. It certainly was not the Russian war with Germany that made Japan so weak, that a russian army could attack the Japanese in China.



> USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe



Yep, Russia was in no position to attack anything, other than a small army of japanese in china that were already defeated by the USA's war in the Pacific.


----------



## harmonica

Frannie said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the bombs dropped might have failed or the planes downed, I suppose that was one reason to drop them sooner so as to test them.
> 
> Anyway it all worked out for the better
> 
> The fish was all cooked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they did test them at the Trinity test
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not dropped from planes nor were there enemy planes to shoot down the B29
> 
> Next
> 
> A tower was used no altitude fuse needed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes--I know
> ........but you don't want to *'''test'''* an air droppable ''device'' that cost mucho $$$$$$$ and took years to make ..that would be idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for the first test perhaps, but would you want to give the enemy unexploded plutonium if the altitude fuse failed?  Testing is crucial, test test and test again, then start testing
Click to expand...

1. there would not be much left of it from that altitude
2. they would not know at first if it was nuclear 
3. they would not be able to use/know how/etc the plutonium for some time


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pogo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets were _supposed to_ join in.  We asked them to.
> 
> Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't add up.  The Soviet advance was _part of_ defeating Japan.  It was faced with nukes from afar _plus_ Russians up close.  Simultaneous, not serial.
Click to expand...


I don't understand what I am saying that does not add up.

The Soviets agreed to declare war on Japan after Germany was defeated. That agreement predates the atomic bomb by years. The soviets kept that agreement, and started advancing toward Japan from the West. We were not in a position to but Japan under a siege to starve them into giving up, because the Soviets would have continued their advance from the west, and even invade the islands. If we had not invaded the islands, or if we had not ended the war before they could do that, the Soviets would have done the same thing they did in Germany. If we had not used the atomic bomb, we would have been forced to invade Japan to beat the soviets to it, which would have resulted in a million casualties. If we allowed the Soviets to invade Japan, Japan would have ended up as another East Germany.


----------



## anynameyouwish

elektra said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
Click to expand...


----------



## anynameyouwish

elektra said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
Click to expand...



"And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. "


I've been told by conservatives that the first person to resort to insults is losing the argument.


You are losing the argument.

I'm sure that because you are a conservative you are making wild, dangerous and false accusations.

(like trump!)



"They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children."

And for  those crimes against humanity japanese military and government should have been punished severely.  If you had nuked an army or the emporers palace I wouldn't take issue.

And they obviously debated whether to nuke a city or a military target.

They chose a city.....2 cities...

I would have nuked a military target. That would have ended the war even sooner!

Think about it....on your right is an army of huns....

to your left is a city of old people and children....

the army of huns is trying to kill you

the old people and children are not.

So....who do you nuke?

the army?

or the old folks and the children?


"How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture."

and now you have gone off the deep end and started accusing me of vile crimes that are untrue.

These are disgusting and deplorable LIES!

If you truly believe these vile lies then I have no doubt you would want to kill ME, to......right?




"Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions."

more deranged lies.

and that is why rational people can never try to discuss issues with conservatives.


YOU leap to erroneous and dangerous and false conclusions.

You are practically insane.


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. "
> 
> 
> I've been told by conservatives that the first person to resort to insults is losing the argument.
> 
> 
> You are losing the argument.
> 
> I'm sure that because you are a conservative you are making wild, dangerous and false accusations.
> 
> (like trump!)
> 
> 
> 
> "They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children."
> 
> And for  those crimes against humanity japanese military and government should have been punished severely.  If you had nuked an army or the emporers palace I wouldn't take issue.
> 
> And they obviously debated whether to nuke a city or a military target.
> 
> They chose a city.....2 cities...
> 
> I would have nuked a military target. That would have ended the war even sooner!
> 
> Think about it....on your right is an army of huns....
> 
> to your left is a city of old people and children....
> 
> the army of huns is trying to kill you
> 
> the old people and children are not.
> 
> So....who do you nuke?
> 
> the army?
> 
> or the old folks and the children?
> 
> 
> "How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture."
> 
> and now you have gone off the deep end and started accusing me of vile crimes that are untrue.
> 
> These are disgusting and deplorable LIES!
> 
> If you truly believe these vile lies then I have no doubt you would want to kill ME, to......right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions."
> 
> more deranged lies.
> 
> and that is why rational people can never try to discuss issues with conservatives.
> 
> 
> YOU leap to erroneous and dangerous and false conclusions.
> 
> You are practically insane.
Click to expand...

military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did 
which military target would you have hit?


----------



## anynameyouwish

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This appeal to emotion fallacy is a failed and transparent attempt at changing the subject. The frequent brutality of the Japanese military against prisoners of war is not in contention here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an idiot, how else do you explain such a sexually deprived user name.
> 
> Yes, I understand you wish to deflect from the subject, ending the war so that the american prisoners of war may live.
> 
> Of all the arguments, this is the one you desire to be talked about the least, if at all.
> 
> Dropping two bombs saved the lives of American pow,
> 
> It ended thier horror.
> 
> Your protest is pitiful and disgusting.
Click to expand...




elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This appeal to emotion fallacy is a failed and transparent attempt at changing the subject. The frequent brutality of the Japanese military against prisoners of war is not in contention here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an idiot, how else do you explain such a sexually deprived user name.
> 
> Yes, I understand you wish to deflect from the subject, ending the war so that the american prisoners of war may live.
> 
> Of all the arguments, this is the one you desire to be talked about the least, if at all.
> 
> Dropping two bombs saved the lives of American pow,
> 
> It ended thier horror.
> 
> Your protest is pitiful and disgusting.
Click to expand...


you murdered US soldiers!


YOU MURDERED US SOLDIERS!

by choosing 2 cities instead of 2 military targets you actually prolonged the war!

japanese soldiers who were NOT NUKED lived to kill more American troops!

If you had nuked these military targets instead of cities those japanese soldiers would have been dead and unable to kill any more US troops.


YOU caused the death of MORE US TROOPS by NOT nuking a military target and choosing, instead, to kill grandparents and children,


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This appeal to emotion fallacy is a failed and transparent attempt at changing the subject. The frequent brutality of the Japanese military against prisoners of war is not in contention here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an idiot, how else do you explain such a sexually deprived user name.
> 
> Yes, I understand you wish to deflect from the subject, ending the war so that the american prisoners of war may live.
> 
> Of all the arguments, this is the one you desire to be talked about the least, if at all.
> 
> Dropping two bombs saved the lives of American pow,
> 
> It ended thier horror.
> 
> Your protest is pitiful and disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This appeal to emotion fallacy is a failed and transparent attempt at changing the subject. The frequent brutality of the Japanese military against prisoners of war is not in contention here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an idiot, how else do you explain such a sexually deprived user name.
> 
> Yes, I understand you wish to deflect from the subject, ending the war so that the american prisoners of war may live.
> 
> Of all the arguments, this is the one you desire to be talked about the least, if at all.
> 
> Dropping two bombs saved the lives of American pow,
> 
> It ended thier horror.
> 
> Your protest is pitiful and disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you murdered US soldiers!
> 
> 
> YOU MURDERED US SOLDIERS!
> 
> by choosing 2 cities instead of 2 military targets you actually prolonged the war!
> 
> japanese soldiers who were NOT NUKED lived to kill more American troops!
> 
> If you had nuked these military targets instead of cities those japanese soldiers would have been dead and unable to kill any more US troops.
> 
> 
> YOU caused the death of MORE US TROOPS by NOT nuking a military target and choosing, instead, to kill grandparents and children,
Click to expand...

what???!!!!!


----------



## Frannie

harmonica said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the bombs dropped might have failed or the planes downed, I suppose that was one reason to drop them sooner so as to test them.
> 
> Anyway it all worked out for the better
> 
> The fish was all cooked
> 
> 
> 
> they did test them at the Trinity test
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not dropped from planes nor were there enemy planes to shoot down the B29
> 
> Next
> 
> A tower was used no altitude fuse needed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes--I know
> ........but you don't want to *'''test'''* an air droppable ''device'' that cost mucho $$$$$$$ and took years to make ..that would be idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for the first test perhaps, but would you want to give the enemy unexploded plutonium if the altitude fuse failed?  Testing is crucial, test test and test again, then start testing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. there would not be much left of it from that altitude
> 2. they would not know at first if it was nuclear
> 3. they would not be able to use/know how/etc the plutonium for some time
Click to expand...


And they would have just wasted one of the most expensive exotic substances on the Earth


----------



## Frannie

anynameyouwish said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. "
> 
> 
> I've been told by conservatives that the first person to resort to insults is losing the argument.
> 
> 
> You are losing the argument.
> 
> I'm sure that because you are a conservative you are making wild, dangerous and false accusations.
> 
> (like trump!)
> 
> 
> 
> "They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children."
> 
> And for  those crimes against humanity japanese military and government should have been punished severely.  If you had nuked an army or the emporers palace I wouldn't take issue.
> 
> And they obviously debated whether to nuke a city or a military target.
> 
> They chose a city.....2 cities...
> 
> I would have nuked a military target. That would have ended the war even sooner!
> 
> Think about it....on your right is an army of huns....
> 
> to your left is a city of old people and children....
> 
> the army of huns is trying to kill you
> 
> the old people and children are not.
> 
> So....who do you nuke?
> 
> the army?
> 
> or the old folks and the children?
> 
> 
> "How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture."
> 
> and now you have gone off the deep end and started accusing me of vile crimes that are untrue.
> 
> These are disgusting and deplorable LIES!
> 
> If you truly believe these vile lies then I have no doubt you would want to kill ME, to......right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions."
> 
> more deranged lies.
> 
> and that is why rational people can never try to discuss issues with conservatives.
> 
> 
> YOU leap to erroneous and dangerous and false conclusions.
> 
> You are practically insane.
Click to expand...

Is it fun being a triggered retard


----------



## Frannie

Vandalshandle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets were _supposed to_ join in.  We asked them to.
> 
> Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't add up.  The Soviet advance was _part of_ defeating Japan.  It was faced with nukes from afar _plus_ Russians up close.  Simultaneous, not serial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what I am saying that does not add up.
> 
> The Soviets agreed to declare war on Japan after Germany was defeated. That agreement predates the atomic bomb by years. The soviets kept that agreement, and started advancing toward Japan from the West. We were not in a position to but Japan under a siege to starve them into giving up, because the Soviets would have continued their advance from the west, and even invade the islands. If we had not invaded the islands, or if we had not ended the war before they could do that, the Soviets would have done the same thing they did in Germany. If we had not used the atomic bomb, we would have been forced to invade Japan to beat the soviets to it, which would have resulted in a million casualties. If we allowed the Soviets to invade Japan, Japan would have ended up as another East Germany.
Click to expand...

The Soviets never were a US ally, Patton knew this, depending on Stalin would be like inviting killer bees into your home to make honey


----------



## Kilroy2

[/QUOTE]military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did
which military target would you have hit?[/QUOTE]


unfortunately it is illegal to bomb civilian targets and the US signed and congress ratified acceptance of the Geneva Conventions Protocols 1

An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Even though they say there were industrial war factories in the 2 cities, the fact remains Japan navy and air force were already defeated. In one year leading up to the peace treaty, The US was dropping bombs like crazy with no interference. One such incident in Mar where bombers using fire bombs turned Tokyo into a blazing infernal killing more than 100,000 people. It took two nuclear bombs to meet that same target but I guess those cities had lessor population than Tokyo. 

The question would be was there a moral obligation to not cause excessive harm to civilians by the US agreeing to the Geneva convention

To be legal, aerial operations must comply with the principles of humanitarian law military necessity, distinction , and proportionality 

proportionality would be my concern as it appears to be excessive indiscriminate bombing

which does create a moral dilemma when do civilian casualties become excessive 

nuclear weapons which destroy a greatly extended area beyond military necessity even fire bombing a city is excessive. 

The conventions are there to protect civilians and limit barbarity which in war is hard to control

as a signee did the US have a moral obligation to adhere to the genova convention


----------



## M14 Shooter

Kilroy2 said:


> as a signee did the US have a moral obligation to adhere to the genova convention


If so, the US violated this moral obligation ling before the nukes were dropped.
So...?


----------



## elektra

anynameyouwish said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This appeal to emotion fallacy is a failed and transparent attempt at changing the subject. The frequent brutality of the Japanese military against prisoners of war is not in contention here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an idiot, how else do you explain such a sexually deprived user name.
> 
> Yes, I understand you wish to deflect from the subject, ending the war so that the american prisoners of war may live.
> 
> Of all the arguments, this is the one you desire to be talked about the least, if at all.
> 
> Dropping two bombs saved the lives of American pow,
> 
> It ended thier horror.
> 
> Your protest is pitiful and disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This appeal to emotion fallacy is a failed and transparent attempt at changing the subject. The frequent brutality of the Japanese military against prisoners of war is not in contention here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an idiot, how else do you explain such a sexually deprived user name.
> 
> Yes, I understand you wish to deflect from the subject, ending the war so that the american prisoners of war may live.
> 
> Of all the arguments, this is the one you desire to be talked about the least, if at all.
> 
> Dropping two bombs saved the lives of American pow,
> 
> It ended thier horror.
> 
> Your protest is pitiful and disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you murdered US soldiers!
> 
> 
> YOU MURDERED US SOLDIERS!
> 
> by choosing 2 cities instead of 2 military targets you actually prolonged the war!
> 
> japanese soldiers who were NOT NUKED lived to kill more American troops!
> 
> If you had nuked these military targets instead of cities those japanese soldiers would have been dead and unable to kill any more US troops.
> 
> 
> YOU caused the death of MORE US TROOPS by NOT nuking a military target and choosing, instead, to kill grandparents and children,
Click to expand...

Now the bombs prolonged the war? I guess it depends on what time it is and if you arguing Russia ended the war or not? But of course your side was preaching the war was over? Months before?

What military target should we have nuked?


----------



## elektra

anynameyouwish said:


> "And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. "
> 
> 
> I've been told by conservatives that the first person to resort to insults is losing the argument.
> 
> 
> You are losing the argument.
> 
> I'm sure that because you are a conservative you are making wild, dangerous and false accusations.
> 
> (like trump!)
> 
> You are practically insane.


I guess, because you insulted me first, and I never insulted you, that would mean by the rule you just introduced, you lose?


----------



## elektra

anynameyouwish said:


> [
> "And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. "
> 
> I've been told by conservatives that the first person to resort to insults is losing the argument.
> 
> I'm sure that because you are a conservative you are making wild, dangerous and false accusations.
> 
> (like trump!)
> "They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children."
> 
> And for  those crimes against humanity japanese military and government should have been punished severely.  If you had nuked an army or the emporers palace I wouldn't take issue.
> 
> And they obviously debated whether to nuke a city or a military target.
> 
> They chose a city.....2 cities...
> 
> I would have nuked a military target. That would have ended the war even sooner!
> 
> Think about it....on your right is an army of huns....
> 
> to your left is a city of old people and children....
> 
> the army of huns is trying to kill you
> 
> the old people and children are not.
> 
> So....who do you nuke?
> 
> the army?
> 
> or the old folks and the children?
> 
> "How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture."
> 
> and now you have gone off the deep end and started accusing me of vile crimes that are untrue.
> 
> These are disgusting and deplorable LIES!
> 
> If you truly believe these vile lies then I have no doubt you would want to kill ME, to......right?
> 
> Yes, we see the DemoRATs are psycho killers, you are so afraid of your own shadow, you would hang black people in the year 1900 while hiding under sheets.
> 
> You are no different, with your crazy psycho fear, I know that when you say conservatives would kill, it really means you will be the first one to grap a rope and look for a black man. Yes, the KKK and all the leaders were white demoRATs. Now the demoRATs have a new boogeyman to fear. A person that has never been in politics? How irrational your fear and hatred is.
> 
> I am so glad you took the time to display for everyone to see, the type of psychotic person we are up against, and what they will do.
> 
> You will kill what you fear, given half a chance.
> 
> 
> "Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions."
> 
> more deranged lies.
> 
> and that is why rational people can never try to discuss issues with conservatives.
> 
> 
> YOU leap to erroneous and dangerous and false conclusions.
> 
> You are practically insane.


----------



## anynameyouwish

harmonica said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. "
> 
> 
> I've been told by conservatives that the first person to resort to insults is losing the argument.
> 
> 
> You are losing the argument.
> 
> I'm sure that because you are a conservative you are making wild, dangerous and false accusations.
> 
> (like trump!)
> 
> 
> 
> "They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children."
> 
> And for  those crimes against humanity japanese military and government should have been punished severely.  If you had nuked an army or the emporers palace I wouldn't take issue.
> 
> And they obviously debated whether to nuke a city or a military target.
> 
> They chose a city.....2 cities...
> 
> I would have nuked a military target. That would have ended the war even sooner!
> 
> Think about it....on your right is an army of huns....
> 
> to your left is a city of old people and children....
> 
> the army of huns is trying to kill you
> 
> the old people and children are not.
> 
> So....who do you nuke?
> 
> the army?
> 
> or the old folks and the children?
> 
> 
> "How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture."
> 
> and now you have gone off the deep end and started accusing me of vile crimes that are untrue.
> 
> These are disgusting and deplorable LIES!
> 
> If you truly believe these vile lies then I have no doubt you would want to kill ME, to......right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions."
> 
> more deranged lies.
> 
> and that is why rational people can never try to discuss issues with conservatives.
> 
> 
> YOU leap to erroneous and dangerous and false conclusions.
> 
> You are practically insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did
> which military target would you have hit?
Click to expand...


"military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did"


That's what the 911 terrorists believed.....

"which military target would you have hit?"

any army or navy or base or even the emperors castle

Now you say "but they didn't HAVE any army or navy left!"

and I'll respond....then it wasn't necessary to bomb any city


all we had to was land and take over

no need to incinerate children and grandparents....


----------



## Doc7505

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
Click to expand...



~~~~~~
As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap.  History proves that made the right decision.  The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.
Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs",  The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to  estimates of a full fledged invasion.


----------



## elektra

Kilroy2 said:


> the fact remains Japan navy and air force were already defeated.


Then how did 900 sailors die?
How did a B-29 get shot down on August 18th and 1 American die?

How is that defeated?

And they were still beating and torturing American POW's to death, so how is that defeated?

In proportion? Are you saying all our American POW's had to be tortured to death first, before we were justified in ending the war and saving their lives?


----------



## sparky

~~~~~~
As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap.  History proves that made the right decision.  The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. *I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.*
Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs",  The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to  estimates of a full fledged invasion.[/QUOTE]

ed jo cate us Doc

~S~


----------



## elektra

anynameyouwish said:


> any army or navy or base or even the emperors castle.


Any Army base? Like the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters?


----------



## Frannie

military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did
which military target would you have hit?[/QUOTE]


unfortunately it is illegal to bomb civilian targets and the US signed and congress ratified acceptance of the Geneva Conventions Protocols 1

An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Even though they say there were industrial war factories in the 2 cities, the fact remains Japan navy and air force were already defeated. In one year leading up to the peace treaty, The US was dropping bombs like crazy with no interference. One such incident in Mar where bombers using fire bombs turned Tokyo into a blazing infernal killing more than 100,000 people. It took two nuclear bombs to meet that same target but I guess those cities had lessor population than Tokyo.

The question would be was there a moral obligation to not cause excessive harm to civilians by the US agreeing to the Geneva convention

To be legal, aerial operations must comply with the principles of humanitarian law military necessity, distinction , and proportionality

proportionality would be my concern as it appears to be excessive indiscriminate bombing

which does create a moral dilemma when do civilian casualties become excessive

nuclear weapons which destroy a greatly extended area beyond military necessity even fire bombing a city is excessive.

The conventions are there to protect civilians and limit barbarity which in war is hard to control

as a signee did the US have a moral obligation to adhere to the genova convention[/QUOTE]

The last major battle of the war was Okinawa, it was almost as damaging as the Vietnam war.  There were hundreds more islands of various sizes, thus the bombs saved lives on both sides.


----------



## Unkotare

Doc7505 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~
> As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap.  History proves that made the right decision.  The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.
> Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs",  The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to  estimates of a full fledged invasion.
Click to expand...




Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the third grade art teacher
Click to expand...




Your surrender in this discussion is recognized.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.


Your user name means what? Freudian slip?


----------



## Frannie

Doc7505 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~
> As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap.  History proves that made the right decision.  The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.
> Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs",  The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to  estimates of a full fledged invasion.
Click to expand...

How old are you?


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the third grade art teacher
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your surrender in this discussion is recognized.
Click to expand...

Again kid you really really really need to take your pills...…………………….

Or stay schizzo


----------



## Frannie

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Your user name means what? Freudian slip?
Click to expand...

He is a retarded art teacher who wants to be paid 200 grand a year for showing 3rd grade kids how to glue construction paper


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the third grade art teacher
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your surrender in this discussion is recognized.
Click to expand...


Watch out, Fran, such snarky remarks must be how he controls his 3rd graders.  Now Shitlass will counter with his predictable kung fu or salt gambit.  Oh, the wily bastard!


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Your user name means what? Freudian slip?
Click to expand...



Your ignorance, your problem.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the third grade art teacher
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your surrender in this discussion is recognized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again .....you really really really need to....
Click to expand...




All set, thanks.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Your user name means what? Freudian slip?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a retarded art teacher who wants to be paid 200 grand a year for showing 3rd grade kids how to glue construction paper
Click to expand...



Strike 200000. Still out, dumbass.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~
> As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap.  History proves that made the right decision.  The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.
> Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs",  The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to  estimates of a full fledged invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
Click to expand...

I know you are well educated on this topic. During a past discussion, I was encouraged to examine a book by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa called  Racing The Enemy. Are you familiar with Hasegawa and that particular book?


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the third grade art teacher
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your surrender in this discussion is recognized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch out, Fran, such snarky remarks must be how he controls his 3rd graders.  Now Shitlass will counter with his predictable kung fu or salt gambit.  Oh, the wily bastard!
Click to expand...




Did it hurt when you burned those symbols into your forearms, hopgrasser?


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Your user name means what? Freudian slip?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance, your problem.
Click to expand...



You see Electrka, you'll never know how much Poopie Boy doesn't really know.  Is he feigning stupidity or just not feigning at all?  You see, he keeps all his secret made up fantasy word and name definitions in his own private little black book of self-delusion where they can be anything the little shit desires.


----------



## anynameyouwish

toobfreak said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.
Click to expand...



are all conservatives deranged?

are there any at all who can think straight?


even one?

"Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole"

This is not and has not been an attack on America or blaming America...

this is a discussion about the morality of nuking 2 cities, at least one of which was NOT a military target.

I, personally, accept the dropping of the bombs......to shorten the war....I just don't believe that dropping them on cities was the moral thing to do.

There were obviously still military targets....and THOSE are what should have been nuked....


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~
> As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap.  History proves that made the right decision.  The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.
> Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs",  The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to  estimates of a full fledged invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you are well educated on this topic. During a past discussion, I was encouraged to examine a book by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa called  Racing The Enemy. Are you familiar with Hasegawa and that particular book?
Click to expand...



Interesting read. It’s always incumbent upon the reader to work through the various biases of an author.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Camp said:


> I know you are well educated on this topic. During a past discussion, I was encouraged to examine a book by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa called  Racing The Enemy. Are you familiar with Hasegawa and that particular book?



This wasn't addressed to me, but I will say that Hasegawa's book is important and definitely worth reading. If Hasegawa had known about the Japanese sources that Professor Noriko Kawamura uncovered in her research, I think his book would have been even better. Once you read Hasegawa's _Racing the Enemy, _you must read Kawamura's _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War. 
_
Another very important book is Australian historian Paul Ham's book _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath_, published in 2014. Ham makes a powerful case that Japan clearly did *not* need to be nuked to end the war without an invasion. Ham also discusses our shameful conduct toward Japan's atomic bomb victims during our occupation of Japan.


----------



## toobfreak

anynameyouwish said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are all conservatives deranged?
> 
> are there any at all who can think straight?
> 
> 
> even one?
> 
> "Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole"
> 
> This is not and has not been an attack on America or blaming America...
> 
> this is a discussion about the morality of nuking 2 cities, at least one of which was NOT a military target.
> 
> I, personally, accept the dropping of the bombs......to shorten the war....I just don't believe that dropping them on cities was the moral thing to do.
> 
> There were obviously still military targets....and THOSE are what should have been nuked....
Click to expand...



Morality is irrelevant in true war as WWII was.  You either fight to win definitively or you lose.  Where is your questioning Japan's morality in attacking Pearl Harbor?  Only an idiot like you would talk of derangement, blame, and morality after such an attack.  They were seeking to attack our mainland next!  The point of the nuclear attack was to hurt Japan so badly and quickly, they had no choice but surrender.  It saved American lives.  Leave your questions of morality for the Emperor of Japan who took his chances and gambled wrong with his people's lives.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Your user name means what? Freudian slip?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a retarded art teacher who wants to be paid 200 grand a year for showing 3rd grade kids how to glue construction paper
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Strike 200000. Still out, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Must be fun living in pretend land


----------



## Frannie

anynameyouwish said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.  It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender.  Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact.  The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured.  Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are all conservatives deranged?
> 
> are there any at all who can think straight?
> 
> 
> even one?
> 
> "Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole"
> 
> This is not and has not been an attack on America or blaming America...
> 
> this is a discussion about the morality of nuking 2 cities, at least one of which was NOT a military target.
> 
> I, personally, accept the dropping of the bombs......to shorten the war....I just don't believe that dropping them on cities was the moral thing to do.
> 
> There were obviously still military targets....and THOSE are what should have been nuked....
Click to expand...

Is cornhole a liberal desert?

Enjoy


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Your user name means what? Freudian slip?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a retarded art teacher who wants to be paid 200 grand a year for showing 3rd grade kids how to glue construction paper
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Strike 200000. Still out, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be fun living in pretend land
Click to expand...



You tell me. You’re the one making stupid shit up all the time.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Your user name means what? Freudian slip?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a retarded art teacher who wants to be paid 200 grand a year for showing 3rd grade kids how to glue construction paper
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Strike 200000. Still out, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be fun living in pretend land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me. You’re the one making stupid shit up all the time.
Click to expand...

That is what you perceive as schizophrenia controls your comprehension of reality


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Your user name means what? Freudian slip?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a retarded art teacher who wants to be paid 200 grand a year for showing 3rd grade kids how to glue construction paper
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Strike 200000. Still out, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be fun living in pretend land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me. You’re the one making stupid shit up all the time.
Click to expand...

speaking of shit that's what your name means ....


----------



## Kilroy2

M14 Shooter said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as a signee did the US have a moral obligation to adhere to the genova convention
> 
> 
> 
> If so, the US violated this moral obligation ling before the nukes were dropped.
> So...?
Click to expand...


Obviously  with the constant bombing of cities for over a year So even a moral country will do immoral acts when confronted with a war. 

Is morality a convenience and easily discarded when it becomes inconvenient ?


----------



## Camp

mikegriffith1 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are well educated on this topic. During a past discussion, I was encouraged to examine a book by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa called  Racing The Enemy. Are you familiar with Hasegawa and that particular book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This wasn't addressed to me, but I will say that Hasegawa's book is important and definitely worth reading. If Hasegawa had known about the Japanese sources that Professor Noriko Kawamura uncovered in her research, I think his book would have been even better. Once you read Hasegawa's _Racing the Enemy, _you must read Kawamura's _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War.
> _
> Another very important book is Australian historian Paul Ham's book _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath_, published in 2014. Ham makes a powerful case that Japan clearly did *not* need to be nuked to end the war without an invasion. Ham also discusses our shameful conduct toward Japan's atomic bomb victims during our occupation of Japan.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much. This topic gets a lot of responses, every year around the anniversary period. Whichever "sides" or point of view one may adhere to or be interested in exploring, the influx of history buff "scholars" is both educational and entertaining.


----------



## elektra

anynameyouwish said:


> There were obviously still military targets....and THOSE are what should have been nuked....


would you have dropped bombs on the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> This wasn't addressed to me, but I will say that Hasegawa's book is important and definitely worth reading. If Hasegawa had known about the Japanese sources that Professor Noriko Kawamura uncovered in her research, I think his book would have been even better. Once you read Hasegawa's _Racing the Enemy, _you must read Kawamura's _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War.
> _
> Another very important book is Australian historian Paul Ham's book _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath_, published in 2014. Ham makes a powerful case that Japan clearly did *not* need to be nuked to end the war without an invasion. Ham also discusses our shameful conduct toward Japan's atomic bomb victims during our occupation of Japan.


The only important books, are all those great old books wrote in the middle of the last century, closer to the time the bomb was dropped. 

Yes we dropped the bomb and that did end the war, thankfully for all our POWs who were dying. 

Yes, we learned a lot about the treatment of our POWs from the Philippines, that let us know that the race was on not only to end the war but to save their lives. 

Sadly, that does not factor into your little brain housing group.


----------



## harmonica

anynameyouwish said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. "
> 
> 
> I've been told by conservatives that the first person to resort to insults is losing the argument.
> 
> 
> You are losing the argument.
> 
> I'm sure that because you are a conservative you are making wild, dangerous and false accusations.
> 
> (like trump!)
> 
> 
> 
> "They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children."
> 
> And for  those crimes against humanity japanese military and government should have been punished severely.  If you had nuked an army or the emporers palace I wouldn't take issue.
> 
> And they obviously debated whether to nuke a city or a military target.
> 
> They chose a city.....2 cities...
> 
> I would have nuked a military target. That would have ended the war even sooner!
> 
> Think about it....on your right is an army of huns....
> 
> to your left is a city of old people and children....
> 
> the army of huns is trying to kill you
> 
> the old people and children are not.
> 
> So....who do you nuke?
> 
> the army?
> 
> or the old folks and the children?
> 
> 
> "How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture."
> 
> and now you have gone off the deep end and started accusing me of vile crimes that are untrue.
> 
> These are disgusting and deplorable LIES!
> 
> If you truly believe these vile lies then I have no doubt you would want to kill ME, to......right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions."
> 
> more deranged lies.
> 
> and that is why rational people can never try to discuss issues with conservatives.
> 
> 
> YOU leap to erroneous and dangerous and false conclusions.
> 
> You are practically insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did
> which military target would you have hit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did"
> 
> 
> That's what the 911 terrorists believed.....
> 
> "which military target would you have hit?"
> 
> any army or navy or base or even the emperors castle
> 
> Now you say "but they didn't HAVE any army or navy left!"
> 
> and I'll respond....then it wasn't necessary to bomb any city
> 
> 
> all we had to was land and take over
> 
> no need to incinerate children and grandparents....
Click to expand...

hahahahhahahah--a BIG hahahhahahahahahh
the catl


anynameyouwish said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...
> 
> ok
> 
> you win
> 
> you had to kill  those old people to make them say "uncle"
> 
> 
> 
> July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.
> 
> And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children.
> 
> How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.
> 
> Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.
> 
> Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. "
> 
> 
> I've been told by conservatives that the first person to resort to insults is losing the argument.
> 
> 
> You are losing the argument.
> 
> I'm sure that because you are a conservative you are making wild, dangerous and false accusations.
> 
> (like trump!)
> 
> 
> 
> "They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they  could see their grandparents, and children."
> 
> And for  those crimes against humanity japanese military and government should have been punished severely.  If you had nuked an army or the emporers palace I wouldn't take issue.
> 
> And they obviously debated whether to nuke a city or a military target.
> 
> They chose a city.....2 cities...
> 
> I would have nuked a military target. That would have ended the war even sooner!
> 
> Think about it....on your right is an army of huns....
> 
> to your left is a city of old people and children....
> 
> the army of huns is trying to kill you
> 
> the old people and children are not.
> 
> So....who do you nuke?
> 
> the army?
> 
> or the old folks and the children?
> 
> 
> "How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture."
> 
> and now you have gone off the deep end and started accusing me of vile crimes that are untrue.
> 
> These are disgusting and deplorable LIES!
> 
> If you truly believe these vile lies then I have no doubt you would want to kill ME, to......right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions."
> 
> more deranged lies.
> 
> and that is why rational people can never try to discuss issues with conservatives.
> 
> 
> YOU leap to erroneous and dangerous and false conclusions.
> 
> You are practically insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did
> which military target would you have hit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did"
> 
> 
> That's what the 911 terrorists believed.....
> 
> "which military target would you have hit?"
> 
> any army or navy or base or even the emperors castle
> 
> Now you say "but they didn't HAVE any army or navy left!"
> 
> and I'll respond....then it wasn't necessary to bomb any city
> 
> 
> all we had to was land and take over
> 
> no need to incinerate children and grandparents....
Click to expand...

hahahahhahahh and a big hahahhahahaha
the castle was in Tokyo 


> all we had to was land and take over


hahahhahahahahh
.... hey, you people with NO knowledge of WW2 should just listen and not make fools of yourselves


----------



## harmonica

military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did
which military target would you have hit?[/QUOTE]


unfortunately it is illegal to bomb civilian targets and the US signed and congress ratified acceptance of the Geneva Conventions Protocols 1

An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Even though they say there were industrial war factories in the 2 cities, the fact remains Japan navy and air force were already defeated. In one year leading up to the peace treaty, The US was dropping bombs like crazy with no interference. One such incident in Mar where bombers using fire bombs turned Tokyo into a blazing infernal killing more than 100,000 people. It took two nuclear bombs to meet that same target but I guess those cities had lessor population than Tokyo.

The question would be was there a moral obligation to not cause excessive harm to civilians by the US agreeing to the Geneva convention

To be legal, aerial operations must comply with the principles of humanitarian law military necessity, distinction , and proportionality

proportionality would be my concern as it appears to be excessive indiscriminate bombing

which does create a moral dilemma when do civilian casualties become excessive

nuclear weapons which destroy a greatly extended area beyond military necessity even fire bombing a city is excessive.

The conventions are there to protect civilians and limit barbarity which in war is hard to control

as a signee did the US have a moral obligation to adhere to the genova convention[/QUOTE]
...get with reality 
we bombed the shit out of German and Japanese civilians 
they did also--they killed civilians 
it was total war....


----------



## Frannie

Interesting.


----------



## elektra

Immoral and unnecessary, if you were an enemy of the USA or are an enemy now. Than you would describe the bombing of cities engaged in war, as well as holding USA's prisoners as immoral. tYou do this to disgrace, demean, bring hatred upon your enemy in order to turn the public against your enemy so that you can defeat them.

If you love the USA, are on the side of the USA, and you know American prisoners are being starved, tortured, and murdered every day, then you fight to save the lives of your son, of your countrymen. You fight with every weapon you have. Nothing is unreasonable, to save the lives of those being mudered by the enemy.


----------



## toobfreak

elektra said:


> The only important books, are all those great old books wrote in the middle of the last century, closer to the time the bomb was dropped.


Thank you for pointing out the obvious.  So sick of hearing idiots tout books studying historic events decades or even centuries after their taking place, all neatly dissected and analyzed after the fact!  After they have had eons to examine and search through data dispassionately without any of their fathers, sons or brothers lying dead in bloody body bags, and with totally changed views and circumstances from the time, much as people try to judge slavery at a time now today when thinking has grown 180° opposite from a time when Blacks were thought of as mere property.  It is easy to see how wrong it is today, much harder to understand how it wasn't wrong to many for a very long time back then.  Those were totally different times.  Anyone who thinks they can understand historical events from reading a book long after the fact involving human tragedy is only kidding themselves;  the only way to understand history is to either lived through it yourself, or read from it a book on the views and outlook of someone else who actually did while those events were fresh.

"Morality," you say?  Look, ass, *Let's be clear on Japan:* THOSE WERE THE BAD GUYS.  They were part of the Axis Powers.  We were the good guys in there fighting Hitler, genocide, global aggression and defending Europe. They had just sneakily destroyed Pearl Harbor after talking peace with us.  Our boys were dying left and right.  We had the bomb, it was new.  Death was everywhere.  We only had hours and days to think and act.  Not only did we have the bomb to completely change the metric, but it was untried and untested against an actual enemy and these were small bombs at that.  Shame on you people for judging America harshly for its choice of targets or how it "treated the victims" in the aftermath.

THESE WERE THE JAPANESE, they were a *hated, reviled, sneaky, diabolical enemy*, and IMO they are only lucky we stopped at two bombs and didn't hit them with three of four or take the whole entire damn island.  America is to be commended.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only important books, are all those great old books wrote in the middle of the last century, closer to the time the bomb was dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the obvious.  ...  the only way to understand history is to either lived through it yourself, or read from it a book on the views and outlook of someone else who actually did while those events were fresh.......
Click to expand...



Leaving aside the rest of your laughably childish take on history, many direct quotes from many of America's military leaders *of that time* have been provided expressing _their_ views that the use of atomic weapons was immoral and unnecessary. 

Are you going to contradict yourself now, Salty?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ... Nothing is unreasonable,......




Admirable Leahy disagrees with you.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only important books, are all those great old books wrote in the middle of the last century, closer to the time the bomb was dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the obvious.  ...  the only way to understand history is to either lived through it yourself, or read from it a book on the views and outlook of someone else who actually did while those events were fresh.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the rest of your laughably childish take on history, many direct quotes from many of America's military leaders *of that time* have been provided expressing _their_ views that the use of atomic weapons was immoral and unnecessary.
> 
> Are you going to contradict yourself now, Salty?
Click to expand...


More laughably childish non-existent opinions from your library of non-existent imaginary people, Poopie?  So, by your reasoning, if I go out and find a few books by people on slavery saying it was the best thing since sliced bread and we never should have ended it, you'd be totally on board with that view too.  I get that.  Anything to bash America.

It does not matter what they think.  Morality in a time of war is a thing for children.  Go to MacArthur or Patton and ask them if their strategy was "moral" and you'd probably find your worthless ass on the floor beaten the crap out of and then in the stockade.  Maybe hopefully on trial as a subversive lending comfort to the enemy.  The only thing that mattered is that the Japs drew first blood and we proved to them we could hit back harder than they could.  That and the fact that with the bomb, we had a much better chance of winning the war than without it.

Go tell this guy the bombing of Japan wasn't moral or necessary.  I fucking dare you.  Neither are even in the equation, shit-lover.  It was payback to the sneaky bastards.  Lesson learned:  fuck with us and you wake a sleeping tiger.  Fuck the Japs.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Leaving aside the rest of your laughably childish take on history, many direct quotes from many of America's military leaders *of that time* have been provided expressing _their_ views that the use of atomic weapons was immoral and unnecessary.


I have seen no quotes in this thread that are linked to a source.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Nothing is unreasonable,......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admirable Leahy disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

Prove it  Quote with link. That is a start.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only important books, are all those great old books wrote in the middle of the last century, closer to the time the bomb was dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the obvious.  ...  the only way to understand history is to either lived through it yourself, or read from it a book on the views and outlook of someone else who actually did while those events were fresh.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the rest of your laughably childish take on history, many direct quotes from many of America's military leaders *of that time* have been provided expressing _their_ views that the use of atomic weapons was immoral and unnecessary.
> 
> Are you going to contradict yourself now, Salty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More laughably childish non-existent opinions from your library of non-existent imaginary people...? ...
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that Fleet Admiral *William Daniel Leahy *did not exist?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Nothing is unreasonable,......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admirable Leahy disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it  Quote with link. That is a start.
Click to expand...



It, and quotes from several other military leaders, has been posted and linked on this and the other similar threads many, many times now.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Nothing is unreasonable,......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admirable Leahy disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it  Quote with link. That is a start.
Click to expand...





Hiroshima: Quotes


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Quotes


You have zero knowledge outside a Google search? 

What if your link contains gross errors, you would not know. You simply searched your opinion and found something you agree with.

Not facts, possible, but not.

Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Your link stated he took the quote from page 380 of Mandste For a Change.

That is a deliberate lie. That quote is not there.






Why would the person who copied quotes lie? Well, when revising history you certainly do not want the truth to be found. 

Page 380 of Mandate For Change, that quote did not come from there.

I have now put more work in your post then you have. I have the book and have proof I am right and your link is wrong.

I hope you dont mind if I take my time answering, after all, any simpleton moron can copy a link from Google. I will not do that. I will get as many sources as possible and get a factual answer.


----------



## Unkotare

All quotes verified by multiple sources, champ.


Know why you keep falling down? You don’t have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Unkotare

Hilarious sidebar to this thread that some wannabe thinks he’s the only person in the world to ever purchase a book.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> All quotes verified by multiple sources, champ.
> 
> 
> Know why you keep falling down? You don’t have a leg to stand on.


I just proved the quote is not on page 380, that page 380 speaks of the Tennessee Valley Authority.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Hilarious sidebar to this thread that some wannabe thinks he’s the only person in the world to ever purchase a book.



Let me correct you again, I have over 1400 books


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## elektra

From Crusade in Europe. Eisenhower states he did not know an army of scientists were building the bomb and he expressed no view that the Japanese were beat and about to surrender. Why does this Eisenhower statement as a General differ than his statement as a politician, as a president?


----------



## elektra

Now I have proven unkoturd wrong, the page from his/her link has lies. Go to page 380 of "Mandate for change", see for yourself.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> All quotes verified by multiple sources, champ.
> Know why you keep falling down? You don’t have a leg to stand on.



Says the man who stands on his colonoscopy sack for legs.
NOTHING is "verified" in the website, unless it is verified by an outside third party.  Have you looked up any of those books or titles and gone to the indicated pages to see if those quotes are indeed even there?  Anyone can write shit (sorry) on a webpage then say it was quoted from here or there.

And what if the quotes are accurate?  So what?  A quote from Einstein who was deadset against atomic war from the git-go anyway and had to be dragged by his buddy kicking and screaming to write his letter to the president?  You'd expect Einstein to maybe say something different?  The man was a total pacifist.

Any website that starts out with a mission to overtly gather opinions AGAINST Hiroshima is automatically disqualified on the grounds of obvious bias.  They are saying right at the start that they were against the nuking, created the site against it, and set out to gather only quotes in support of that view.  So we hear NOTHING of dissenting views FOR the nuking.  With the stated bias, the ability and motive to fabricate, anything printed there is as worthless as the National Star.  So what?  You found a handful of people against the nuking?  A better option would be to seek out articles who at least remain open to looking at both sides.  I mean, to anyone with a seed of intellectual honesty.

WAS IT NECESSARY TO DROP THE ATOMIC BOMB ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI?

The Decision to Drop the Bomb [ushistory.org]

Were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?


----------



## toobfreak

elektra said:


> Now I have proven unkoturd wrong, the page from his/her link has lies. Go to page 380 of "Mandate for change", see for yourself.




Not exactly the hardest thing, proving unko turdy wrong.  My 8th grade nephew could do it.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All quotes verified by multiple sources, champ.
> Know why you keep falling down? You don’t have a leg to stand on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who stands on his colonoscopy sack for legs....
Click to expand...



What is that even supposed to mean?


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All quotes verified by multiple sources, champ.
> Know why you keep falling down? You don’t have a leg to stand on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who stands on his colonoscopy sack for legs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is that even supposed to mean?
Click to expand...


Asks the Hurdy Turdy Man avoiding all of the points of my post to feign being shitfaced stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> ...
> NOTHING is "verified" in the website, unless it is verified by an outside third party.  ...
> 
> And what if the quotes are accurate?  So what?  ...




 You're hilarious, Salty.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> ...
> 
> Any website that starts out with a mission to overtly gather opinions AGAINST Hiroshima is automatically disqualified on the grounds of obvious bias. .....




But it the bias goes in the other direction, that's valid, Salty? You are kungfull of shit, Salty.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Now I have proven unkoturd wrong, the page from his/her link ....




Not my link, defecta.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> .
> Prove it  Quote with link. That is a start.



Hiroshima: Quotes[/QUOTE]
Herbert Hoover? What a joke, he knew was not told that a bomb existed, this quote says as much, Hoover never said do not drop the bomb on japan.

Just like Eisenhower never said do not drop the bomb on Japan.

That is now two of the quotes from two different people, destroyed, proven wrong.

Hoover after the event takes place? Eisenhower after the bomb? Neither were told of this top secret.The vice president was never told, yet we are to believe people way below the vice president were told?

2 down. Your link crumbles.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Quotes


General Douglas MacArthur. Your link references American Caesar, ph 512. Again, nothing that says MacArthur disagrees before the bomb was dropped. And nothing saying the bomb should not of been dropped after the fact.

Interesting to note, MacArthur does say he was not told of the secret bomb. Last I checked MacArthur was the general of the Pacific, not Eisenhower, so why would they tell a general with less than a need to know then MacArthur. The answer is, Eisenhower was never told and is grandstanding after Stinson died. Hence who could question Eisenhower?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ...
> 
> Hoover after the event takes place? Eisenhower after the bomb? Neither were told of this top secret.The vice president was never told, yet we are to believe people way below the vice president were told?
> 
> ....




You should learn how to read.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> NOTHING is "verified" in the website, unless it is verified by an outside third party.  ...
> 
> And what if the quotes are accurate?  So what?  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're hilarious, Salty.
Click to expand...


You're still deflecting, Shitstain.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Any website that starts out with a mission to overtly gather opinions AGAINST Hiroshima is automatically disqualified on the grounds of obvious bias. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it the bias goes in the other direction, that's valid, Salty? You are kungfull of shit, Salty.
Click to expand...


Who said the bias went in the other direction?  Just because they gave fair and balanced answers?


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> You should learn how to read.


You should learn to teach


----------



## elektra

The link to the statements, thus far, 3 of the statements are proven, not true. How about a 4th, is it possible?
Hiroshima: Quotes

Joseph Grew, under secretary of state


> might well have been afforded


Might? Might? During war, would the under secretary of state actually fight a war, or make a decision, if it might?



> "If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."


Yes, true, "if", if is a big world. If we had flying pigs the Japanese would of surrendered when they saw the pig pilots fly in on flying pigs. But seriously, this statement does not mean Grew would not of used the bomb or that Grew would of acquiesced to Japanese surrender demands. It was discussed, and decided that during the battle of Okinawa that may of given the Japanese the impression they were winning the battle and thus prolonged the battle. It was a bloody deathly hell, the battle for okinawa, the last thing they needed is a renewed vigor to fight on the Japanese side. 

Joseph Grew knew this, that is why his idea got shot down.

Nothing in this statement by Grew shows he was against ending the War using the bombs. 

that is 4 of the quotes shown to be false. and, it seems they get weaker as we go


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn how to read.
> 
> 
> 
> You should learn to teach
Click to expand...



Why do you say that?


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Any website that starts out with a mission to overtly gather opinions AGAINST Hiroshima is automatically disqualified on the grounds of obvious bias. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it the bias goes in the other direction, that's valid, Salty? You are kungfull of shit, Salty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said the bias went in the other direction?  Just because they gave fair and balanced answers?
Click to expand...



Hypocrites like you are funny, Salty.


----------



## sparky

toobfreak said:


> Any website that starts out with a mission to overtly gather opinions AGAINST Hiroshima is automatically disqualified on the grounds of obvious bias. They are saying right at the start that they were against the nuking, created the site against it, and set out to gather only quotes in support of that view. So we hear NOTHING of dissenting views FOR the nuking. *With the stated bias, the ability and motive to fabricate, anything printed there is as worthless as the National Star. So what?* You found a handful of people against the nuking? A better option would be to seek out articles who at least remain open to looking at both sides. I mean, to anyone with a seed of intellectual honesty.



So it's the '_battle of the links_'  Toob?  

Discrediting sources is exactly the '_link dinks_' game here, sorts who jump up/down demanding one, only to discredit it due to their OWN bias.

That's intellectual _sabotage 

~S~_


----------



## Kilroy2

A nation that professes such an affinity with god 

In God we trust
serving our Nation under *God* in peace as well as in war
one Nation under *God*,
do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me *God*.'" 

Is this affinity a Velcro badge

One that you place on your chest so proudly when its  
convenient

then tear it off when its inconvenient

Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs

If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does

It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric 

Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets

and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties

The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime

oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too  but do more of it

participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty 

and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow

Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God


So help me *God*


----------



## Frannie

Kilroy2 said:


> A nation that professes such an affinity with god
> 
> In God we trust
> serving our Nation under *God* in peace as well as in war
> one Nation under *God*,
> do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me *God*.'"
> 
> Is this affinity a Velcro badge
> 
> One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
> convenient
> 
> then tear it off when its inconvenient
> 
> Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs
> 
> If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does
> 
> It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric
> 
> Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets
> 
> and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties
> 
> The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime
> 
> oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too  but do more of it
> 
> participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty
> 
> and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow
> 
> Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God
> 
> 
> So help me *God*


There are no civilians, all people are equal.  The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war.  Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....


----------



## Taz

I would have nuked Tokyo as well.


----------



## Frannie

Taz said:


> I would have nuked Tokyo as well.


Nagoya deserved it too


----------



## toobfreak

sparky said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any website that starts out with a mission to overtly gather opinions AGAINST Hiroshima is automatically disqualified on the grounds of obvious bias. They are saying right at the start that they were against the nuking, created the site against it, and set out to gather only quotes in support of that view. So we hear NOTHING of dissenting views FOR the nuking. *With the stated bias, the ability and motive to fabricate, anything printed there is as worthless as the National Star. So what?* You found a handful of people against the nuking? A better option would be to seek out articles who at least remain open to looking at both sides. I mean, to anyone with a seed of intellectual honesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the '_battle of the links_'  Toob?
Click to expand...


No battle, Spark.  Just that when someone offers as proof of something some goofy, obscure webpage that starts out stating a deliberate bias and agenda of finding for only one side of a topic, you know in advance they aren't going to including anything in support of the other side of the view!  So then, the webpage proves nothing because everything has two sides!  And a handful of quotes, such as from avowed pacifists like Einstein, probably the most famously anti-war person of the 20th century, again proves what?  That he gave another anti-war opinion?  Was Einstein even a military expert or strategist?  No!

And finally, quotes that are "vetted" by the website itself mean nothing, unless someone else has actually gone out and looked them up to confirm their veracity, otherwise, I could create a page full of quotes all saying any things I wanted and then vetting them as authentic too.

Funny how no one has asked Truman's opinion or any of the generals or other top brass who actually carried out the missions for THEIR POV.  I knew many people who actually fought in WWII including my father and some of those people had friends and relatives lost at Pearl Harbor, and not ONE of them ever expressed to me any doubts or regrets whatsoever about nuking Imperial Japan.  Without a doubt, bombing Japan not only aided and assured the speedy surrender of Japan sooner, but also contributed to such a crushing defeat that it brought an end to the imperial arrogance and obstinacy of old Japan leading eventually to a totally reformed Japan we know today.

Viva La Americans!


----------



## Kilroy2

Frannie said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nation that professes such an affinity with god
> 
> In God we trust
> serving our Nation under *God* in peace as well as in war
> one Nation under *God*,
> do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me *God*.'"
> 
> Is this affinity a Velcro badge
> 
> One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
> convenient
> 
> then tear it off when its inconvenient
> 
> Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs
> 
> If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does
> 
> It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric
> 
> Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets
> 
> and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties
> 
> The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime
> 
> oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too  but do more of it
> 
> participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty
> 
> and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow
> 
> Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God
> 
> 
> So help me *God*
> 
> 
> 
> There are no civilians, all people are equal.  The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war.  Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....
Click to expand...


So your saying all people are equal when it comes to how they die

what a convenient morality

They had sites but by this time imports were cut off and it was just a matter of time before it all collapsed

Wiping out a city for a few factories at the expense of wiping out the population

I suppose that would work but most children weren't working in a factory 

That Velcro comes off so easily


----------



## elektra

Kilroy2 said:


> Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God


Yep, killing civilians is wrong period. 

We were suppose to lose WW II. Germany was to rise and rule the world.

Japan was suppose to control the pacific.

The filthy Americans are immoral. Next time we are attacked, we must lay down our arms and simply die.


----------



## Frannie

Kilroy2 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nation that professes such an affinity with god
> 
> In God we trust
> serving our Nation under *God* in peace as well as in war
> one Nation under *God*,
> do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me *God*.'"
> 
> Is this affinity a Velcro badge
> 
> One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
> convenient
> 
> then tear it off when its inconvenient
> 
> Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs
> 
> If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does
> 
> It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric
> 
> Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets
> 
> and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties
> 
> The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime
> 
> oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too  but do more of it
> 
> participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty
> 
> and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow
> 
> Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God
> 
> 
> So help me *God*
> 
> 
> 
> There are no civilians, all people are equal.  The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war.  Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your saying all people are equal when it comes to how they die
> 
> what a convenient morality
> 
> They had sites but by this time imports were cut off and it was just a matter of time before it all collapsed
> 
> Wiping out a city for a few factories at the expense of wiping out the population
> 
> I suppose that would work but most children weren't working in a factory
> 
> That Velcro comes off so easily
Click to expand...

Actually I believe the American document that says all people are equal.

If you are a Japanese woman welding at a nagasaki Mitsubishi submarine yard, you are a legit target

Cry on nippy, go slaughter some baby whales you piece of shit


----------



## toobfreak

Frannie said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nation that professes such an affinity with god
> 
> In God we trust
> serving our Nation under *God* in peace as well as in war
> one Nation under *God*,
> do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me *God*.'"
> 
> Is this affinity a Velcro badge
> 
> One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
> convenient
> 
> then tear it off when its inconvenient
> 
> Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs
> 
> If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does
> 
> It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric
> 
> Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets
> 
> and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties
> 
> The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime
> 
> oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too  but do more of it
> 
> participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty
> 
> and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow
> 
> Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God
> 
> 
> So help me *God*
> 
> 
> 
> There are no civilians, all people are equal.  The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war.  Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....
Click to expand...


That is particularly true of Japan at that time.  There really were no "civilians" in Japan in the normal sense, they had drilled in them from birth a kind of loyalty and honor stemming from the Bushido code of Feudal Japan that had existed in isolationist fashion just 80 years prior that drove everything from the Kamikaze to fly their planes loaded with explosives into their targets, to most Japanese fighting until killed or committing suicide.  Towards the end of the war advancing on Saipan, troops even saw mothers clutching their babies jumping off cliffs to their death rather than be taken prisoner.  In the end, there was a very thin gray line between civilian and Japanese military;  2 out of every 3 civilians in Saipan fought to the death, so any Jap was a potential danger and a threat.  All this second-guessing and soul searching on bombing Japan almost 75 years ago is a joke.  They're lucky we didn't sink the entire island into the Pacific--- --- they deserved no mercy.


----------



## Frannie

toobfreak said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nation that professes such an affinity with god
> 
> In God we trust
> serving our Nation under *God* in peace as well as in war
> one Nation under *God*,
> do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me *God*.'"
> 
> Is this affinity a Velcro badge
> 
> One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
> convenient
> 
> then tear it off when its inconvenient
> 
> Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs
> 
> If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does
> 
> It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric
> 
> Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets
> 
> and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties
> 
> The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime
> 
> oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too  but do more of it
> 
> participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty
> 
> and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow
> 
> Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God
> 
> 
> So help me *God*
> 
> 
> 
> There are no civilians, all people are equal.  The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war.  Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is particularly true of Japan at that time.  There really were no "civilians" in Japan in the normal sense, they had drilled in them from birth a kind of loyalty and honor stemming from the Bushido code of Feudal Japan that had existed in isolationist fashion just 80 years prior that drove everything from the Kamikaze to fly their planes loaded with explosives into their targets, to most Japanese fighting until killed or committing suicide.  Towards the end of the war advancing on Saipan, troops even saw mothers clutching their babies jumping off cliffs to their death rather than be taken prisoner.  In the end, there was a very thin gray line between civilian and Japanese military;  2 out of every 3 civilians in Saipan fought to the death, so any Jap was a potential danger and a threat.  All this second-guessing and soul searching on bombing Japan almost 75 years ago is a joke.  They're lucky we didn't sink the entire island into the Pacific--- --- they deserved no mercy.
Click to expand...

America was the same way, the factories were filled with women


----------



## Vandalshandle

If we had not nuked or invaded Japan, the Soviet Union would have, with the end result of Japan and South Korea having been lost to communism, just like Eastern Europe.


----------



## Pogo

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.
> This is all flying blithely over your  head, isn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is all over my head, how you can make one claim such as this:
> 
> 
> 
> USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then making this claim just a little bit later:
> 
> 
> 
> invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not have it both ways, if russia [sic] could invade Manchuria, it could invade and dominate other countries as well. So yes, your illogical assumption is over my head.
Click to expand...


*JAPAN* invaded Manchuria, Twinkletoes.  Fourteen years earlier.  As well as Korea, Taiwan, French Indochina, Maylasia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and a slew of islands and territories from India to Canada. JAPAN was what was "dominating", not Russia, which, this just in, is a proper name and therefore capitalized, so the only "both ways" happening here is your selective capitalization.  Ask the Koreans, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Malaysians, the Taiwanese, the Indonesians, about how Russia was "dominating" them.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> ......There really were no "civilians" in Japan in the normal sense, they had drilled in them from birth a kind of loyalty and honor stemming from the Bushido code ......--- --- they deserved no mercy.





Posts like this nonsense scream with a thinly veiled sense of guilt combined with childishly ignorant ideas about culture gleaned from cartoons and bad movies.


----------



## Pogo

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  It's a bit late to be  "saving millions of horrific Russian deaths" when they've already paid with twenty million of them turning the tide of Naziism back.
> 
> This is all flying blithely over your  head, isn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> It is late to be saving millions of russian from death at the hands of Marxism? Then you do not know history, period. Millions died of Marxism, of socialism, after WW II. Millions in Russia, Millions sent to the Gulag. It is said the roads were laid with dead Russians, literally.
> 
> Marxism spread to China, Mao Tse Tung? From the USSR? And on to Cambodia and Vietnam. How many died? Millions. How many suffered, millions. Tens of millions? A hundred million?
> 
> Marxism is a way of life, not simply an economic system. Anyone who has lived under Marxism knows that deadly truth. Only those who have never lived under Marxism ignore the truth as you do.
Click to expand...


Once _again_, the USSR had nothing to do with Mao, with Cambodia or with Vietnam.  ALL of those places were invaded/occupied by *Japan*, which I think I just got done pointing out.  Suffering?  Sure.  Whether at the hands of Japanese imperialism, western imperialism, or civil war brought about by the first two.  That's kind of what war does.  None of which has anything to do with "Marxism".


----------



## toobfreak

To the people of WWII, the Japanese were nothing but a dirty vermin to be exterminated.




 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Only in America would we have Leftards feeling sorry for the enemy.  The Japanese military before and during World War II committed numerous atrocities against civilian and military personnel. Its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, prior to a declaration of war and without warning killed 2,403 neutral military personnel and civilians and wounded 1,247 others.[24][25] Large scale massacres, rapes, and looting against civilians were committed, most notably the Sook Ching and the Nanjing Massacre, and the use of around 200,000 "comfort women", who were forced to serve as prostitutes for the Japanese military.[26] 

The Imperial Japanese Army also engaged in the execution and harsh treatment of Allied military personnel and POWs. Biological experiments were conducted by Unit 731 on prisoners of war as well as civilians; this included the use of biological and chemical weapons authorized by Emperor Shōwa himself.[27] According to the 2002 _International Symposium on the Crimes of Bacteriological Warfare_, the number of people killed in Far East Asia by Japanese germ warfare and human experiments was estimated to be around 580,000.[28] 

The members of Unit 731, including Lieutenant General Shirō Ishii, received immunity from General MacArthur in exchange for germ warfare data based on human experimentation. The deal was concluded in 1948.[29][30] The Imperial Japanese Army frequently used chemical weapons. Because of fear of retaliation, however, those weapons were never used against Westerners, but against other Asians judged "inferior" by imperial propaganda.[31] For example, the Emperor authorized the use of toxic gas on 375 separate occasions during the Battle of Wuhan from August to October 1938.

If any of the people here who fought in that war, lost family or lived through that hell were to hear the snowflakes of today doubting our resolve to defeat them, they'd beat the living crap out of you (if you were lucky) to either shooting you themselves for sedition to having you turned in as a spy and a traitor.  While Germany and Italy fought to regain territory, the reasons why Japan entered the Pacific theater against us remains unclear other than an unmitigated act of aggression.  Fuck the Japs.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......There really were no "civilians" in Japan in the normal sense, they had drilled in them from birth a kind of loyalty and honor stemming from the Bushido code ......--- --- they deserved no mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posts like this nonsense scream with a thinly veiled sense of guilt combined with childishly ignorant ideas about culture gleaned from cartoons and bad movies.
Click to expand...



---- Or historical fact corroborated by numerous articles on the history of Japanese culture, Poopie Boy.  Fuck you, Jap Lover.  You're free to move there if you think they are so great!

BBC - History -                  World Wars: Japan: No Surrender in World War Two

Prisoners of the Japanese: Civilian internees, Pacific and South-East Asia  | The Australian War Memorial

Japanese Mass Suicides

Japan: No Surrender in World War Two

Why Was Japan So Hard To Defeat

Nonsense?  Guilt?  Childish ignorance?  Cartoons and bad movies?  Got any other baseless bullshit claims while talking out of both your assholes, you Jap-Loving, Lying, Shit-sucking freak?


----------



## Pogo

Vandalshandle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets were _supposed to_ join in.  We asked them to.
> 
> Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't add up.  The Soviet advance was _part of_ defeating Japan.  It was faced with nukes from afar _plus_ Russians up close.  Simultaneous, not serial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what I am saying that does not add up.
> 
> The Soviets agreed to declare war on Japan after Germany was defeated. That agreement predates the atomic bomb by years. The soviets kept that agreement, and started advancing toward Japan from the West. We were not in a position to but Japan under a siege to starve them into giving up, because the Soviets would have continued their advance from the west, and even invade the islands. If we had not invaded the islands, or if we had not ended the war before they could do that, the Soviets would have done the same thing they did in Germany. If we had not used the atomic bomb, we would have been forced to invade Japan to beat the soviets to it, which would have resulted in a million casualties. If we allowed the Soviets to invade Japan, Japan would have ended up as another East Germany.
Click to expand...


That's projecting far too much speculation.  The original statement was that "we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade".  That's simply not the case.  The goal at that time and place, of both the US and the USSR, was Japanese surrender.  Invasions by either country are not mutually exclusive.


Along the same lines:


Vandalshandle said:


> If we had not nuked or invaded Japan, the Soviet Union would have, with the end result of Japan and South Korea having been lost to communism, just like Eastern Europe.



"Communism" was not a player in this war.  _Imperialism_ was.  They're not even related.  Again, the mutual goal, of the US, the USSR, China, Vietnam, Malaysia and all the other related countries on the receiving end of that imperialism, was repelling Japan, not any kind of economic system.

This later fear-fantasy about "commies invading" was a comic book fantasy cooked up by the Dulles Brothers and Jimmy Byrnes and their ilk, for the purpose of keeping this country in a state of war if possible or at the least war mentality.  All these places fighting for their own independence from colonial chains, like Ho in Vietnam (who was also our ally against Japan) were fighting for themselves and their own _independence_; they were not fighting to be delivered into the hands of one controlling power over another.

The fuel of *Imperialism* cannot be understated here.  Japan wanted an empire.  Britain had an established empire; France had an empire beginning to decline; Spain and Portugal had fading empires already in decline.  And the US, seeing some of those empires decline, particularly of Spain and later Britain, wanted in on the action too, beginning with McKinley and the Philippines and Cuba.  None of that was for a purpose of "communism" or "capitalism"; all of it was for the purpose of exploitation and getting the controlling entity fat off the resources of the vanquished.

Although an unrelated war, that's the same thing that was going on in Europe.  "Old-Empire" Britain and France in heated competition with "New-Empire" upstarts Germany and Italy, neither of which existed as unified countries until the second half of the 19th century.  They got a late start onto the road Spain, Portugal, Britain, France and Holland had already gone down since the 16th century especially with the discovery of the Americas.  Again, for the same purpose: exploitation of other people's resources, especially at that time in Africa, the last available colonizable continent that Spain, England, France, Portugal and Holland, all of which were much older entities than Germany and Italy, hadn't already grabbed and swapped around.

Again, nothing to do with "communism".  It's high time to recognize that Emmanuel Goldstein tactic for the polarization propaganda it was.  As noted above, it was cooked up expressly to keep this country in an _*imperialist*_ state of mind.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have nuked Tokyo as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Nagoya deserved it too
Click to expand...



There wasn't enough left of Nagoya to use an atomic bomb on by then, dumbass.


----------



## Pogo

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only important books, are all those great old books wrote in the middle of the last century, closer to the time the bomb was dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the obvious.  ...  the only way to understand history is to either lived through it yourself, or read from it a book on the views and outlook of someone else who actually did while those events were fresh.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the rest of your laughably childish take on history, many direct quotes from many of America's military leaders *of that time* have been provided expressing _their_ views that the use of atomic weapons was immoral and unnecessary.
> 
> Are you going to contradict yourself now, Salty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More laughably childish non-existent opinions from your library of non-existent imaginary people, Poopie?  So, by your reasoning, if I go out and find a few books by people on slavery saying it was the best thing since sliced bread and we never should have ended it, you'd be totally on board with that view too.  I get that.  Anything to bash America.
> 
> It does not matter what they think.  Morality in a time of war is a thing for children.  Go to MacArthur or Patton and ask them if their strategy was "moral" and you'd probably find your worthless ass on the floor beaten the crap out of and then in the stockade.  Maybe hopefully on trial as a subversive lending comfort to the enemy.  The only thing that mattered is that the Japs drew first blood and we proved to them we could hit back harder than they could.  That and the fact that with the bomb, we had a much better chance of winning the war than without it.
> 
> Go tell this guy the bombing of Japan wasn't moral or necessary.  I fucking dare you.  Neither are even in the equation, shit-lover.  It was payback to the sneaky bastards.  Lesson learned:  fuck with us and you wake a sleeping tiger.  Fuck the Japs.
> 
> 
> View attachment 275089
> View attachment 275090
> View attachment 275091
Click to expand...


So in a nutshell what you're saying here is "buy my Appeal to Emotion or I'll beat the shit out of you".


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have nuked Tokyo as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Nagoya deserved it too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't enough left of Nagoya to use an atomic bomb on by then, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Sure there was


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> .... Fuck you, Jap Lover.  You're free to move there if you think they are so great!




And there it is. Kungfool inevitably reveals his true colors and the true motivation behind his 'views' on this matter. Anyone who wants to know what this worthless dog is really about need only refer to the above quote. "Verified."


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have nuked Tokyo as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Nagoya deserved it too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't enough left of Nagoya to use an atomic bomb on by then, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure there was
Click to expand...



The city had been bombed down to embers long before fdr's dream of incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic horror came true.  Nagoya Castle is one of the most iconic of all castles in Japan. It was reconstructed in exacting detail after the war because there was nothing left of the original.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have nuked Tokyo as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Nagoya deserved it too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't enough left of Nagoya to use an atomic bomb on by then, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure there was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The city had been bombed down to embers long before fdr's dream of incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic horror came true.  Nagoya Castle is one of the most iconic of all castles in Japan. It was reconstructed in exacting detail after the war because there was nothing left of the original.
Click to expand...

But it wasnt radioactive and people were looting


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> ... Go to MacArthur or Patton and ask them if their strategy was "moral" ...




https://www.quora.com/What-was-MacArthurs-positoion-on-dropping-the-bomb-on-Hiroshima



You'd better go ask him, dumbass.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Fuck you, Jap Lover.  You're free to move there if you think they are so great!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is. Kungfool inevitably reveals his true colors and the true motivation behind his 'views' on this matter. Anyone who wants to know what this worthless dog is really about need only refer to the above quote. "Verified."
Click to expand...


Fuck you, Jap Poopie Lover. You're free to move there if you think they are so great!  Too bad you didn't live in the 1940s so that we could have thrown your ass in jail as a commie sympathizer.  The Japanese were savage, brutal dogs who got what they deserved.  Go suck shit (if not already doing so right now).


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> ... people were looting




Link?


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Fuck you, Jap Lover.  You're free to move there if you think they are so great!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is. Kungfool inevitably reveals his true colors and the true motivation behind his 'views' on this matter. Anyone who wants to know what this worthless dog is really about need only refer to the above quote. "Verified."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Jap Poopie Lover. You're free to move there if you think they are so great!  Too bad you didn't live in the 1940s so that we could have thrown your ass in jail as a commie sympathizer.  The Japanese were savage, brutal dogs who got what they deserved.  Go suck shit (if not already doing so right now).
Click to expand...



Your true motivations have been revealed for all to see, racist. Now, try to talk about the thread topic and stop with the personal attacks, understand?


----------



## anynameyouwish

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only important books, are all those great old books wrote in the middle of the last century, closer to the time the bomb was dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the obvious.  ...  the only way to understand history is to either lived through it yourself, or read from it a book on the views and outlook of someone else who actually did while those events were fresh.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the rest of your laughably childish take on history, many direct quotes from many of America's military leaders *of that time* have been provided expressing _their_ views that the use of atomic weapons was immoral and unnecessary.
> 
> Are you going to contradict yourself now, Salty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More laughably childish non-existent opinions from your library of non-existent imaginary people, Poopie?  So, by your reasoning, if I go out and find a few books by people on slavery saying it was the best thing since sliced bread and we never should have ended it, you'd be totally on board with that view too.  I get that.  Anything to bash America.
> 
> It does not matter what they think.  Morality in a time of war is a thing for children.  Go to MacArthur or Patton and ask them if their strategy was "moral" and you'd probably find your worthless ass on the floor beaten the crap out of and then in the stockade.  Maybe hopefully on trial as a subversive lending comfort to the enemy.  The only thing that mattered is that the Japs drew first blood and we proved to them we could hit back harder than they could.  That and the fact that with the bomb, we had a much better chance of winning the war than without it.
> 
> Go tell this guy the bombing of Japan wasn't moral or necessary.  I fucking dare you.  Neither are even in the equation, shit-lover.  It was payback to the sneaky bastards.  Lesson learned:  fuck with us and you wake a sleeping tiger.  Fuck the Japs.
> 
> 
> View attachment 275089
> View attachment 275090
> View attachment 275091
Click to expand...



"Go to MacArthur or Patton and ask them if their strategy was "moral""

it doesn't matter what their opinion was.

The OP was asking each of us what OUR opinions were.

and my opinion is that it was OK to drop "the bomb" on military targets but wrong/immoral to nuke 2 cities.


----------



## anynameyouwish

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Fuck you, Jap Lover.  You're free to move there if you think they are so great!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is. Kungfool inevitably reveals his true colors and the true motivation behind his 'views' on this matter. Anyone who wants to know what this worthless dog is really about need only refer to the above quote. "Verified."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Jap Poopie Lover. You're free to move there if you think they are so great!  Too bad you didn't live in the 1940s so that we could have thrown your ass in jail as a commie sympathizer.  The Japanese were savage, brutal dogs who got what they deserved.  Go suck shit (if not already doing so right now).
Click to expand...


such eloquence!

such intelligence!

suck civility and manners!


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> fdr's dream of incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic horror



And there it is.  The Jap Lover talking his pro-Japanese, anti-American rhetoric shit as usual, I bet you would have made a good kamikaze, too.  The dirty Japs got what they deserved for their sneak attack on America without even a declaration of war.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Go to MacArthur or Patton and ask them if their strategy was "moral" ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-was-MacArthurs-positoion-on-dropping-the-bomb-on-Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> You'd better go ask him, dumbass.
Click to expand...



Go ask him yourself, shit face.


----------



## Unkotare

anynameyouwish said:


> ...
> 
> 
> "Go to MacArthur or Patton and ask them if their strategy was "moral""
> 
> it doesn't matter what their opinion was......




That's not what toobsalt said. Tell him.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Go to MacArthur or Patton and ask them if their strategy was "moral" ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-was-MacArthurs-positoion-on-dropping-the-bomb-on-Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> You'd better go ask him, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go ask him yourself, shit face.
Click to expand...



Kinda stings to have outed yourself so fucking completely, huh? Maybe you'll do better on another thread. Good luck.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead.  Nuking them would have fixed all this


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...



Link yourself.  Do you ever link ANYTHING you ever say?  No.  Do you ever refute any one else's links?  No.  

Urban Dictionary: Unkotare

https://www.quora.com/What-does-ko-no-unko-tare-mean-in-Japanese

All you through and through.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> inda stings to have outed yourself so fucking completely, huh? Maybe you'll do better on another thread. Good luck.



Fuck of, drippy poop.  First your claims that Bushido code on the military and civilians of Japan PROVEN WRONG, liar.  Then your other lie that "civilians" in Japan were like regular civilians elsewhere PROVEN WRONG, Drippy Pants.  The only thing funnier than all your lies is your constant deflection from even admitting to them!


----------



## Taz

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Go to MacArthur or Patton and ask them if their strategy was "moral" ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-was-MacArthurs-positoion-on-dropping-the-bomb-on-Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> You'd better go ask him, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go ask him yourself, shit face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda stings to have outed yourself so fucking completely, huh? Maybe you'll do better on another thread. Good luck.
Click to expand...

"However, it’s used primarily by children. Rather than “sh*t,” a more accurate rendering would be “poop.” So うんこたれ (unkotare) would be something like calling someone a doodoo-head or a poopy-face."  

Uncle Poopyface.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead.  Nuking them would have fixed all this
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link yourself.  .....
Click to expand...




Yeah, I thought so.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> inda stings to have outed yourself so fucking completely, huh? Maybe you'll do better on another thread. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck of, drippy poop.  First your claims that Bushido code on the military and civilians of Japan PROVEN WRONG, liar.  Then your other lie that "civilians" in Japan were like regular civilians elsewhere PROVEN WRONG, Drippy Pants.  The only thing funnier than all your lies is your constant deflection from even admitting to them!
Click to expand...




Oh yeah, I can feel your embarrassment from here.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead.  Nuking them would have fixed all this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Nuclear blast cure all disease 

Trust me


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead.  Nuking them would have fixed all this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuclear blast cure all disease
> 
> Trust me
Click to expand...



Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pogo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets were _supposed to_ join in.  We asked them to.
> 
> Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't add up.  The Soviet advance was _part of_ defeating Japan.  It was faced with nukes from afar _plus_ Russians up close.  Simultaneous, not serial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what I am saying that does not add up.
> 
> The Soviets agreed to declare war on Japan after Germany was defeated. That agreement predates the atomic bomb by years. The soviets kept that agreement, and started advancing toward Japan from the West. We were not in a position to but Japan under a siege to starve them into giving up, because the Soviets would have continued their advance from the west, and even invade the islands. If we had not invaded the islands, or if we had not ended the war before they could do that, the Soviets would have done the same thing they did in Germany. If we had not used the atomic bomb, we would have been forced to invade Japan to beat the soviets to it, which would have resulted in a million casualties. If we allowed the Soviets to invade Japan, Japan would have ended up as another East Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's projecting far too much speculation.  The original statement was that "we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade".  That's simply not the case.  The goal at that time and place, of both the US and the USSR, was Japanese surrender.  Invasions by either country are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> Along the same lines:
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we had not nuked or invaded Japan, the Soviet Union would have, with the end result of Japan and South Korea having been lost to communism, just like Eastern Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Communism" was not a player in this war.  _Imperialism_ was.  They're not even related.  Again, the mutual goal, of the US, the USSR, China, Vietnam, Malaysia and all the other related countries on the receiving end of that imperialism, was repelling Japan, not any kind of economic system.
> 
> This later fear-fantasy about "commies invading" was a comic book fantasy cooked up by the Dulles Brothers and Jimmy Byrnes and their ilk, for the purpose of keeping this country in a state of war if possible or at the least war mentality.  All these places fighting for their own independence from colonial chains, like Ho in Vietnam (who was also our ally against Japan) were fighting for themselves and their own _independence_; they were not fighting to be delivered into the hands of one controlling power over another.
> 
> The fuel of *Imperialism* cannot be understated here.  Japan wanted an empire.  Britain had an established empire; France had an empire beginning to decline; Spain and Portugal had fading empires already in decline.  And the US, seeing some of those empires decline, particularly of Spain and later Britain, wanted in on the action too, beginning with McKinley and the Philippines and Cuba.  None of that was for a purpose of "communism" or "capitalism"; all of it was for the purpose of exploitation and getting the controlling entity fat off the resources of the vanquished.
> 
> Although an unrelated war, that's the same thing that was going on in Europe.  "Old-Empire" Britain and France in heated competition with "New-Empire" upstarts Germany and Italy, neither of which existed as unified countries until the second half of the 19th century.  They got a late start onto the road Spain, Portugal, Britain, France and Holland had already gone down since the 16th century especially with the discovery of the Americas.  Again, for the same purpose: exploitation of other people's resources, especially at that time in Africa, the last available colonizable continent that Spain, England, France, Portugal and Holland, all of which were much older entities than Germany and Italy, hadn't already grabbed and swapped around.
> 
> Again, nothing to do with "communism".  It's high time to recognize that Emmanuel Goldstein tactic for the polarization propaganda it was.  As noted above, it was cooked up expressly to keep this country in an _*imperialist*_ state of mind.
Click to expand...


All I can offer you on this is that we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Taz

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> inda stings to have outed yourself so fucking completely, huh? Maybe you'll do better on another thread. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck of, drippy poop.  First your claims that Bushido code on the military and civilians of Japan PROVEN WRONG, liar.  Then your other lie that "civilians" in Japan were like regular civilians elsewhere PROVEN WRONG, Drippy Pants.  The only thing funnier than all your lies is your constant deflection from even admitting to them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, I can feel your embarrassment from here.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead.  Nuking them would have fixed all this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuclear blast cure all disease
> 
> Trust me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.
Click to expand...

What disease survives a nuclear blast

Man u r tupid


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> inda stings to have outed yourself so fucking completely, huh? Maybe you'll do better on another thread. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck of, drippy poop.  First your claims that Bushido code on the military and civilians of Japan PROVEN WRONG, liar.  Then your other lie that "civilians" in Japan were like regular civilians elsewhere PROVEN WRONG, Drippy Pants.  The only thing funnier than all your lies is your constant deflection from even admitting to them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, I can feel your embarrassment from here.
Click to expand...

That's your chicken you are choking


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.
> This is all flying blithely over your  head, isn't it.
> 
> 
> *JAPAN* invaded Manchuria, Twinkletoes.  Fourteen years earlier.  As well as Korea, Taiwan, French Indochina, Maylasia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and a slew of islands and territories from India to Canada. JAPAN was what was "dominating", not Russia, which, this just in, is a proper name and therefore capitalized, so the only "both ways" happening here is your selective capitalization.  Ask the Koreans, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Malaysians, the Taiwanese, the Indonesians, about how Russia was "dominating" them.


Oh, I get it, when you said Russia invaded Japan after sustaining 20 million dead, and I responded by referencing Manchuria, you did not realize that Russia never invaded Japan? You did not know that when Russia attacked, it was attacking Manchuria, not japan? 

Yes, you said, 





> USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe



And then you said, 





> And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.



My reply was simple, how can you say the the USSR was in no position to invade or dominate, when they did indeed invade Manchuria? Or japan, as you mistakenly called Manchuria. 

I should of known you did not have the intelligence to respond to my post, when you mangled your post so badly you have no idea what you stated. 

Russia, in World War II never invaded Japan as you stated. That is just plan old stupidity. Everybody knows that, and now that I told you, you can go run to google and ask the almighty, if it is true.


----------



## Pogo

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.
> This is all flying blithely over your  head, isn't it.
> 
> 
> *JAPAN* invaded Manchuria, Twinkletoes.  Fourteen years earlier.  As well as Korea, Taiwan, French Indochina, Maylasia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and a slew of islands and territories from India to Canada. JAPAN was what was "dominating", not Russia, which, this just in, is a proper name and therefore capitalized, so the only "both ways" happening here is your selective capitalization.  Ask the Koreans, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Malaysians, the Taiwanese, the Indonesians, about how Russia was "dominating" them.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I get it, when you said Russia invaded Japan after sustaining 20 million dead, and I responded by referencing Manchuria, you did not realize that Russia never invaded Japan? You did not know that when Russia attacked, it was attacking Manchuria, not japan?
> 
> Yes, you said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then you said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reply was simple, how can you say the the USSR was in no position to invade or dominate, when they did indeed invade Manchuria? Or japan, as you mistakenly called Manchuria.
> 
> I should of known you did not have the intelligence to respond to my post, when you mangled your post so badly you have no idea what you stated.
> 
> Russia, in World War II never invaded Japan as you stated. That is just plan old stupidity. Everybody knows that, and now that I told you, you can go run to google and ask the almighty, if it is true.
Click to expand...


Once AGAIN for the speed-readers, I said that *JAPAN* invaded Manchuria, not "Russia".  I even bolded it and put it in all-caps, and you _still_ found a way to miss it.  Indeed Japan invaded Manchuria after a staged 'incident' used as a pretext, much like the Maine explosion, the Reichstag fire, or the Gulf of Tonkin.  And that was *freaking 1931*.


For me the ironical essence of this whole post is right here:

"*I should **of **[sic] known you did not have the intelligence*"  ​
Classic.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is late to be saving millions of russian from death at the hands of Marxism? Then you do not know history, period. Millions died of Marxism, of socialism, after WW II. Millions in Russia, Millions sent to the Gulag. It is said the roads were laid with dead Russians, literally.
> 
> Marxism spread to China, Mao Tse Tung? From the USSR? And on to Cambodia and Vietnam. How many died? Millions. How many suffered, millions. Tens of millions? A hundred million?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once _again_, the USSR had nothing to do with Mao, with Cambodia or with Vietnam.  ALL of those places were invaded/occupied by *Japan*, which I think I just got done pointing out.  Suffering?  Sure.  Whether at the hands of Japanese imperialism, western imperialism, or civil war brought about by the first two.  That's kind of what war does.  None of which has anything to do with "Marxism".
Click to expand...

You are a moron, I stated Marxism, are you now going to conflate Marxism and the USSR? If I was being specific to the USSR, I would of stated Communism. Communism is the USSR's form of Marxism.

And yes, Marxism had everything to do with Mao, Camobdia, and Vietnam. 

And yes, the USSR had much to do with Mao Tse Tung and China, before, during, and after World War II. Sadly you know nothing of history and even less than what you post. 

So yes, Marxism, or you should state, COMMUNISM, if you speaking of the USSR, did in fact have everything to do with politics, war, culture, and society, as well as life itself, in all of ASIA!!!!!

Go bury yourself in Google for 30 seconds and you can learn that much.

Pogo is a great example of someone that searches an opinion based on fictitious propaganda and thus comes up with ideas that have nothing to do with reality let alone history that is easily learned.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> So in a nutshell what you're saying here is "buy my Appeal to Emotion or I'll beat the shit out of you".


No, what he said is you got the shit beat out of you by a third grader wielding a nutshell, that is why you are so stupid. Put some ice on that brain damage.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> Once AGAIN for the speed-readers, I said that *JAPAN* invaded Manchuria, not "Russia".  I even bolded it and put it in all-caps, and you _still_ found a way to miss it.  Indeed Japan invaded Manchuria after a staged 'incident' used as a pretext, much like the Maine explosion, the Reichstag fire, or the Gulf of Tonkin.  And that was *freaking 1931*.
> 
> For me the ironical essence of this whole post is right here:
> 
> "*I should **of **[sic] known you did not have the intelligence*"  ​
> Classic.


Yes classic, speaking of the end of the war, you stated Russia could not invade or dominate anything. I stated Russia invaded Manchuria! 

Okay, lets say I am wrong about your post, here? So it was Japan that over-ran Germany and then invaded itself?
The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima


> And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.



I quoted you post, twice now, I guess you have no real memory of what you wrote?


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> Once AGAIN for the speed-readers, I said that *JAPAN* invaded Manchuria, not "Russia".


Prove it, here is the post I quoted
The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima


> And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally


You believe Russia invaded Japan, not Manchuria? Got it. Russia invaded Japan not Manchuria?

Russia never invaded Manchuria? 

Ha, ha, ha, what in the fuck are you saying?


----------



## Pogo

Vandalshandle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets were _supposed to_ join in.  We asked them to.
> 
> Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't add up.  The Soviet advance was _part of_ defeating Japan.  It was faced with nukes from afar _plus_ Russians up close.  Simultaneous, not serial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what I am saying that does not add up.
> 
> The Soviets agreed to declare war on Japan after Germany was defeated. That agreement predates the atomic bomb by years. The soviets kept that agreement, and started advancing toward Japan from the West. We were not in a position to but Japan under a siege to starve them into giving up, because the Soviets would have continued their advance from the west, and even invade the islands. If we had not invaded the islands, or if we had not ended the war before they could do that, the Soviets would have done the same thing they did in Germany. If we had not used the atomic bomb, we would have been forced to invade Japan to beat the soviets to it, which would have resulted in a million casualties. If we allowed the Soviets to invade Japan, Japan would have ended up as another East Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's projecting far too much speculation.  The original statement was that "we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade".  That's simply not the case.  The goal at that time and place, of both the US and the USSR, was Japanese surrender.  Invasions by either country are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> Along the same lines:
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we had not nuked or invaded Japan, the Soviet Union would have, with the end result of Japan and South Korea having been lost to communism, just like Eastern Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Communism" was not a player in this war.  _Imperialism_ was.  They're not even related.  Again, the mutual goal, of the US, the USSR, China, Vietnam, Malaysia and all the other related countries on the receiving end of that imperialism, was repelling Japan, not any kind of economic system.
> 
> This later fear-fantasy about "commies invading" was a comic book fantasy cooked up by the Dulles Brothers and Jimmy Byrnes and their ilk, for the purpose of keeping this country in a state of war if possible or at the least war mentality.  All these places fighting for their own independence from colonial chains, like Ho in Vietnam (who was also our ally against Japan) were fighting for themselves and their own _independence_; they were not fighting to be delivered into the hands of one controlling power over another.
> 
> The fuel of *Imperialism* cannot be understated here.  Japan wanted an empire.  Britain had an established empire; France had an empire beginning to decline; Spain and Portugal had fading empires already in decline.  And the US, seeing some of those empires decline, particularly of Spain and later Britain, wanted in on the action too, beginning with McKinley and the Philippines and Cuba.  None of that was for a purpose of "communism" or "capitalism"; all of it was for the purpose of exploitation and getting the controlling entity fat off the resources of the vanquished.
> 
> Although an unrelated war, that's the same thing that was going on in Europe.  "Old-Empire" Britain and France in heated competition with "New-Empire" upstarts Germany and Italy, neither of which existed as unified countries until the second half of the 19th century.  They got a late start onto the road Spain, Portugal, Britain, France and Holland had already gone down since the 16th century especially with the discovery of the Americas.  Again, for the same purpose: exploitation of other people's resources, especially at that time in Africa, the last available colonizable continent that Spain, England, France, Portugal and Holland, all of which were much older entities than Germany and Italy, hadn't already grabbed and swapped around.
> 
> Again, nothing to do with "communism".  It's high time to recognize that Emmanuel Goldstein tactic for the polarization propaganda it was.  As noted above, it was cooked up expressly to keep this country in an _*imperialist*_ state of mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can offer you on this is that we can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...


It's worth the rumination though.

This may veer somewhat off topic, but in pursuit of the whole "commie" mythology ... a 2004 film called "Heir to an Execution" supplied me with a lightbulb epiphany of perspective all of this. It's by Ivy Meeropol, who is the granddaughter of Juilius and Ethel Rosenberg. The revealing comment was not in the film itself but in the director's commentary track, something she I guess thought was a throwaway anecdote but I found it profound.  The filmmaker was not setting out to examine the political dynamics behind the execution of her grandparents; rather she was exploring who they were as people.

She relates how her father, Michael Rosenberg-Meeropol (adopted after his parents' execution) would play a child's game with his father, Julius Rosenberg in which the boy Michael would get on his hands and knees and pretend to be a bridge.  Julius his father would then run a toy truck over his back saying "Here comes the American truck" and Michael would stay in place allowing the truck to pass.  Then Julius would run the truck again saying "and here comes the Fascist truck" and Michael would stand up, sending the Fascist truck tumbling to its doom, whereupon Julius would shake his hand and congratulate the boy on defeating the Fascists.

That's when it dawned on me ---- all this "commie" this, "Commie" that rah-rah fearmongereing boogieman massive propaganda campaign we know all too well, was not aimed at its targets because they were "Communist" but rather, _*because they were Anti-Fascist*_.  They were a threat not to "America" or "freedom"  or whatever emotional buzzword of the day, but rather. _*they were a threat to Fascism* and Imperialism_, the former being a tool to effect the latter.  Being "pro-communist" threatens nothing; being anti-Fascist very much _does_.  After all only "anti" denotes a threat to anything.  It's right there in the definition of the prefix.  But you can't sell a demonization on the basis that "they're against fascism" so you invent the "Commie" brouhaha and dress it up as a "threat".

And that leads to the next eye-opener, albeit specific to European derivation rather than directly on the topic of war in the Pacific, and that is:  we often teach ourselves that in WW2, the European side of it, "Fascism was defeated", in that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were vanquished.  That's not true. _Those countries_ were defeated; *Hitler and Mussolini* were defeated.  But on the other hand their contemporary fascist Francisco Franco, was not.  "We" didn't even _fight_ him.  That's why I point out that what we were fighting was _Imperialism_, and specifically picking sides of _whose_ Imperialism.  Germany invaded its neighbors all around it in the cause of (first) corralling German culture into one larger state, and (subsequently) for more Liebensraum (room) for them.  Spain however didn't invade France or Portugal or Morocco or even Andorra.  So fascism, common to both, wasn't the impetus for Germany; _Imperialism_ was.

The revealed perspective is this:
The hyper-right wing Fascist totalitarianism* did not lose World War Two*.  It lived on, got assimilated and thrived, and continues to thrive right now.  _*Hitler*_ lost WW2.  _*Mussolini*_ lost WW2.  But their fascist inclinations did not. Not only did they survive in Spain, and soon take over Greece; they also survived and assimilated in the US with the whole "Red Scare" and "Red Channels" and "blacklisting" and McCarthyism and the endless demonization of the mythological "Commies" everywhere, from Europe to Iran to Guatemala to Southeast Asia to various independence movements in Africa.  Hitler's secret police system simply took on new English names as the "CIA" (externally) and "FBI" (internally), accomplishing the same task for the victors as it had for the vanquished.  They're still with us today right down to mandatory flag worship at football games and classrooms, endless wars on "Commies", and the ongoing "Commie conquest" fantasy itself that still hasn't been seen for the fascistic propaganda it was.

Fascist totalitarianism wasn't exterminated; it was *moved*.  We're living in it. Example: "Commie" Guatemala could not be allowed to stand while it was a threat to the Fascist collusion of the State and United Fruit (replace "Guatemala" with "Cuba", same thing. different result). Example two: "Commie" Iran could not be allowed to have its own  government either, as it was a threat to the Fascist union of the State and Big Oil.  So Fascist totalitarianism stepped in and "fixed" that too.  Other examples abound.

That's why the whole Red Scare business was relentlessly marketed and mythologized used as military pretext: the egalitarian spirit of the target "Commies" _threatens_ the Fascist-authoritarian doctrine of a top-down striated meritocracy where the State rules and the people submit and obey.  Fascist totalitarianism demands obedience; democracy invites the opposite. Free expression is a _threat_. Therefore, they must be eliminated, under whatever name works.  That's arguably where the whole infamous conformist mentality of the 1950s _comes from_.

And it's not a random coincidence that this is the same period where the same Fascist element started demonizing and polarizing the term "Liberalism", which is in fact what founded this nation on very different principles.  Liberalism by definition means free expression; that is a direct threat to Authoritarianism, therefore it must be _redefined_ as the "enemy".

For that matter Hitler did the same thing, creating the S.A. "Brownshirts" to assault Communists and send them to be the opening act at Dachau.  Our methods are more covert and subtle; instead of a Dachau we have Red Channels and a HUAC and a malleable media selling every kind of demonization quote from "I have here in my hand a list..." to "they'll fall like dominoes" to "get that sumbitch off the field, he's fired".  All in the name of mob mentality State-worship and You'd Better Submit.

Same shit, different day, the State demands that you obey.
Watch your TV every day and above all else Do What We Say.

And to accomplish that they'll invent whatever Emmanuel Goldstein serves the purpose.  If Göbbels were alive right now he'd be in absolute awe.

_/ End tangential rumination
_
Long story shortened, that's why I have to reject the idea that there was some "competition" for conquest of Japan going on or that it had anything to do with "communist conquest".  That's a propaganda myth and it needs to be seen through.  Japan was _*clearly*_ out for Empire and had been for decades; the USSR had not.


----------



## Pogo

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell what you're saying here is "buy my Appeal to Emotion or I'll beat the shit out of you".
> 
> 
> 
> No, what he said is you got the shit beat out of you by a third grader wielding a nutshell, that is why you are so stupid. Put some ice on that brain damage.
Click to expand...


That post hadn't even been addressed to me in the first place.  It's a simple dilution of what his post actually says, that's it.
"Buy my Appeal to Emotion, or I'll beat the shit out of you".  Not exactly anything remotely near logical argument.  QED.

Again ---- reading comprehension.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't add up.  The Soviet advance was _part of_ defeating Japan.  It was faced with nukes from afar _plus_ Russians up close.  Simultaneous, not serial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what I am saying that does not add up.
> 
> The Soviets agreed to declare war on Japan after Germany was defeated. That agreement predates the atomic bomb by years. The soviets kept that agreement, and started advancing toward Japan from the West. We were not in a position to but Japan under a siege to starve them into giving up, because the Soviets would have continued their advance from the west, and even invade the islands. If we had not invaded the islands, or if we had not ended the war before they could do that, the Soviets would have done the same thing they did in Germany. If we had not used the atomic bomb, we would have been forced to invade Japan to beat the soviets to it, which would have resulted in a million casualties. If we allowed the Soviets to invade Japan, Japan would have ended up as another East Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's projecting far too much speculation.  The original statement was that "we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade".  That's simply not the case.  The goal at that time and place, of both the US and the USSR, was Japanese surrender.  Invasions by either country are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> Along the same lines:
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we had not nuked or invaded Japan, the Soviet Union would have, with the end result of Japan and South Korea having been lost to communism, just like Eastern Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Communism" was not a player in this war.  _Imperialism_ was.  They're not even related.  Again, the mutual goal, of the US, the USSR, China, Vietnam, Malaysia and all the other related countries on the receiving end of that imperialism, was repelling Japan, not any kind of economic system.
> 
> This later fear-fantasy about "commies invading" was a comic book fantasy cooked up by the Dulles Brothers and Jimmy Byrnes and their ilk, for the purpose of keeping this country in a state of war if possible or at the least war mentality.  All these places fighting for their own independence from colonial chains, like Ho in Vietnam (who was also our ally against Japan) were fighting for themselves and their own _independence_; they were not fighting to be delivered into the hands of one controlling power over another.
> 
> The fuel of *Imperialism* cannot be understated here.  Japan wanted an empire.  Britain had an established empire; France had an empire beginning to decline; Spain and Portugal had fading empires already in decline.  And the US, seeing some of those empires decline, particularly of Spain and later Britain, wanted in on the action too, beginning with McKinley and the Philippines and Cuba.  None of that was for a purpose of "communism" or "capitalism"; all of it was for the purpose of exploitation and getting the controlling entity fat off the resources of the vanquished.
> 
> Although an unrelated war, that's the same thing that was going on in Europe.  "Old-Empire" Britain and France in heated competition with "New-Empire" upstarts Germany and Italy, neither of which existed as unified countries until the second half of the 19th century.  They got a late start onto the road Spain, Portugal, Britain, France and Holland had already gone down since the 16th century especially with the discovery of the Americas.  Again, for the same purpose: exploitation of other people's resources, especially at that time in Africa, the last available colonizable continent that Spain, England, France, Portugal and Holland, all of which were much older entities than Germany and Italy, hadn't already grabbed and swapped around.
> 
> Again, nothing to do with "communism".  It's high time to recognize that Emmanuel Goldstein tactic for the polarization propaganda it was.  As noted above, it was cooked up expressly to keep this country in an _*imperialist*_ state of mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can offer you on this is that we can agree to disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's worth the rumination though.
> 
> This may veer somewhat off topic, but in pursuit of the whole "commie" mythology ... a 2004 film called "Heir to an Execution" supplied me with a lightbulb epiphany of perspective all of this. It's by Ivy Meeropol, who is the granddaughter of Juilius and Ethel Rosenberg. The revealing comment was not in the film itself but in the director's commentary track, something she I guess thought was a throwaway anecdote but I found it profound.  The filmmaker was not setting out to examine the political dynamics behind the execution of her grandparents; rather she was exploring who they were as people.
> 
> She relates how her father, Michael Rosenberg-Meeropol (adopted after his parents' execution) would play a child's game with his father, Julius Rosenberg in which the boy Michael would get on his hands and knees and pretend to be a bridge.  Julius his father would then run a toy truck over his back saying "Here comes the American truck" and Michael would stay in place allowing the truck to pass.  Then Julius would run the truck again saying "and here comes the Fascist truck" and Michael would stand up, sending the Fascist truck tumbling to its doom, whereupon Julius would shake his hand and congratulate the boy on defeating the Fascists.
> 
> That's when it dawned on me ---- all this "commie" this, "Commie" that rah-rah fearmongereing boogieman massive propaganda campaign we know all too well, was not aimed at its targets because they were "Communist" but rather, _*because they were Anti-Fascist*_.  They were a threat not to "America" or "freedom"  or whatever emotional buzzword of the day, but rather. _they were a threat to *Fascism* and Imperialism_, the former being a tool to effect the latter.  Being "pro-communist" threatens nothing; being anti-Fascist very much _does_.  After all only "anti" denotes a threat to anything.  It's right there in the definition of the prefix.  But you can't sell a demonization on the basis that "they're against fascism" so you invent the "Commie" brouhaha and dress it up as a "threat".
> 
> And that leads to the next eye-opener, albeit specific to European derivation rather than directly on the topic of war in the Pacific, and that is:  we often teach ourselves that in WW2, the European side of it, "Fascism was defeated", in that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were vanquished.  That's not true. _Those countries_ were defeated; *Hitler and Mussolini* were defeated.  But on the other hand their contemporary fascist Francisco Franco, was not.  "We" didn't even _fight_ him.  That's why I point out that what we were fighting was _Imperialism_, and specifically picking sides of _whose_ Imperialism.  Germany invaded its neighbors all around it in the cause of (first) corralling German culture into one larger state, and (subsequently) for more Liebensraum (room) for them.  Spain however didn't invade France or Morocco or even Andorra.  So fascism, common to both, wasn't the impetus for Germany; _Imperialism_ was.
> 
> The revealed perspective is this:
> The hyper-right wing Fascist totalitarianism* did not lose World War Two*.  It lived on, got assimilated and thrived, and continues to thrive right now.  _*Hitler*_ lost WW2.  _*Mussolini*_ lost WW2.  But their fascist inclinations did not. Not only did they survive in Spain, and soon take over Greece; they also survived and assimilated in the US with the whole "Red Scare" and "Red Channels" and "blacklisting" and McCarthyism and the endless demonization of the mythological "Commies" everywhere, from Europe to Iran to Guatemala to Southeast Asia to various independence movements in Africa.  Hitler's secret police system simply took on new English names as the "CIA" (externally) and "FBI" (internally), accomplishing the same task for the victors as it had for the vanquished.  They're still with us today right down to mandatory flag worship at football games and classrooms, endless wars on "Commies", and the ongoing "Commie conquest" fantasy itself that still hasn't been seen for the fascistic propaganda it was.
> 
> Fascist totalitarianism wasn't exterminated; it was *moved*.  We're living in it. Example: "Commie" Guatemala could not be allowed to stand while it was a threat to the Fascist collusion of the State and United Fruit (replace "Guatemala" with "Cuba", same thing. different result). Example two: "Commie" Iran could not be allowed to have its own  government either, as it was a threat to the Fascist union of the State and Big Oil.  So Fascist totalitarianism stepped in and "fixed" that too.  Other examples abound.
> 
> That's why the whole Red Scare business was relentlessly marketed and mythologized used as military pretext: the egalitarian spirit of the target "Commies" _threatens_ the Fascist-authoritarian doctrine of a top-down striated meritocracy where the State rules and the people submit and obey.  Fascist totalitarianism demands obedience; democracy invites the opposite. Free expression is a _threat_. Therefore, they must be eliminated, under whatever name works.  And it's not a random coincidence that this is the same period where the same Fascist element started demonizing and polarizing the term "Liberalism", which is in fact what founded this nation on very different principles.
> 
> For that matter Hitler did the same thing, creating the S.A. "Brownshirts" to assault Communists and send them to be the opening act at Dachau.  Our methods are more covert and subtle; instead of a Dachau we have Red Channels and a HUAC and a malleable media selling every kind of demonization quote from "I have here in my hand a list..." to "they'll fall like dominoes" to "get that sumbitch off the field, he's fired".  All in the name of mob mentality State-worship and You'd Better Submit.
> 
> Same shit, different day, the State demands that you obey.
> 
> And to accomplish that they'll invent whatever Emmanuel Goldstein serves the purpose.  If Göbbels were alive right now he'd be in absolute awe.
> 
> _/ End tangential rumination_
Click to expand...

The only thing to say to this rant, is you really are an idiot.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> Again ---- reading comprehension.


The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima
Yes, reading comprehension, yours does not exist. How come you have not responded to this post, at the least to say, "oops, I messed that up".

It certainly is a sign of character when one ignores their gross errors.


----------



## Kilroy2

Even some generals thought that the bombing was unnecessary

There is a trove of information revealing that many senior U.S. military officials believed the bombs were not needed to end the war in the Pacific. President Truman approved of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s destruction, but many of the top-ranking brass, from Douglas MacArthur to Chester Nimitz, knew better.

In “Mandate for Change,” *Eisenhower’s autobiography*, Ike related this exchange: “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.’”

There are many more such testimonials, if someone takes the time to look:


--“When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, *would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb*. *The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the Emperor.”* That’s from “The Pathology of Power,” by Norman Cousins.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Russia, in World War II never invaded Japan as you stated. That is just plan old stupidity. Everybody knows that, and now that I told you, you can go run to google and ask the almighty, if it is true.



This was not addressed to me, but I will point out that, in point of fact, the Russians did invade Japan: they attacked the Kurile Islands, which had been part of Japan for some 80 years. The first attack brought on the Battle of Shumshu, where the Japanese put up stiff resistance for a while but then collapsed once the Soviets were able to use their naval guns and bring in air support when the weather cleared. Once the Soviets overran the rest of the Japanese forces on the islands, they proceeded to expel the 17,000 Japanese citizens who lived on them.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead.  Nuking them would have fixed all this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuclear blast cure all disease
> 
> Trust me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What disease survives a nuclear blast
> 
> Man u r tupid
Click to expand...



Radiation poisoning.


----------



## Unkotare

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia, in World War II never invaded Japan as you stated. That is just plan old stupidity. Everybody knows that, and now that I told you, you can go run to google and ask the almighty, if it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was not addressed to me, but I will point out that, in point of fact, the Russians did invade Japan: they attacked the Kurile Islands, which had been part of Japan for some 80 years. The first attack brought on the Battle of Shumshu, where the Japanese put up stiff resistance for a while but then collapsed once the Soviets were able to use their naval guns and bring in air support when the weather cleared. Once the Soviets overran the rest of the Japanese forces on the islands, they proceeded to expel the 17,000 Japanese citizens who lived on them.
Click to expand...



And Russia has still not returned that territory; a sticking point between full diplomatic relations between the two countries to this day.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead.  Nuking them would have fixed all this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuclear blast cure all disease
> 
> Trust me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What disease survives a nuclear blast
> 
> Man u r tupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Radiation poisoning.
Click to expand...

Nope that is created by the blast.

Keep trying


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear blast cure all disease
> 
> Trust me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What disease survives a nuclear blast
> 
> Man u r tupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Radiation poisoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope that is created by the blast.
> 
> Keep trying
Click to expand...



Just admit you were wrong and move on, dopey.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear blast cure all disease
> 
> Trust me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What disease survives a nuclear blast
> 
> Man u r tupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Radiation poisoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope that is created by the blast.
> 
> Keep trying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit you were wrong and move on, dopey.
Click to expand...

Better than you have failed, it's ok, you will get over it


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> This was not addressed to me, but I will point out that, in point of fact, the Russians did invade Japan: they attacked the Kurile Islands, which had been part of Japan for some 80 years. The first attack brought on the Battle of Shumshu, where the Japanese put up stiff resistance for a while but then collapsed once the Soviets were able to use their naval guns and bring in air support when the weather cleared. Once the Soviets overran the rest of the Japanese forces on the islands, they proceeded to expel the 17,000 Japanese citizens who lived on them.


Russia attacked some tiny islands, so what, that was not japan and not what the idiot stated, how about going back and addressing the posts you ignored. Oh, you can not do that, you have not the education to support your own premise. 

I will get back to it, maybe you missed them. I will re-post them so you can not ignore them, for a fifth time?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Some people continue to claim that the Japanese peace feelers in the months leading up to Hiroshima were all meaningless low-level approaches with no high-level support. In fact, this is a standard talking point among authors who defend the nuking of Japan. However, there are government records and plenty of scholarly studies that refute this claim. I will summarize some of the facts documented in those records and scholarship. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender_, and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.

-- Very few books on WWII mention the fact that in May 1945, Radio Tokyo’s English-language broadcast, which operated under government supervision, stated that if the Americans would drop their demand for unconditional surrender, Japan’s leaders might be willing to enter into negotiations to end the war (Marco Heinrichs and Galliccio, _Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945, _Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 15). This was an astounding statement to be aired on a radio station monitored by all the Allies and by much of Asia. However, Truman and his Japan-hating Secretary of State, James Byrnes, ignored it.

-- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.

Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.

-- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.

Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did _not_ shut down the approach.

Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.

So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support. In addition, the hardliners would not have been able to kill it if Truman, or a high official at Truman’s direction, had simply advised the Japanese that we would not depose the emperor if they surrendered according to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.

On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”

So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.

-- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel, in July 1945. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu’s, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.

This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.

When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.

We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”

William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.

-- Furthermore, _Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable_. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.

Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:

The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., The Forrestal Diaries(New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Japan’s leaders might be willing to enter into negotiations to end the war (Marco Heinrichs and Galliccio, _Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945, _Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 15). This was an astounding statement to be aired on a radio station monitored by all the Allies and by much of Asia. However, Truman and his Japan-hating Secretary of State, James Byrnes, ignored it.


How come you do not mention we were busy fighting in Okinawa at this time. Why don't you mention that while our men were dying in Okinawa it would be pitifully stupid to start weakening demands for surrender which the Japanese could interpret as they were turning the tide and hence continue fighting. 

It was discussed, by people with a lot more knowledge and intelligence than you have. 

It was discussed by Truman and Grew. Grew, after the battle of Okinawa was won, did not demand the emperor step down in our terms of surrender, given to Japan before the bomb was dropped. 

So much of history you ignore and get wrong. Maybe you should read books by Truman, Grew, Hull. Or maybe you should read the books that you point links to, it is obvious you have not read those books, only cherry picked quotes linked by google.


----------



## Frannie

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia, in World War II never invaded Japan as you stated. That is just plan old stupidity. Everybody knows that, and now that I told you, you can go run to google and ask the almighty, if it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was not addressed to me, but I will point out that, in point of fact, the Russians did invade Japan: they attacked the Kurile Islands, which had been part of Japan for some 80 years. The first attack brought on the Battle of Shumshu, where the Japanese put up stiff resistance for a while but then collapsed once the Soviets were able to use their naval guns and bring in air support when the weather cleared. Once the Soviets overran the rest of the Japanese forces on the islands, they proceeded to expel the 17,000 Japanese citizens who lived on them.
Click to expand...

Too bad them great Russians didn't attack Iwo Jima Guadalcanal and Okinawa.  Seriously are you a nippy


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> First off, he has presented you with documented statements by senior American military leaders that using the atomic bomb was unnecessary and wrong.
> 
> Second, **so what** if you have "official government documents"??? Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete, and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent.


How can you have it both ways? This is the sixth time I have asked you this. You keep ignoring your hypocrisy. 

How can documented statements by American military leaders be fact when you state explicitly the documents are inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, and fraudulent.  

You have based the premise of this OP on documents that are inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, and fraudulent. This is what you have stated. You just destroyed your OP. 

There is nothing factual, you have attempted to prove your opinion with inaccurate, incomplete, misleading and fraudulent documents. These are the documents your "authors" have cherry picked, misquoted, and used despite being compromised as you have stated.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> His HQ was hundreds of yards from any point of the march, and for long stretches of the march there were no acts of cruelty--in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.


Yes, and as we know, the shot from a rifle killing a helpless prisoner of war protecting by the Geneva convention, that shot can not be heard more than a few feet, let alone a yard, or a hundred yards. Rifle shots are simply not that loud!


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.
> _._


They gave them food and water? Before or after they chopped off their heads? We are speaking of 3000 soldiers dying on the Bataan death march? 

And how many more died in the prison camp? 20,000? Did they get a little water and food from those very nice japanese? The same ones who saw to it that some 23,000 men died? How about rapes of civilians? What about the killing of people who were civilians? 

They gave them food and water, yet 23,000 men could not survive on all that food and water?


----------



## Frannie

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.
> _._
> 
> 
> 
> They gave them food and water? Before or after they chopped off their heads? We are speaking of 3000 soldiers dying on the Bataan death march?
> 
> And how many more died in the prison camp? 20,000? Did they get a little water and food from those very nice japanese? The same ones who saw to it that some 23,000 men died? How about rapes of civilians? What about the killing of people who were civilians?
> 
> They gave them food and water, yet 23,000 men could not survive on all that food and water?
Click to expand...

I am getting the impression that MikeGriffith is really Aiko Yukimura


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> . See, for example, Richard Aldrich's award-winning book _The Far Away War: Personal Diaries of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific._


'
Ah, yes, the award winning book that states this:

By the Well of Remembering and Forgetting


> But  yet, context is everything.
> 
> _The book also features the memoir of a New Zealand soldier working with a Fijian regiment who came across the bodies of two native women, pegged out on an earthen mound._
> 
> _They had been "raped to death" by Japanese soldiers. Then they found a dead American soldier who had stakes driven through each shoulder and his hands cut off. "As we moved away again, one of my corporals said to me: "No more prisoners, turaga[sir]." I agreed with him.''_


Well, using your source (I may have to buy the book, for I doubt you read it), it appears that those water and food and rest giving Japanese were brutal sadistic sexual perverts! 

Your source. The Japanese Army was an immoral horde of barbarians bred by those kind mothers and fathers who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Who do you think taught them such things, who taught them such respect for women and children. It was innocent mom and dad who were busy at home going to the factories to make bullets and bombs for their sons at war!

Yes, the japanese were immoral sexually perverted rapists, according to the source you have given.


----------



## sparky

mikegriffith1 said:


> Some people continue to claim that the Japanese peace feelers in the months leading up to Hiroshima were all meaningless low-level approaches with no high-level support. In fact, this is a standard talking point among authors who defend the nuking of Japan. However, there are government records and plenty of scholarly studies that refute this claim. I will summarize some of the facts documented in those records and scholarship. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender_, and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.
> 
> -- Very few books on WWII mention the fact that in May 1945, Radio Tokyo’s English-language broadcast, which operated under government supervision, stated that if the Americans would drop their demand for unconditional surrender, Japan’s leaders might be willing to enter into negotiations to end the war (Marco Heinrichs and Galliccio, _Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945, _Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 15). This was an astounding statement to be aired on a radio station monitored by all the Allies and by much of Asia. However, Truman and his Japan-hating Secretary of State, James Byrnes, ignored it.
> 
> -- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.
> 
> Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.
> 
> -- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.
> 
> Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did _not_ shut down the approach.
> 
> Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.
> 
> So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support. In addition, the hardliners would not have been able to kill it if Truman, or a high official at Truman’s direction, had simply advised the Japanese that we would not depose the emperor if they surrendered according to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.
> 
> We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.
> 
> On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”
> 
> So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.
> 
> -- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel, in July 1945. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu’s, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.
> 
> This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.
> 
> When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.
> 
> We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”
> 
> William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.
> 
> -- Furthermore, _Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable_. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.
> 
> Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:
> 
> The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., The Forrestal Diaries(New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​




I find your posts far more informative than that through the lense of racism Mike

~S~


----------



## elektra

Ha, ha, ha, now the liberal cry babies that can not face the truth are saying we who know the truth and expose the truth, are racists. I will tell that to my Japanese daughter. 

New Kyushu museum breaks taboo with POW vivisection display | The Japan Times



> *New Kyushu museum breaks taboo with POW vivisection display*
> Kyodo
> 
> FUKUOKA – A new medical history museum in Fukuoka faced the area’s dark wartime past on Saturday by using its grand opening to finally address the infamous live dissections of U.S. prisoners of war that took place at Kyushu University’s medical school.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Some people continue to claim that the Japanese peace feelers in the months leading up to Hiroshima were all meaningless low-level approaches with no high-level support. In fact, this is a standard talking point among authors who defend the nuking of Japan. However, there are government records and plenty of scholarly studies that refute this claim. I will summarize some of the facts documented in those records and scholarship. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender_, and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.
> 
> -- Very few books on WWII mention the fact that in May 1945, Radio Tokyo’s English-language broadcast, which operated under government supervision, stated that if the Americans would drop their demand for unconditional surrender, Japan’s leaders might be willing to enter into negotiations to end the war (Marco Heinrichs and Galliccio, _Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945, _Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 15). This was an astounding statement to be aired on a radio station monitored by all the Allies and by much of Asia. However, Truman and his Japan-hating Secretary of State, James Byrnes, ignored it.
> 
> -- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.
> 
> Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.
> 
> -- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.
> 
> Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did _not_ shut down the approach.
> 
> Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.
> 
> So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support. In addition, the hardliners would not have been able to kill it if Truman, or a high official at Truman’s direction, had simply advised the Japanese that we would not depose the emperor if they surrendered according to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.
> 
> We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.
> 
> On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”
> 
> So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.
> 
> -- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel, in July 1945. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu’s, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.
> 
> This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.
> 
> When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.
> 
> We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”
> 
> William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.
> 
> -- Furthermore, _Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable_. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.
> 
> Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:
> 
> The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., The Forrestal Diaries(New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​


A japanese general talking to bankers in switzerland, a japanese general that was not speaking with the emperor? A japanese general with no official connection anybody associated with the emperor? He was speaking to bankers? Who were to get in touch with Dulles? In the middle of the Potsdam conference? This low level general was not in communication with tyoko? We were to take a japanese general talking to bankers in switzerland serious? 

And while this was going on, Japan was attempting to negotiate with the russians, who were simply ignoring the japanese, and or leading them on.

These were pathetic attempts at surrender, one not even close to being official, the other involved russia? And yes there was the third? Maybe? 

Well, we do know that no condition of surrender ever stated that the emperor had to step down, and that is what the emperor himself stated, when surrendering, that we had not demanded such. 

The emperor also knew, that we had not bombed his palace, sparing his life, when we could of on numerous occasions.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link yourself.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.
Click to expand...



You thought WHAT Uncle Poopyface?  That you talk shit all day long but never back up a thing you ever say with any links, proof or evidence?  One webpage ostensibly coming out against the bombing with alleged quotes (obviously) from people saying they were against it?  Wow.  Yeah, we all know so.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> inda stings to have outed yourself so fucking completely, huh? Maybe you'll do better on another thread. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck of, drippy poop.  First your claims that Bushido code on the military and civilians of Japan PROVEN WRONG, liar.  Then your other lie that "civilians" in Japan were like regular civilians elsewhere PROVEN WRONG, Drippy Pants.  The only thing funnier than all your lies is your constant deflection from even admitting to them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, I can feel your embarrassment from here.
Click to expand...


No, that's just the drippy poop running down your leg.


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead.  Nuking them would have fixed all this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuclear blast cure all disease
> 
> Trust me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.
Click to expand...


Trust you?  Completely wrong?  Man, I don't trust anything you proffer any farther than I can fling shit.  You argue like a White Man's IM2.


----------



## toobfreak

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> inda stings to have outed yourself so fucking completely, huh? Maybe you'll do better on another thread. Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck of, drippy poop.  First your claims that Bushido code on the military and civilians of Japan PROVEN WRONG, liar.  Then your other lie that "civilians" in Japan were like regular civilians elsewhere PROVEN WRONG, Drippy Pants.  The only thing funnier than all your lies is your constant deflection from even admitting to them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, I can feel your embarrassment from here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your chicken you are choking
Click to expand...



He has no chicken.  All he's got is a little peep.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> That post hadn't even been addressed to me in the first place.  It's a simple dilution of what his post actually says, that's it.
> "Buy my Appeal to Emotion, or I'll beat the shit out of you".  Not exactly anything remotely near logical argument.  QED.
> 
> Again ---- reading comprehension.


Ah yes, we see you consider yourself an elite intellectual snob. 

A dilution of what the post says? No dumbass, it was not a dilution. I simply mangled the words so that post said something different.



> No, what he said is you got the shit beat out of you by a third grader wielding a nutshell, that is why you are so stupid. Put some ice on that brain damage.


It is called, satire, yes, SATIRE. And yes, reading comprehension is important. We dont expect any from you, you read much into a post that you paraphrased in a nefarious manner. That is why I used satire to point out how stupid your post was.

Your quote:





> So in a nutshell what you're saying here is "buy my Appeal to Emotion or I'll beat the shit out of you



Get it now?


----------



## Frannie

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link yourself.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You thought WHAT Uncle Poopyface?  That you talk shit all day long but never back up a thing you ever say with any links, proof or evidence?  One webpage ostensibly coming out against the bombing with alleged quotes (obviously) from people saying they were against it?  Wow.  Yeah, we all know so.
Click to expand...

Yakushima seems frustrated.


----------



## mikegriffith1

In 1995, under pressure from some members of Congress and the leaders of some veterans groups, the Smithsonian Institution canceled its planned exhibit on the _Enola Gay _and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki_. _When the first text of the exhibit was released, leaders of certain veterans groups and some members of Congress expressed outrage over many of its statements and claimed that the exhibit dishonored Pacific War veterans and whitewashed Japan’s role in the war. The text was actually very balanced, and in fact it pulled many valid punches that could have been thrown, but it was too much for the critics. Moreover, even after the Smithsonian issued a watered-down revision, defenders of the nuking of Japan still were not satisfied, so eventually the decision was made to cancel the exhibit.

The open letter below was written to the Smithsonian’s secretary, Michael Heyman, to protest the revised version of the exhibit’s text. The letter was signed by scholars from leading universities, including Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Ohio State, and MIT:

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.​
If you want to read the list of scholars who signed the letter, here is a link to the full letter:

Hiroshima: Historians' Letter to the Smithsonian


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was not addressed to me, but I will point out that, in point of fact, the Russians did invade Japan: they attacked the Kurile Islands, which had been part of Japan for some 80 years. The first attack brought on the Battle of Shumshu, where the Japanese put up stiff resistance for a while but then collapsed once the Soviets were able to use their naval guns and bring in air support when the weather cleared. Once the Soviets overran the rest of the Japanese forces on the islands, they proceeded to expel the 17,000 Japanese citizens who lived on them.
> 
> 
> 
> Russia attacked some tiny islands, so what, that was not japan ...?
Click to expand...




Not so “tiny,” and yes it was/is.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people continue to claim that the Japanese peace feelers in the months leading up to Hiroshima were all meaningless low-level approaches with no high-level support. In fact, this is a standard talking point among authors who defend the nuking of Japan. However, there are government records and plenty of scholarly studies that refute this claim. I will summarize some of the facts documented in those records and scholarship. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender_, and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.
> 
> -- Very few books on WWII mention the fact that in May 1945, Radio Tokyo’s English-language broadcast, which operated under government supervision, stated that if the Americans would drop their demand for unconditional surrender, Japan’s leaders might be willing to enter into negotiations to end the war (Marco Heinrichs and Galliccio, _Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945, _Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 15). This was an astounding statement to be aired on a radio station monitored by all the Allies and by much of Asia. However, Truman and his Japan-hating Secretary of State, James Byrnes, ignored it.
> 
> -- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.
> 
> Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.
> 
> -- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.
> 
> Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did _not_ shut down the approach.
> 
> Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.
> 
> So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support. In addition, the hardliners would not have been able to kill it if Truman, or a high official at Truman’s direction, had simply advised the Japanese that we would not depose the emperor if they surrendered according to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.
> 
> We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.
> 
> On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”
> 
> So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.
> 
> -- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel, in July 1945. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu’s, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.
> 
> This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.
> 
> When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.
> 
> We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”
> 
> William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.
> 
> -- Furthermore, _Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable_. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.
> 
> Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:
> 
> The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., The Forrestal Diaries(New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​
> 
> 
> 
> A japanese general talking to bankers in switzerland, a japanese general that was not speaking with the emperor? A japanese general with no official connection anybody associated with the emperor? He was speaking to bankers? Who were to get in touch with Dulles? In the middle of the Potsdam conference? This low level general was not in communication with tyoko? We were to take a japanese general talking to bankers in switzerland serious?
> 
> And while this was going on, Japan was attempting to negotiate with the russians, who were simply ignoring the japanese, and or leading them on.
> 
> These were pathetic attempts at surrender, one not even close to being official, the other involved russia? And yes there was the third? Maybe?
> 
> Well, we do know that no condition of surrender ever stated that the emperor had to step down, and that is what the emperor himself stated, when surrendering, that we had not demanded such.
> 
> The emperor also knew, that we had not bombed his palace, sparing his life, when we could of on numerous occasions.
Click to expand...



Don’t throw out your back moving those goal posts.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> People were also wounded and dying and rats were feeding on the bodies of the dead.  Nuking them would have fixed all this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuclear blast cure all disease
> 
> Trust me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trust you? Why? That last comment was completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust you?  Completely wrong?  Man, I don't trust anything you proffer any farther than I can fling shit.  You argue like a White Man's IM2.
Click to expand...




I was responding to frannie’s “trust me,” you stupid shit.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link yourself.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You thought WHAT ...?
Click to expand...





That you have been doing nothing but talking out your ass all along, liar.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... people were looting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link yourself.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You thought WHAT ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you have been doing nothing but talking out your ass all along, liar.
Click to expand...

You attracted to toobs ass there huh kid...……………...


----------



## Pogo

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That post hadn't even been addressed to me in the first place.  It's a simple dilution of what his post actually says, that's it.
> "Buy my Appeal to Emotion, or I'll beat the shit out of you".  Not exactly anything remotely near logical argument.  QED.
> 
> Again ---- reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, we see you consider yourself an elite intellectual snob.
Click to expand...



Actually I made no allusion whatsoever to myself or to intellectual anything at all.  You just completely made that up.




elektra said:


> A dilution of what the post says? No dumbass, it was not a dilution. I simply mangled the words so that post said something different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what he said is you got the shit beat out of you by a third grader wielding a nutshell, that is why you are so stupid. Put some ice on that brain damage.
> 
> 
> 
> It is called, satire, yes, SATIRE. And yes, reading comprehension is important. We dont expect any from you, you read much into a post that you paraphrased in a nefarious manner. That is why I used satire to point out how stupid your post was.
Click to expand...


That isn't even remotely related to satire".  It's a simple example of your illiteracy, where you read MY comment about SOMEBODY ELSE's post responding to a THIRD PARTY ----- none of which have jack squat to do with you ---- and took them personally on the basis of nothing but your own inability to read.  Not to mention your complete cluelessness as to what the word "satire" means. 

I figure this level of wanton illiteracy is the same failing that produces the phrase "would of".




elektra said:


> Your quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell what you're saying here is "buy my Appeal to Emotion or I'll beat the shit out of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it now?
Click to expand...


I "got it" when I first fucking posted it, Dweebles.  You on the other hand are still lost.

Here's a tip: try confining yourself to missives that are actually directed TO you.  Clearly you're not cut out for anything more complex.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link yourself.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You thought WHAT ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you have been doing nothing but talking out your ass all along, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attracted to toobs ass there huh kid...……………...
Click to expand...



You and Salty can go be stupid together somewhere else.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> In 1995, under pressure from some members of Congress and the leaders of some veterans groups, the Smithsonian Institution canceled its planned exhibit on the _Enola Gay _and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki_. _When the first text of the exhibit was released, leaders of certain veterans groups and some members of Congress expressed outrage over many of its statements and claimed that the exhibit dishonored Pacific War veterans and whitewashed Japan’s role in the war. The text was actually very balanced, and in fact it pulled many valid punches that could have been thrown, but it was too much for the critics. Moreover, even after the Smithsonian issued a watered-down revision, defenders of the nuking of Japan still were not satisfied, so eventually the decision was made to cancel the exhibit.
> 
> The open letter below was written to the Smithsonian’s secretary, Michael Heyman, to protest the revised version of the exhibit’s text. The letter was signed by scholars from leading universities, including Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Ohio State, and MIT:
> 
> 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.​
> If you want to read the list of scholars who signed the letter, here is a link to the full letter:
> 
> Hiroshima: Historians' Letter to the Smithsonian


Yes, we get it, you hate America. 

Stimson was for dropping the bomb. 
Everyone who knew of the bomb, everyone, agreed it must be dropped. 

You see, it was dropped to save American lives. Lives you have stated, in so many words, are lives not worth saving.

You are a disgusting individual. For despite you lengthy "reports". None of them are factual. They are all Fiction based on fact. 

Arguing that Hiroshima is no different than San Fransisco is pure ignorance, but technically, it is a pure lie. 
It is a statement that the lazy, the dumb, the gullible would believe. 

San Fransisco has no industry
Hiroshima manufactured parts for war ships, for fighter planes. Hiroshima was a center for war.

San Fransisco, Presido, yes, an Army Headquarters very active during the war. San Fransisco thus is a legitimate target. 

Hiroshima, Army Headquarters, thus a legitimate target.

Another revisionist's post, destroyed.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> I "got it" when I first fucking posted it, Dweebles.  You on the other hand are still lost.
> 
> Here's a tip: try confining yourself to missives that are actually directed TO you.  Clearly you're not cut out for anything more complex.


Fuck you asshole, I will respond to any of your posts whatever way that I please. I will also point out when you are not smart enough to comprehend satire. 

I did not expect you to admit your stupidity in failing to comprehend satire, but hey, you are what you are.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Don’t throw out your back moving those goal posts.


Dont throw out your brain, trying to join the conversation.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Not so “tiny,” and yes it was/is.


Yea, I guess perspective is everything, nothing seems tiny to a tiny person. Seems you need another history lesson, which is pretty much true every time you post.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t throw out your back moving those goal posts.
> 
> 
> 
> Dont throw out your brain, trying to join the conversation.
Click to expand...



You're doing a great job losing so far.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so “tiny,” and yes it was/is.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I guess perspective is everything, nothing seems tiny to a tiny person. Seems you need another history lesson, which is pretty much true every time you post.
Click to expand...



I'm a History teacher. How about you, big mouth?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * "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]​


​Yet, history shows that Japan attempted to surrender to Russia, and that Russia refused to accept a surrender from japan. That is the short story. Of course mikegriffter1 posted that japan was conversing with russia about a surrender (dumb asses' post was cherry picked and paraphrased revisionist history) here: The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

But all that aside, the obvious fact of history is, Japan did not surrender the day russia attacked the helpless defenseless japanese. In fact, Japan fought against russia for another 8 days after the surrendered! 

Yep, so afraid of the Russians, the Japanese fought against Russia until they officially surrendered to us which forced them to stop all hostilities against russia. 

I firmly believe, had we not dropped the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki, had we not continued our war with Japan. Japan would of totally destroyed Russia.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> You're doing a great job losing so far.


There you go, you threw your brain out, now you said something really stupid, again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



Meh.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> I'm a History teacher. How about you, big mouth?


You do not post like one, you seem very stupid when it comes to this subject. 

Maybe you should back off on trying to insult, and try history. Ah, never mind, you have done both and are lousy at both. Hey, maybe you could rate my post as funny cause that really hurts. 

HA HA HA


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> 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.​



Yet we did obliterate Hiroshema and that did obviate the invasion in November. 
What a very stupid thing to say. I can not call it ignorant because the facts are actually stated in the sentence, so ignorance is no excuse. 

Yes, a very stupid statement. 

Who did the cut/paste here. I think they simply find something on google and post it not realizing that it actually proves the morality in ending the war in early August, instead of over a half year later. 
​


----------



## toobfreak

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link yourself.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You thought WHAT ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you have been doing nothing but talking out your ass all along, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attracted to toobs ass there huh kid...……………...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and Salty can go be stupid together somewhere else.
Click to expand...



I guess as a 3rd rate Bostonian substitute teacher / shit freak working two jobs just to make ends meet, you'd be an expert in stupid and talking out of your ass!    Still waiting for you to show us you know the first thing about military strategy, history OR fighting techniques;  my guess is that like everything else, it's just more empty blather and any 8th grade child could probably knock you down with a handful of peanuts.


----------



## toobfreak

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a History teacher. How about you, big mouth?
> 
> 
> 
> You do not post like one, you seem very stupid when it comes to this subject.
> 
> Maybe you should back off on trying to insult, and try history. Ah, never mind, you have done both and are lousy at both. Hey, maybe you could rate my post as funny cause that really hurts.
> 
> HA HA HA
Click to expand...



I thought he was a wrestling instructor!
No, I thought he was a Jiu Jitsu instructor!
No actually he's probably a french frier and milkshake technician at some Bostonian Burger King.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link yourself.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You thought WHAT ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you have been doing nothing but talking out your ass all along, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attracted to toobs ass there huh kid...……………...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and Salty can go be stupid together somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Make me farthead


----------



## sparky

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so “tiny,” and yes it was/is.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I guess perspective is everything, nothing seems tiny to a tiny person. Seems you need another history lesson, which is pretty much true every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a History teacher. How about you, big mouth?
Click to expand...


my LOL for the day Unkotare....

I'm an electrician , which so many DIY'ers think they can be....

~S~


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> I'm a History teacher. How about you, big mouth?


I guess, I am someone that shows you dont know the first thing about teaching.

Maybe you could link to s post tha th you believe highlights your teaching of history. Mostly you troll, so I guess you must teach history you just have not demonstrated a knowledge of history or teaching.

I guess you could be a common core teacher, ha, ha, ha! 



Look, I can see John Toland's Rising Sun, referenced here in this thread by mikegriffter1


----------



## elektra




----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a History teacher. How about you, big mouth?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess, I am someone that shows you dont know the first thing about teaching.....
Click to expand...





Let me guess, because you bought a book, right? 


Hilarious.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You thought WHAT ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you have been doing nothing but talking out your ass all along, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attracted to toobs ass there huh kid...……………...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and Salty can go be stupid together somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make me farthead
Click to expand...



"Make me"? You're a 13 year-old boy?


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> ....... OR fighting techniques;  my guess is that like everything else, it's just more empty blather and any 8th grade child could probably knock you down with a handful of peanuts.






I knew you couldn't resist playing the clown again soon! You have a Cobra Kai tattoo, don't you stripmall hero?


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a History teacher. How about you, big mouth?
> 
> 
> 
> You do not post like one, you seem very stupid when it comes to this subject.
> 
> Maybe you should back off on trying to insult, and try history. Ah, never mind, you have done both and are lousy at both. Hey, maybe you could rate my post as funny cause that really hurts.
> 
> HA HA HA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I thought he was a wrestling instructor!
> No, I thought he was a Jiu Jitsu instructor!
> No actually he's probably a french frier and milkshake technician at some Bostonian Burger King.
Click to expand...



Ah, so you and your 'buddy' feel threatened for different reasons, eh Cleese?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens you reduce the time in which the japs had to think of surrender to 3 days and you call that obscene.

Your appeal to emotion and for sympathy to an enemy actively engaged in murder of innocents is the first reason you lost your argument for morality, in war.

Your article is a false premise you were unable to defend.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......
Click to expand...



You don't hold America to a higher standard than WWII Imperial Japan? Really? That's insulting.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You thought WHAT ...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you have been doing nothing but talking out your ass all along, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You attracted to toobs ass there huh kid...……………...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and Salty can go be stupid together somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make me farthead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Make me"? You're a 13 year-old boy?
Click to expand...

No just pointing out that you are making internet demands as though you are in charge.  The fact is that you have no way to enforce your babyshit demands so it would seem that you are a pouting 8 year old girl

Grow up


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't hold America to a higher standard than WWII Imperial Japan? Really? That's insulting.
Click to expand...

America has and always did have a higher standard,

Nukem dead


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> You don't hold America to a higher standard than WWII Imperial Japan? Really? That's insulting.


You do not have the intelligence nor knowledge of history to articulate how America was not, upholding a higher standard.

And you call yourself a history teacher  Again you do nothing but troll. It would be even sadder if you claim you are not trolling.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki,​
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



Mikegriffter1 inserts much of his/her own prejudices and bigotry into his OP. Obscene? Such a sensational descriptive inserting emotion and rage into your opinion of history.

But, to the point. A simple question, not asked, and which is more important than anything else posted.

How many days should we have waited between bombs?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. .


What a pretentious elitist snob of an ass you are. 

You begin by insulting anybody who disagrees with your opinion. That makes this a simple troll thread. 

You also dictate that everyone is wrong, hence you set a rule that only you are right.

Yes, many responses, which I understand gives you a feeling of accomplishment. But again I am pointing out how you failed and again I will point out that you will not be able to save your OP from another obvious failure on your part.

This failure is your lack of character, as well as your basic lack of respect while engaging others.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't hold America to a higher standard than WWII Imperial Japan? Really? That's insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America has and always did have a higher standard,
> 
> Nukem dead
Click to expand...




Those are not the words of an American, just a punk.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't hold America to a higher standard than WWII Imperial Japan? Really? That's insulting.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have the intelligence nor knowledge of history to articulate how America was not, upholding a higher standard.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...



Are you kidding?


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't hold America to a higher standard than WWII Imperial Japan? Really? That's insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America has and always did have a higher standard,
> 
> Nukem dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not the words of an American, just a punk.
Click to expand...

So Truman was not American

Sillypoo


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. .


A scientific team? That is a strawman argument. So much of your OP is simply over the top hyperbole, versus regular hyperbole.

Everything the japanese needed to know, was known 30 minutes after the bomb was dropped. 

Hiroshima is gone. Time to process? 30 minutes

Time to write and announce, "We surrender", 5 minutes


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.





elektra said:


> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......



Can you get any more barbaric and inhumane? First of all, the number of Japanese civilians that we killed dwarfs the number of American citizens that the Japanese killed. We excoriated the Japanese for bombing a few cities in China, but then we turned around and bombed over 60 Japanese cities and killed over 500,000 civilians in the process, most of them women and children. But you just don't care, do you?

It is sad that you can't even admit that nuking another Japanese city three days after Hiroshima was unbelievably cruel and barbaric. Even McGeorge Bundy was willing to admit that that was wrong.

Second, we murdered thousands of Japanese POWs and Japanese soldiers who were trying to surrender. Even worse, the Soviets murdered most of the hundreds of thousands of Japanese POWs they took in Manchuria and the Kuriles. Yet, we let the Soviets put judges on the war crimes tribunals that were held in Europe and Asia after the war.


----------



## Frannie

mikegriffith1 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you get any more barbaric and inhumane? First of all, the number of Japanese civilians that we killed dwarfs the number of American citizens that the Japanese killed. We excoriated the Japanese for bombing a few cities in China, but then we turned around and bombed over 60 of Japanese cities and killed over 500,000 civilians in the process, most of them women and children.
> 
> It is sad that you can't even admit that nuking another Japanese city three days after Hiroshima was unbelievably cruel and barbaric. Even McGeorge Bundy was willing to admit that that was wrong.
> 
> Second, we murdered thousands of Japanese POWs and Japanese soldiers who were trying to surrender. Even worse, the Soviets murdered most of the hundreds of thousands of Japanese POWs they took in Manchuria and the Kuriles. Yet, we let the Soviets put judges on the war crimes tribunals that were held in Europe and Asia after the war.
Click to expand...

Fuck you nippy, I would have dropped those bombs myself


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Can you get any more barbaric and inhumane?


I am simply discussing what happened in history. There in no inhumanity or barbarism in me. That you attach inhumanity and barbarism to my words on a message board reflects your character, not mine.

1st it shows what you dictate what others must think of me. You simply can not present your opinion than allow us to share the facts we know. You first dictate what all responses to your OP indicate of the individual posting them.

On that basis alone, you have failed to support your premise. You have created a troll thread. 1st dictating that everyone who posts facts that counter your opinion are simply immoral.

You have posted revisionist history  I have easily proven wrong. You do so, to flame, to troll, to demean, and anger good people. Insults disguised as history. Again you failed at proving the premise of this thread.

As you can see, I am going through your OP tearing apart your cheap posts. It is very easy to do.

I can not let your rants and protests and your tantrums distract too much. I am having lots of fun showing the fallacy in your OP.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't hold America to a higher standard than WWII Imperial Japan? Really? That's insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America has and always did have a higher standard,
> 
> Nukem dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not the words of an American, just a punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Truman was not American
> 
> Sillypoo
Click to expand...




Show me a quote from puppet Truman saying that slaughtering civilians with the glee you expressed is an American value.


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you get any more barbaric and inhumane? First of all, the number of Japanese civilians that we killed dwarfs the number of American citizens that the Japanese killed. We excoriated the Japanese for bombing a few cities in China, but then we turned around and bombed over 60 of Japanese cities and killed over 500,000 civilians in the process, most of them women and children.
> 
> It is sad that you can't even admit that nuking another Japanese city three days after Hiroshima was unbelievably cruel and barbaric. Even McGeorge Bundy was willing to admit that that was wrong.
> 
> Second, we murdered thousands of Japanese POWs and Japanese soldiers who were trying to surrender. Even worse, the Soviets murdered most of the hundreds of thousands of Japanese POWs they took in Manchuria and the Kuriles. Yet, we let the Soviets put judges on the war crimes tribunals that were held in Europe and Asia after the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you nippy, I would have dropped those bombs myself
Click to expand...





As if the likes of you would ever be in a position of authority.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you get any more barbaric and inhumane? First of all, the number of Japanese civilians that we killed dwarfs the number of American citizens that the Japanese killed. We excoriated the Japanese for bombing a few cities in China, but then we turned around and bombed over 60 of Japanese cities and killed over 500,000 civilians in the process, most of them women and children.
> 
> It is sad that you can't even admit that nuking another Japanese city three days after Hiroshima was unbelievably cruel and barbaric. Even McGeorge Bundy was willing to admit that that was wrong.
> 
> Second, we murdered thousands of Japanese POWs and Japanese soldiers who were trying to surrender. Even worse, the Soviets murdered most of the hundreds of thousands of Japanese POWs they took in Manchuria and the Kuriles. Yet, we let the Soviets put judges on the war crimes tribunals that were held in Europe and Asia after the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you nippy, I would have dropped those bombs myself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As if the likes of you would ever be in a position of authority.
Click to expand...

Okeedokee Nippy, what was th

Bye


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
> 
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."​



​McGeorge Bundy? This is how weak, how pathetic, mikegriffith's opinion is. So weak and flimsy is his ideas of morality that, mikegriffter must begin his OP using McGeorge Bundy as the basis of his opinion.

McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!

McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!

McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!

I will argue that Gomer Pyle knew more during WW II than Bundy!!!!!

What does it say about the OP, about it's author, that this is the basis of all they believe? What did Bundy say the day after the bomb was dropped?




> Thank God the War is over



You really are a fool, nothing more.


----------



## elektra

Morality, arguing morality with those who would marry their daughter and or have 10 wives that are underage makes me the fool.


----------



## Pogo

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. .
> 
> 
> 
> What a pretentious elitist snob of an ass you are.
> 
> You begin by insulting anybody who disagrees with your opinion. That makes this a simple troll thread.
> 
> You also dictate that everyone is wrong, hence you set a rule that only you are right.
Click to expand...


Ironical post is ironical. And oblivious to self-awareness.


----------



## Third Party

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


There are low life scums, and I must say, you are one. Period. 

First, you are nothing but a dirty filthy liar. 
Second, you are a weak pathetic coward.

You are a MORMON!!! 

You started a thread based on your religious belief. That killing is immoral according to the Mormon religion. You hunt around the internet to find what other people state, and attempt to present the quotes as fact, instead of expressing the Mormon church view. Many of the quotes given, are cherry picked and taken out of context. I have not seen links to your quotes? I have asked for them but have not been given them. That is because you know that you arguing as a mormon while hiding behind what others say.

The mormon's religious choice is impossible to defend, as we have seen, by the weak pathetic use of revisionist history written by others. 

That is a cowardly way to present your religion's (as well as your) moral choice.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> Ironical post is ironical. And oblivious to self-awareness.


Irony, that would be the fact the mikegriffter is arguing his religious view as a Mormon and you never figuring it out. 

Oblivious, that is irony, you are oblivious that this is an OP based on one person's personal religious view. That of a Mormon. 

Why do you think I am so hard on the guy, it is cause he is a liar and has been posting very cowardly. The guy is a liar and was and is hiding behind other people's words. 

Why do you post pogo, or better yet, how come you have not stepped up to tackle the tough questions I put to the mormon?


----------



## elektra

Third Party said:


> Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.


It is obvious that this is not over for this person. He is a mormon and runs his own website. He has paid to run an ad, or a topic of himself on wikipedia. So this guy is self-promoting himself. I am not sure of all the places he promotes himself but he does pay google so that he can be found on wikipedia as well as to have his website found.

This is just another way for him to create traffic and interest in what he says about his religious beliefs.

And yes, this is a thinly disguised religious thread.

The author is a mormon who believes all killing is sin and that any killing is against his religion.

So that is the answer to why he brings this up, it is a theme of his. Maybe he teaches mormons this in school. Maybe he is one of those professors that teaches hate in the school room. Who knows. But at the least, and without further searching, this is what I have learned to be pure fact.

This is the age when one must make an internet presence that creates traffic. Popularity on the internet, even negative popularity is good. There are many people who appreciate the view, that the USA is the World's bad guys, that the world must fight against us. Chances are, this man makes money trashing our great country.


----------



## Pogo

elektra said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironical post is ironical. And oblivious to self-awareness.
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, that would be the fact the mikegriffter is arguing his religious view as a Mormon and you never figuring it out.
> 
> Oblivious, that is irony, you are oblivious that this is an OP based on one person's personal religious view. That of a Mormon.
> 
> Why do you think I am so hard on the guy, it is cause he is a liar and has been posting very cowardly. The guy is a liar and was and is hiding behind other people's words.
> 
> Why do you post pogo, or better yet, how come you have not stepped up to tackle the tough questions I put to the mormon?
Click to expand...


Why am I not surprised that your cluelessness of what _irony _means is commensurate with that of your ignorance of _satire_.

The irony, sir, is here, where you fling turds that exactly describe your own MO, at other people:



elektra said:


> What a pretentious elitist snob of an ass you are.
> 
> You begin by insulting anybody who disagrees with your opinion. That makes this a simple troll thread.
> 
> You also dictate that everyone is wrong, hence you set a rule that only you are right.




--- which you cut out of the quote as inconvenient, which in turn tells us that you actually_ do_ understand the criticism, and have no brighter retort than to play dumb.

The OP has submitted a valid topic for discussion.  All you've done is throw hissyfits and call people names.


----------



## elektra

Pogo said:


> The OP has submitted a valid topic for discussion.  All you've done is throw hissyfits and call people names.


Why dont you quit your crying and try to tackle one of those dam hard posts. All you do is whine while ratng posts funny.

Weak you are.

Valid topic yes, a discussion? No, not at all. Pontificating on his part


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bring this up now-you weren't thereits over. Move on.
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious that this is not over for this person. He is a mormon and runs his own website. He has paid to run an ad, or a topic of himself on wikipedia. So this guy is self-promoting himself. I am not sure of all the places he promotes himself but he does pay google so that he can be found on wikipedia as well as to have his website found.
> 
> This is just another way for him to create traffic and interest in what he says about his religious beliefs.
> 
> And yes, this is a thinly disguised religious thread.
> 
> The author is a mormon who believes all killing is sin and that any killing is against his religion.
> 
> So that is the answer to why he brings this up, it is a theme of his. Maybe he teaches mormons this in school. Maybe he is one of those professors that teaches hate in the school room. Who knows. But at the least, and without further searching, this is what I have learned to be pure fact.
> 
> This is the age when one must make an internet presence that creates traffic. Popularity on the internet, even negative popularity is good. There are many people who appreciate the view, that the USA is the World's bad guys, that the world must fight against us. Chances are, this man makes money trashing our great country.
Click to expand...


Huh???  What does my religion, which you clearly know nothing about, have to do with this?  And, no, I haven't paid Wikipedia to do a Wikipage on me. Nor have I paid Google to help people find my website. And, no, the Mormon faith does not teach that all killing is wrong--we distinguish between murdering someone and killing someone in self-defense or in a valid act of war. It is comical that you see my OP as a "thinly veiled religious" OP.

Now, please explain how I have "trashed" our great country?  Humm?  Is criticism of a government official automatically the same as "trashing our great country" in your mind?  That's the only way that you could believe that I have trashed America.

Patriotism is not blindly defending government officials when they do wrong. On the contrary, criticizing government officials when they do actions that violate the Constitution, violate the rules of war, and trample on basic human decency is the patriotic duty of every citizen.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bring this up now-you weren't thereits over. Move on.
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious that this is not over for this person. He is a mormon and runs his own website. He has paid to run an ad, or a topic of himself on wikipedia. So this guy is self-promoting himself. I am not sure of all the places he promotes himself but he does pay google so that he can be found on wikipedia as well as to have his website found.
> 
> This is just another way for him to create traffic and interest in what he says about his religious beliefs.
> 
> And yes, this is a thinly disguised religious thread.
> 
> The author is a mormon who believes all killing is sin and that any killing is against his religion.
> 
> So that is the answer to why he brings this up, it is a theme of his. Maybe he teaches mormons this in school. Maybe he is one of those professors that teaches hate in the school room. Who knows. But at the least, and without further searching, this is what I have learned to be pure fact.
> 
> This is the age when one must make an internet presence that creates traffic. Popularity on the internet, even negative popularity is good. There are many people who appreciate the view, that the USA is the World's bad guys, that the world must fight against us. Chances are, this man makes money trashing our great country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh???  What does my religion, which you clearly know nothing about, have to do with this?  And, no, I haven't paid Wikipedia to do a Wikipage on me. Nor have I paid Google to help people find my website. And, no, the Mormon faith does not teach that all killing is wrong--we distinguish between murdering someone and killing someone in self-defense or in a valid act of war. It is comical that you see my OP as a "thinly veiled religious" OP.
> 
> Now, please explain how I have "trashed" our great country?  Humm?  Is criticism of a government official automatically the same as "trashing our great country" in your mind?  That's the only way that you could believe that I have trashed America.
> 
> Patriotism is not blindly defending government officials when they do wrong. On the contrary, criticizing government officials when they do actions that violate the Constitution, violate the rules of war, and trample on basic human decency is the patriotic duty of every citizen.
Click to expand...

I say you're liar. Your religion has everything to do with your opinion expressed here.

MORALITY, the morality of your religious belief, as a MORMON is what you have argued.

Government officials? Like McGeorge Bundy, a lieutenant in WW II? 

Comical, yes it is comical when you rely on 26 year old army officers for a quote? 

Have you responded to my post bringing that up, of course not, because you have continually failed at proving the premise of your post.

I get it, you di not give a rat's ass that our young men were being brutally beat, tortured, and killed every day they were prisoners.

Yes, you dont give a shit and it is disgusting. Good americans should boycott the likes of you and every thing you are involved in.

Our leaders ended war, you argue that we should of lost the war.

Go ahead, explain how you would of won without killing a soul. 

Oh I got you, you won't explain anything. You won't support or explain any of your posts. You will not link to your sources or the things you auote.

You just pile on more bullshit you can not defend.

H8w about those studies you made claim of. You going to link?

You do not know what patriotism is, not to america. You have a lesser understanding of war. 

Pathetic, wear it proud.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> [Q
> 
> Huh???  What does my religion, which you clearly know nothing about, have to do with this?
> 
> 
> 
> Now, please explain how I have "trashed" our great country?  Humm?  Is criticism of a government official automatically the same as "trashing our great country" in your mind?  That's the only way that you could believe that I have trashed America.



You are asking questions of me, when in your OP you have refused to answer any questions.

You trash our country now act like you have done nothing but criticized?

Calling the USA immoral, barbaric, is simply criticizing?

Yes, you trash this great country based on your ignorance and mormon religious beliefs.


----------



## elektra

It is nice to see the author of this OP can take the time to reply when I call him out on hiding his religious belief while trashing our fine history and leaders.

But the griffter can not take the time to answer any post that asks for a clarification of his contradictory statements or when asked to provide links to studies he claims prove his points.

The op is full of quotes with nothing linked our sources, where is the reply?

Nope, nothing, the griffter has simply trashed and insulted the USA and when questioned, he piles on again, with simple, hateful, mean, commentary.

That is right, if I can use mgriffter's words, you immoral barbaric americans!


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you get any more barbaric and inhumane? First of all, the number of Japanese civilians that we killed dwarfs the number of American citizens that the Japanese killed. We excoriated the Japanese for bombing a few cities in China, but then we turned around and bombed over 60 of Japanese cities and killed over 500,000 civilians in the process, most of them women and children.
> 
> It is sad that you can't even admit that nuking another Japanese city three days after Hiroshima was unbelievably cruel and barbaric. Even McGeorge Bundy was willing to admit that that was wrong.
> 
> Second, we murdered thousands of Japanese POWs and Japanese soldiers who were trying to surrender. Even worse, the Soviets murdered most of the hundreds of thousands of Japanese POWs they took in Manchuria and the Kuriles. Yet, we let the Soviets put judges on the war crimes tribunals that were held in Europe and Asia after the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you nippy, I would have dropped those bombs myself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As if the likes of you would ever be in a position of authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okeedokee Nippy, what was th
> 
> Bye
Click to expand...



 You keep trying to make absurd declarations about this topic, which only highlights the fact that you are harboring deep feelings of guilt about it and do not have the courage to reflect upon yourself directly.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> There are low life scums, and I must say, you are one. Period.
> 
> First, you are nothing but a dirty filthy liar.
> Second, you are a weak pathetic coward.
> 
> You are a MORMON!!!
> 
> You started a thread based on your religious belief. That killing is immoral according to the Mormon religion. You hunt around the internet to find what other people state, and attempt to present the quotes as fact, instead of expressing the Mormon church view. Many of the quotes given, are cherry picked and taken out of context. I have not seen links to your quotes? I have asked for them but have not been given them. That is because you know that you arguing as a mormon while hiding behind what others say.
> 
> The mormon's religious choice is impossible to defend, as we have seen, by the weak pathetic use of revisionist history written by others.
> 
> That is a cowardly way to present your religion's (as well as your) moral choice.
Click to expand...





And now you are trying to hide your guilt behind the most clumsy and obvious religious bigotry. You are only making yourself more and more obvious


----------



## Unkotare

Third Party said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.
Click to expand...




 You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Morality, arguing morality with those who would marry their daughter and or have 10 wives that are underage makes me the fool.





 There is another forum dedicated to religious bigotry of the sort you are now trying to hide behind. Why not take your irrational hatred there instead of very transparently trying to use it as a deflection here?


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> You keep trying to make absurd declarations about this topic, which only highlights the fact that you are harboring deep feelings of guilt about it and do not have the courage to reflect upon yourself directly.


You are a moron who's user name is a sexual perversion. Go drink a cup of maturity, delete your profile and come back as a human.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima


Nice adjectives? Is that correct mr. griffter? After all you are the super college educated master and bashing the USA?

Bashing you say, well, again I will point out the obvious insults you have directed at the patriotic Americans. 

You call our leaders, "Immoral", You call their actions "Immoral". You call events in our history that was necessary to win a war, "immoral". 

Then you follow that up by dictating that if we are to offer facts of history, that those facts are, "embarrassing arguments".

So yes, you have flamed and trolled with the title of your OP and with your very first statement. Where is the proof, in the title, or in your opening statement, of the immorality?

And of course, what you do not dare to tell us because you are afraid and can not defend, is that you are a mormon and you are arguing your religious beliefs. 

Cowardly and unjust you behave. You denigrate and insult and then act as if we are the offensive when we react to the tone you have set by being a big fat prick!

So explain the title, your opening statement, show us how it is not a troll thread, flaming those who respond. show us how you are simply not some worthless angry fuck, angry at americans, with this obviously demeaning attack on our patriotism and our knowledge of history and  war.


----------



## elektra

As everyone will now see, I will challenge mr griffter to explain, support, and apologize, for opening a thread that is an attack on our grand history. 

Mr griffter will ignore this, who will not have a response, unless it is to attack me and try to demean and marginalize me, as if I have the problem.

Mr griffter has alread said, that it is simply a criticism when he describes the actions of our military leaders, immoral, unnecessary, and so forth. I could dig up more insults but I will stick the slander dip wad began this thread with.  

The asshole came here to insult, nothing more, as well as to self promote himself, as he does across the internet. All media that he can use to make a name for himself. 

After the dumbass made his opening statement this is his next line:



> From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":



Yea, go ahead and deny that you did not begin this thread, as a troll, flaming all those that disagree with you, and that you are promoting yourself here. 

Do not expect a real reply, other than to attack me.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to make absurd declarations about this topic, which only highlights the fact that you are harboring deep feelings of guilt about it and do not have the courage to reflect upon yourself directly.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moron......... Go drink a cup of maturity, delete your profile and come back as a human.
Click to expand...



You gonna throw another hissy fit over religion now, bigot? Have you got anything left but screaming and stomping your little feet?


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> Nice adjectives? Is that correct mr. griffter? After all you are the super college educated master and bashing the USA?
> 
> Bashing you say, well, again I will point out the obvious insults you have directed at the patriotic Americans.
> 
> You call our leaders, "Immoral", You call their actions "Immoral". You call events in our history that was necessary to win a war, "immoral".
> 
> Then you follow that up by dictating that if we are to offer facts of history, that those facts are, "embarrassing arguments".
> 
> So yes, you have flamed and trolled with the title of your OP and with your very first statement. Where is the proof, in the title, or in your opening statement, of the immorality?
> 
> And of course, what you do not dare to tell us because you are afraid and can not defend, is that you are a mormon and you are arguing your religious beliefs.
> 
> Cowardly and unjust you behave. You denigrate and insult and then act as if we are the offensive when we react to the tone you have set by being a big fat prick!
> 
> So explain the title, your opening statement, show us how it is not a troll thread, flaming those who respond. show us how you are simply not some worthless angry #($($, angry at americans, with this obviously demeaning attack on our patriotism and our knowledge of history and  war.
Click to expand...


What in the world are you talking about?  "Angry at Americans"?  Huh? Criticizing a handful of politicians and their killing of hundreds of thousands of women and children is not the same as attacking all Americans. Were Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur and Admirals Leahy and Halsey, among many other senior American officers, "angry at Americans" because they said we should not have nuked Japan?

Apparently your idea of "patriotism" is to blindly support FDR and Truman's handling of WWII, never mind the fact that their policies led to the subjugation of Eastern Europe to Soviet tyranny, the subjugation of China to Maoist Communist tyranny, the subjugation of North Korea to Communist tyranny, and the murder of tens of millions of Chinese by Mao's Communist regime.

Based on everything I've seen you say so far, you really don't seem to care very much about those terrible events, and you don't seem very interested in attacking the Soviets and the Maoists and the Nationalists, but you excoriate the Japanese, even though they killed fewer people than did the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Chinese Communists, and even though they were strongly anti-communist and pro-capitalist.

By any rational measurement, the Japanese were clearly the lesser of the available evils, but FDR and Truman chose to support the worst of the evils and to nuke the lesser of them.


----------



## Third Party

Unkotare said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.
Click to expand...

I hope YOU are not talking to ME!


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> What in the world are you talking about?  "Angry at Americans"?  Huh? Criticizing a handful of politicians and their killing of hundreds of thousands of women and children is not the same as attacking all Americans.


Criticizing a handful of politicians? You started your thread criticizing everybody who offered facts that your opinion does not agree with!

Your opening statement makes you a lousy liar! 


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later.



If you care to clarify, go ahead. If you care to apologize, go ahead, but don't piss down my back and then tell me it is raining!!!


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Criticizing a handful of politicians? You started your thread criticizing everybody who offered facts that your opinion does not agree with!



I did not attack any person; rather, I attacked the excuses that have been offered for nuking two defenseless cities of a country whose civilians leaders were already willing to surrender and that was on the verge of collapse. There is a difference.

Again, you excoriate the Japanese for their sins but seem uninterested in the sins of the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Communists, whose sins were clearly worse than those of the Japanese. 

You excoriate the Japanese for Nanking but seem just fine with our conventional bombing of over 60 Japanese cities, which killed at least 500,000 people, most of them women and children, not to mention our nuking of two defenseless Japanese cities, which killed at least 200,000 more civilians, most of them, again, women and children, even though Truman knew that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender and needed his help to overcome the hardliners. 

Even the vaguely worded Byrnes Note provided enough leverage for the moderates to create a situation where the emperor was able to order the hardliners to agree to a surrender.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Were Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur and Admirals Leahy and Halsey, among many other senior American officers, "angry at Americans" because they said we should not have nuked Japan?


The first person you meniton at the beginning of this thread is McGeorge Bundy? You are a scholar? You write books? Revisionist books? You are oh so college educated, right? So why do you choose Bundy to begin your OP? Why do you not tell us that during World War II that Bundy had absolutely nothing to do with dropping the Atomic Bomb. Why do you not tell us that Bundy knew absolutely nothing about the existence of the bomb. How about explaining, how a Lt. in the army during world war II is relevant in this argument? 

The simple answer is, you simply found an opinion expressed many years later that confirmed you mormon religious convictions, that this was immoral! 

From the beginning of the OP, now you mention Eisenhower? But you began the thread with Bundy. So let us talk about Bundy and what he knew in that early august of 1945, which was absolutely NOTHING!!!!

Those who do not know, are quick to try to bury us with many cut/pastes, many people that we are suppose to research. Already, while ignoring everything the OP is based on the Griffter expects me to research a half dozen names that he throws out. No quotes, no links, no points of reference. Just the dictate, that they somehow sometime somewhere said what the big lousy jerk dictates we are to believe!!!!!!!!!


> Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> You gonna throw another hissy fit over religion now, bigot? Have you got anything left but screaming and stomping your little feet?


Urban Dictionary: Unkotare

As long as you can not stay on the topic of History, maybe you can explain this?

Go ahead, history teacher!


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I did not attack any person; rather, I attacked the excuses that have been offered for nuking two defenseless cities of a country whose civilians leaders were already willing to surrender and that was on the verge of collapse. There is a difference.
> 
> Again, you excoriate the Japanese for their sins but seem uninterested in the sins of the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Communists, whose sins were clearly worse than those of the Japanese.


I deleted much here. How about backing up to your first post. I have addressed much in that. Stuff you keep ignoring? Why is that? Did you begin this thread on a Mormon religous premise while you were personally pissed at the USA? You called us immoral, you said any response would be embarrassing on our part. Why do you not reply to the post I made? Are you not man enough to admit you made a mistake or is that your character? The character of a troll who only created this thread to demean, flame, and troll? 

If you are unwilling to address even the first lines of your OP, then you are a piece of shit! Seriously. I can move on if you willing to state what the hell you were thinking. It is obviously not directed at anybody in history? Did you simply not explain it correctly? You are too educated for that. Being called out is obviously embarrassing. It takes a man to admit being wrong.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I did not attack any person; rather, I attacked the excuses that have been offered for nuking two defenseless cities of a country whose civilians leaders were already willing to surrender and that was on the verge of collapse. There is a difference.
> 
> Again, you excoriate the Japanese for their sins but seem uninterested in the sins of the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Communists, whose sins were clearly worse than those of the Japanese.
> 
> You excoriate the Japanese for Nanking but seem just fine with our conventional bombing of over 60 Japanese cities, which killed at least 500,000 people, most of them women and children, not to mention our nuking of two defenseless Japanese cities, which killed at least 200,000 more civilians, most of them, again, women and children, even though Truman knew that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender and needed his help to overcome the hardliners.
> 
> Even the vaguely worded Byrnes Note provided enough leverage for the moderates to create a situation where the emperor was able to order the hardliners to agree to a surrender.


And here it is, a reply that does not address my post which quoted the OP., which quoted the first post that started this thread. 

So instead of debating and discussing what I point out as being false, as being lies, as being irrelevant or simply insults. Mr Griffter wishes for me to discuss something other than the opinions and misinformation that begins this OP? 

No, asshole, you do not get to move on and ignore what you wrote! You do not get to move beyond. You wrote it, defend it or admit you are wrong.


----------



## elektra

I guess, it will be at least another day, ha, ha, ha, in which the griffter will answer to the comments he has made. The prick said it, the prick began the OP on these comments, why can not the prick address the comments! 

I understand it is hard to admit that he intentionally insulted everybody. He argues otherwise, but it is there for everyone to see. The title and his opening statement. 

Then he brings up McGeorge Bundy, a 26 year old lieutenant in the army during WW II? A person who never knew a bomb was being built. A person who was not involved in anyway with the strategy to end the war? Simply a person who may have expressed an opinion similar to the the griffter?  I say may have because we have no link, no source to where this statement was made, which context it was made. But who cares? griffter continues to demean and slander those who made the tough decision, while elevating nobodies to positions of respect and knowledge if they may share the same misinformed opinion?

So two valid points the griffter will not address, instead he offers new points, that I must research and prove to be false. Never are we to expect what is demanded of us, to be done by the author. 

Accusations, false premises, statements that are cherry picked, invalidated statements. Never does the griffter prove anything he contends, he simply answers questions, by asking more questions and dictating other problems he believes proves his point. 

never will he debate anything he posted. 

Let us see.

Bundy, no reply
Eisenhower, no reply. 

I will make a list.


----------



## Unkotare

Third Party said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope YOU are not talking to ME!
Click to expand...


Your hopes have been dashed.


----------



## Third Party

Unkotare said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope YOU are not talking to ME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hopes have been dashed.
Click to expand...

Then go play with yourself-I'm busy exchanging ideas with adults.


----------



## Unkotare

Third Party said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope YOU are not talking to ME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hopes have been dashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then go play with yourself-I'm busy exchanging ideas with adults.
Click to expand...



Exchanging ideas? "Why bring this up?" "Move on." You call that exchanging ideas, dope?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ...
> As long as you can not stay on the topic of History,....




You decided to change the topic to your weak-minded bigotry.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> As long as you can not stay on the topic of History,....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You decided to change the topic to your weak-minded bigotry.
Click to expand...

Still no history? I changed the topic so you like a dog smelling shit has to come sniffing around?

And your excuse while flaming and trolling others is????

History teacher, I can see why schools suck, it is because of you.


----------



## Third Party

Unkotare said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bring this up now-you weren't there and its over. Move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope YOU are not talking to ME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hopes have been dashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then go play with yourself-I'm busy exchanging ideas with adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exchanging ideas? "Why bring this up?" "Move on." You call that exchanging ideas, dope?
Click to expand...

Dope? You smokin it? If you name call, you are DEAD to me.


----------



## mikegriffith1

One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.

If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.
> 
> If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:
> 
> https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf


As I stated, you can not support or prove anything you say. You brought up Eisenhower and claimed he disagreed. Where is the quote and the source?

Now you offer your opinion in regards to grew and truman, where is the quote and the source? 

As I have pointed out. You post lies, and when a particular lie is challenged, you simply more lies to obfuscate the previous lies. 

I will bring this up at the old capital club, they hate the lies about WW II


----------



## Third Party

mikegriffith1 said:


> One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.
> 
> If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:
> 
> https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf


Nobody was under any obligation to see the Japanese viewpoint-all Americans saw were casualty reports and stories of atrocities. Some wanted more bombing.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> As long as you can not stay on the topic of History,....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You decided to change the topic to your weak-minded bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no history? I changed the topic so you........
Click to expand...



YOU changed the topic to your own weak bigotry and you want to blame someone else? Typical leftist who can't take personal responsibility.


----------



## Unkotare

Third Party said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t live in outer space, so why study astronomy? Don’t be stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope YOU are not talking to ME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hopes have been dashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then go play with yourself-I'm busy exchanging ideas with adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exchanging ideas? "Why bring this up?" "Move on." You call that exchanging ideas, dope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dope? You smokin it? If you name call, you are DEAD to me.
Click to expand...



Like your brain cells?


----------



## Third Party

Unkotare said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope YOU are not talking to ME!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your hopes have been dashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then go play with yourself-I'm busy exchanging ideas with adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exchanging ideas? "Why bring this up?" "Move on." You call that exchanging ideas, dope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dope? You smokin it? If you name call, you are DEAD to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like your brain cells?
Click to expand...

NO


----------



## HenryBHough

If Truman had had more nukes would he have had the balls to use them and ensure Japan ever again screwed around with America?

He WAS a Democrat so we can never be sure......though today he'd be ridiculed by the current-day Democrat Party as a fascist or worse.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> YOU changed the topic to your own weak bigotry and you want to blame someone else? Typical leftist who can't take personal responsibility.


Shit face says what?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.
> 
> If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:
> 
> https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf


One problem with every post you make, is somebody else did the research so you actually do not know what you are talking about. You believe you do, but that is cause you are an idiot. In all seriousness, I am not insulting you, you really are an idiot. Anybody is who does not do the research themselves. 

Thus far you have refused to answer my post on Bundy? Why is that? Simple, because the answer is Bundy was just a young officer in the Army, nothing more, when the bombs were dropped. Hence his comments later in life are irrelevant. But, without doing research, who knows, thus far everything I have researched, in regards to your posts, have proven false. So I suspect without doing anymore research than I have, that if I find Bundy's quote, it will be different than what you pretend it to be. 

Here in this post, you have made the same mistake, you know nothing other than what someone else wrote who had an obvious agenda. I will address this in my next post for this one has been a little of a rant exposing your the failure of your OP.


----------



## ThirdTerm

America needed to pretend that it had dozens of nukes available, which was what Hirohito and his advisers believed before making the surrender proclamation. But there were only few atomic bombs available at the time. The target for the third A-bomb was the emperor's palace in Tokyo.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.
> 
> If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:
> 
> https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf


A link to your website? As a source of this? You are kidding?

Where do you get your poor narrative of Joseph Grew from? Quote and link. (that will be three failures, bundy, eisenhower, and now grew).

Truman believed the Emperor was a militarists? Gee, what would give him that idea, after Pearl Harbor? After the invasion of China? After the invasion of Korea? After the invasion of Manchuria? After the invasion of the Philippines? After the invasion of French indo-china? That is just crazy talk, to think the leader of Japan was a militarist? And after the 10's of thousands of American men died in Pacific war. After the 10's of thousands who died as prisoners, I for one do not see how Truman could have any animosity towards the Emperor of Japan.

Truman's acceptance of propaganda, link to the propaganda. Show us, in it's entirety, the propaganda. Go ahead and link to the propaganda that Truman accepted as fact so that we can see for ourselves. Or is this simply another one of those FAKE news/opinion items of yours we are suppose to believe? As you dictate!

The surrender, or let us call it what it is, The Potsdam Declaration. If we call it what it is, it will be easier to link to and quote. The surrender demands never stated the Emperor had to step down. Never, not once.

Feel free to link to the demand, stating the Emperor must step down.
Link to Eisenhower's statement.
Link to Grew's statements.
Link to the propaganda you refer to in regards to the Emperor
Link to McGeorge Bundy

Or, go ahead obfuscate and distract us from what we are proving lies, by posting more stuff we are suppose to accept.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU changed the topic to your own weak bigotry and you want to blame someone else? Typical leftist who can't take personal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Shit face says what?
Click to expand...



So, you are ignorant of history and too weak to examine morality directly _because_ you're an anti-religion bigot?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ......I am not insulting you, you really are an idiot. Anybody is who does not do the research themselves.......




Ooh, take another photo of a book you bought, 'professor'!


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> So, you are ignorant of history and too weak to examine morality directly _because_ you're an anti-religion bigot?


Morality? Scat, go, get, scat. I bet that confuses you, right, cause scat for you does not mean go?


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......I am not insulting you, you really are an idiot. Anybody is who does not do the research themselves.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, take another photo of a book you bought, 'professor'!
Click to expand...

I got one thus far, I have at least 5 more on the way. It is nice being able to buy what I enjoy. History books. It certainly allows me to see all the quotes and posts here as pure lies. 

Thus far, not one person has challenged any of my posts, why is that?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are ignorant of history and too weak to examine morality directly _because_ you're an anti-religion bigot?
> 
> 
> 
> Morality? ...
Click to expand...


Morality.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......I am not insulting you, you really are an idiot. Anybody is who does not do the research themselves.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, take another photo of a book you bought, 'professor'!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got one thus far, I have at least 5 more on the way. ...
Click to expand...


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.
> 
> If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:
> 
> https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf


A link to your website? As a source of this? You are kidding?

Where do you get your poor narrative of Joseph Grew from? Quote and link. (that will be three failures, bundy, eisenhower, and now grew).

Truman believed the Emperor was a militarists? Gee, what would give him that idea, after Pearl Harbor? After the invasion of China? After the invasion of Korea? After the invasion of Manchuria? After the invasion of the Philippines? After the invasion of French indo-china? That is just crazy talk, to think the leader of Japan was a militarist? And after the 10's of thousands of American men died in Pacific war. After the 10's of thousands who died as prisoners, I for one do not see how Truman could have any animosity towards the Emperor of Japan.

Truman's acceptance of propaganda, link to the propaganda. Show us, in it's entirety, the propaganda. Go ahead and link to the propaganda that Truman accepted as fact so that we can see for ourselves. Or is this simply another one of those FAKE news/opinion items of yours we are suppose to believe? As you dictate!

The surrender, or let us call it what it is, The Potsdam Declaration. If we call it what it is, it will be easier to link to and quote. The surrender demands never stated the Emperor had to step down. Never, not once.

Feel free to link to the demand, stating the Emperor must step down.
Link to Eisenhower's statement.
Link to Grew's statements.
Link to the propaganda you refer to in regards to the Emperor
Link to McGeorge Bundy

Or, go ahead obfuscate and distract us from what we are proving lies, by posting more stuff we are suppose to accept.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.
> 
> If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:
> 
> https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> A link to your website? As a source of this? You are kidding?
> 
> Where do you get your poor narrative of Joseph Grew from? Quote and link. (that will be three failures, bundy, eisenhower, and now grew).
> 
> Truman believed the Emperor was a militarists? Gee, what would give him that idea, after Pearl Harbor? After the invasion of China? After the invasion of Korea? After the invasion of Manchuria? After the invasion of the Philippines? After the invasion of French indo-china? That is just crazy talk, to think the leader of Japan was a militarist? And after the 10's of thousands of American men died in Pacific war. After the 10's of thousands who died as prisoners, I for one do not see how Truman could have any animosity towards the Emperor of Japan.
> 
> Truman's acceptance of propaganda, link to the propaganda. Show us, in it's entirety, the propaganda. Go ahead and link to the propaganda that Truman accepted as fact so that we can see for ourselves. Or is this simply another one of those FAKE news/opinion items of yours we are suppose to believe? As you dictate!
> 
> The surrender, or let us call it what it is, The Potsdam Declaration. If we call it what it is, it will be easier to link to and quote. The surrender demands never stated the Emperor had to step down. Never, not once.
> 
> Feel free to link to the demand, stating the Emperor must step down.
> Link to Eisenhower's statement.
> Link to Grew's statements.
> Link to the propaganda you refer to in regards to the Emperor
> Link to McGeorge Bundy
> 
> Or, go ahead obfuscate and distract us from what we are proving lies, by posting more stuff we are suppose to accept.
Click to expand...


Is this some kind of joke?  The fact that Eisenhower and Grew, among many others, opposed nuking Japan has been documented in literally hundreds of scholarly studies. Eisenhower expressed his views in his memoir, which is readily available, and I've provided you with several links that quote from his memoir. Or, you can go read his memoir if by chance you think all the links I've provided have fabricated Ike's statements.

It is beyond silly to argue that the attack on Pearl Harbor justified Truman's professed belief that the emperor was just another one of the militarists. This argument shows an amazing, surreal ignorance of the emperor and of Japanese history from the early 1900s until 1945. If you can ever dare yourself to read something that challenges your PC brainwashing, you should read _Emperor Hirohita and the Pacific War _(University of Washington Press, 2016), by Dr. Noriko Kawamura, a professor of history at the University of Washington.

If you would read her book, or several others I could suggest (but hers is the best because she uncovered previously unknown sources), you would learn that the emperor did all he could--within Japan's existing system of government--to oppose the hardliners over and over again, that the emperor did not want war with the U.S., that the emperor admired America and England, that the emperor pushed for lenient governance of Japan's colonial holdings, that the emperor had to put down a revolt by radical hardliners in 1926, that in the 1926 revolt the radical hardliners targeted some of Hirohito's cabinet members for assassination, and that Hirohito began to look for ways to end the war after the fall of Saipan (Taiwan), among many other important facts.

By the way, the "link to your [my] website" is a condensed version of Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous article "The Obliteration of Hiroshima," which answers every major excuse given for nuking Japan. Clearly, you have not yet bothered to read it.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Is this some kind of joke?  The fact that Eisenhower and Grew, among many others, opposed nuking Japan has been documented in literally hundreds of scholarly studies. Eisenhower expressed his views in his memoir, which is readily available, and I've provided you with several links that quote from his memoir. Or, you can go read his memoir if by chance you think all the links I've provided have fabricated Ike's statements.


As I have stated, you will not provide a link. You simply dictate that you must be, believed. 

Hundreds of studies? Should be easy to link one?
Eisenhower's memoir? Quote! Include the title and page number. 

Eisenhower, he was the commander in europe? Maybe you can tell us how that has anything to do with japan? 
But, go ahead and quote something and include the source.

You claim you know and have read and have said links. So go ahead and post.

The fact that you have not quoted and sourced after a dozen times I have requested shows that you are charlatan parroting somebody else's work, who is also a charlatan.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, the "link to your [my] website" is a condensed version of Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous article "The Obliteration of Hiroshima," which answers every major excuse given for nuking Japan. Clearly, you have not yet bothered to read it.



Feel free to quote and link to the good Doctor's sources. I have obliterated every post you have made and will gladly show all you have is someone else's lies. So go ahead quote and link to the doctor's source.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Here is good article written in 2015 by Dr. Geoffrey Shepherd titled "It's Clear the US Should Not Have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Dr. Shepherd outlines one of the several alternative courses of action that we could have taken instead of nuking two cities:

This month marks the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And with each passing year the historical record is ever clearer that dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.

The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more. Such destruction of life stirs me to sorrow and outrage. That’s even more true given that there was an alternative available: the US could have dropped an A-bomb in or near Tokyo Bay. Such a warning shot could have persuaded the Japanese to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.

The atomic bombings are often framed as the only alternative to a land invasion of a Japan that wouldn’t surrender under any but the most-dire circumstances. The possible need for an invasion loomed throughout 1945, and Americans naturally feared many US casualties. Much of a fanatic Japanese soldiery—and possibly many citizens—might fight to the last inch. One early study estimated 40,000 American soldiers’ deaths, yet President Harry Truman and others soon spoke of “half a million.”

But the A-bombs’ advent automatically changed that, allowing the US to wield the threat of nuclear attack. With the first device tested and proven in July 1945, and numerous others being readied early in August, America could have used their power as a new dimension of threat—rather than crudely dropping the bombs as mass killers.

Properly used as threats to ensure quick surrender, the A-bombs could have prevented virtually all further deaths in Japan—of Americans, Japanese and any others, from invasion, firebombing, A-bombing and ground warfare. That is, of course, precisely what the A-bombs did achieve. But the US hastily destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki first.

Tokyo Bay would have been the ideal place to display the bombs’ power. A large open area, the bay is next to Tokyo and all of Japan’s leaders, including the emperor. It offered a wide array of places—on vacant land or on water—to drop an A-bomb, for fully awesome effect. The mushroom-cloud explosion could be near or not-so-near to Tokyo, and more or less dangerous to Japan’s emperor, leaders, citizens and urban capital.

In this way, the US could have carefully maximized the scope of the threat, while minimizing the harm to Tokyo itself. And if the Japanese were crazily intransigent, we could have simply dropped another A-bomb, closer to Tokyo or in a low-population area. Even another, if needed.

But American leaders had acquired the habit of bombing cities, having attacked Berlin, Hamburg and even the cultural jewel of Dresden. US Air Force leaders such as Jimmy Doolittle gained instant fame from bombing raids over Japan. The hellish firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 alone killed some 250,000 civilians and maimed huge numbers more.

With the Japanese A-bombings, a key player was Leslie Groves, who had built up and managed the Manhattan Project over the years. He now chaired the committee guiding Truman’s actions, and he closely managed—daily and hourly—the planning, loading, and crew work to fly the bomb for dropping. Grove was determined to deploy them fast. Separately, a supposed threat of the Soviet Union’s invading Japan was cited as a reason for haste. Such an excuse to rush to bomb can likely be chalked up, at least partly, to self-interest by the US.

And the planning of Truman’s advisors—including Groves, Doolittle, and Curtis LeMay—was full of mistakes. Hiroshima emerged as a candidate after having escaped attack thus far in the conflict. It was almost entirely civilian, and any attention to its few military targets soon disappeared. Hiroshima was distant from Tokyo, and the blast itself wiped out all communication, so the Japanese leadership in Tokyo didn’t fully see the destruction. When the leveling of Hiroshima predictably gave Tokyo little awareness, Nagasaki was added. But that choice was even less logical, and it doubled the death toll and the stifling stain on America’s moral character.

The US had already exceeded rational and civilized bounds with our massive bombings in Europe and Japan. Our job was to conclude the war with a minimum of mega-deaths. By using the Tokyo Bay method to display the A-bombs’ power, America would have shown its compassion and humanity. But Truman and his people failed, and the harm was widespread and lasting.

On top of the Japanese deaths and casualties, the actual dropping of the A-bombs likely heightened the stakes at the advent of the Cold War. Had the US not dropped the A-bombs, the nuclear arms race might have proceeded more slowly and less wastefully, possibly without hydrogen bombs. The US and USSR might even have cultivated cooperation and prosperity, in place of mutual fears and military-industrial excesses.

This 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a sorrowful reminder: a final spasm of killing engulfed those two poor cities. Had the US instead fired a warning shot by dropping an A-bomb in Tokyo Bay, scarcely a soul would have died. And yet the leaders of that era chose to kill hundreds of thousands, instead.​


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> .... I for one do not see how Truman could have any animosity towards the Emperor of Japan.....




Are you claiming that the atomic bomb was used against civilians as an act of revenge?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> This 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a sorrowful reminder: a final spasm of killing engulfed those two poor cities. Had the US instead fired a warning shot by dropping an A-bomb in Tokyo Bay, scarcely a soul would have died. And yet the leaders of that era chose to kill hundreds of thousands, instead.​


Bomb water? And invite the japanese to watch? From how far, 20 miles so they would not burn thier eyes. Bomb water, dont destroy anything? And that would teach them.good. 

Well, we already know that the japanese would not surrender after bombing hiroshima now you want to blow up nothing? You expect the japanese to surrender, after giving a good whoopin to water.

Ha ha ha ha ha.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a sorrowful reminder: a final spasm of killing engulfed those two poor cities. Had the US instead fired a warning shot by dropping an A-bomb in Tokyo Bay, scarcely a soul would have died. And yet the leaders of that era chose to kill hundreds of thousands, instead.​
> 
> 
> 
> Bomb water? And invite the japanese to watch? From how far, 20 miles so they would not burn thier eyes. Bomb water, dont destroy anything? And that would teach them.good.
> 
> Well, we already know that the japanese would not surrender after bombing hiroshima now you want to blow up nothing? You expect the japanese to surrender, after giving a good whoopin to water.
> 
> Ha ha ha ha ha.
Click to expand...




You sound like a good little democrat ghoul. The scumbag fdr went to hell before he got to see his hunger for the blood of hundreds of thousands of civilians satisfied. His errand-boy truman carried out the bloodsucker's last wishes, and now you play the mindless apologist. That bed you're lying in is getting pretty crowded.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Are you claiming that the atomic bomb was used against civilians as an act of revenge?


Wipe that shit off your face.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a sorrowful reminder: a final spasm of killing engulfed those two poor cities. Had the US instead fired a warning shot by dropping an A-bomb in Tokyo Bay, scarcely a soul would have died. And yet the leaders of that era chose to kill hundreds of thousands, instead.​
> 
> 
> 
> Bomb water? And invite the japanese to watch? From how far, 20 miles so they would not burn thier eyes. Bomb water, dont destroy anything? And that would teach them.good.
> 
> Well, we already know that the japanese would not surrender after bombing hiroshima now you want to blow up nothing? You expect the japanese to surrender, after giving a good whoopin to water.
> 
> Ha ha ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a good little democrat ghoul. The scumbag fdr went to hell before he got to see his hunger for the blood of hundreds of thousands of civilians satisfied. His errand-boy truman carried out the bloodsucker's last wishes, and now you play the mindless apologist. That bed you're lying in is getting pretty crowded.
Click to expand...

Shitboy claims what?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a sorrowful reminder: a final spasm of killing engulfed those two poor cities. Had the US instead fired a warning shot by dropping an A-bomb in Tokyo Bay, scarcely a soul would have died. And yet the leaders of that era chose to kill hundreds of thousands, instead.​
> 
> 
> 
> Bomb water? And invite the japanese to watch? From how far, 20 miles so they would not burn thier eyes. Bomb water, dont destroy anything? And that would teach them.good.
> 
> Well, we already know that the japanese would not surrender after bombing hiroshima now you want to blow up nothing? You expect the japanese to surrender, after giving a good whoopin to water.
> 
> Ha ha ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a good little democrat ghoul. The scumbag fdr went to hell before he got to see his hunger for the blood of hundreds of thousands of civilians satisfied. His errand-boy truman carried out the bloodsucker's last wishes, and now you play the mindless apologist. That bed you're lying in is getting pretty crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitboy claims what?
Click to expand...



You'd be even more excited if all the many Christians in Nagasaki had been Mormons, huh bigot? Does the idea give you a tingle?


----------



## Unkotare

So, by his own admission, deflekta's talk about "ending the war sooner" was a load of bullshit. For his ilk, it was an act of revenge. Sooner of later, his type of apologist/hypocrite/ghoul always reveals his true colors.


----------



## ptbw forever

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


If we wanted to just kill a bunch of Japanese we would have bombed Tokyo instead.


----------



## Unkotare

ptbw forever said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> If we wanted to just kill a bunch of Japanese we would have bombed Tokyo instead.
Click to expand...




We did, idiot. There wasn’t much left of Tokyo after the fire bombings.


----------



## ptbw forever

Unkotare said:


> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> If we wanted to just kill a bunch of Japanese we would have bombed Tokyo instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We did, idiot. There wasn’t much left of Tokyo after the fire bombings.
Click to expand...

I mean nuked it to hell, moron.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> ........even more excited..... big.......   tingle?


You say what? sicko!


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is good article written in 2015 by Dr. Geoffrey Shepherd titled "It's Clear the US Should Not Have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Dr. Shepherd outlines one of the several alternative courses of action that we could have taken instead of nuking two cities:
> 
> Much of a fanatic Japanese soldiery—and possibly many citizens—might fight to the last inch. One early study estimated 40,000 American soldiers’ deaths, yet President Harry Truman and others soon spoke of “half a million.”​


No links, no source? 
Over 12,000 died attacking okinawa, against 150,000 japanese..
There were at least a million soldiers on the mainland of japan, hence it is easy to see at least a 100,000 americans could lose their life. And let us not forget, estimates of casualties is a worst case scenario, so that you can prepare and overcome the worst. 
Either way, without a source it appears Dr. Shepherd is simply a liar.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more.​


Probably? Untold more?

Uh, we know how many were killed and how many were wounded. No secret and no need to speculate. Give us the number, it is a real number well documented. 

But then again, to sensationalize the story fits the false premise narrative much better.


----------



## mikegriffith1

ThirdTerm said:


> America needed to pretend that it had dozens of nukes available, which was what Hirohito and his advisers believed before making the surrender proclamation. But there were only few atomic bombs available at the time. The target for the third A-bomb was the emperor's palace in Tokyo.



Actually, we had plenty of nukes in the pipeline that could have been available in a matter of weeks.

However, the atomic bomb, as Japanese records show, had very little influence on the emperor, his advisers, and the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka Supreme War Council) on their decision to surrender. In fact, as has been pointed out already, the Supreme War Council did not even think that confirmation of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was sufficient reason to convene the council. But, when news of the Soviet invasion reached Tokyo, the Supreme War Council met almost immediately.

Historian Gregg Herken, a professor emeritus of U.S. diplomatic history at the University of California:

The notion that the atomic bombs caused the Japanese surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, has been, for many Americans and virtually all U.S. history textbooks, the default understanding of how and why the war ended. But minutes of the meetings of the Japanese government reveal a more complex story. The latest and best scholarship on the surrender, based on Japanese records, concludes that the Soviet Union’s unexpected entry into the war against Japan on Aug. 8 was probably an even greater shock to Tokyo than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima two days earlier. Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war. As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa writes in his book _Racing the Enemy_, “Indeed, the Soviet attack, not the Hiroshima bomb, convinced political leaders to end the war.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html?noredirect=on)​
To follow up on Herken's use of Tsuyoshi Hasegawe's _Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan,_ it is one of the most highly acclaimed books on Japan's surrender ever written, and Hasegawe spends dozens of pages documenting the fact that it was the Soviet invasion, not the nukes, that (1) enabled the moderates to convene a meeting with the emperor and the Supreme War council where the emperor could order a surrender and (2) persuaded the hardliners to accept the emperor's order to surrender.

Indeed, at the Big Six meeting on August 9 when Hirohito broke the deadlock and ordered a surrender, _he said nothing about Hiroshima or the atomic bomb in his remarks to the meeting--not one word_ (Kawamura, _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, _Kindle Edition, locs. 3287-3314; see also Robert Butow, _Japan's Decision to Surrender, _p. 175).

The moderates needed no convincing. They had already decided many weeks earlier that Japan needed to surrender.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> However, the atomic bomb, as Japanese records show, had very little influence on the emperor, his advisers, and the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka Supreme War Council) on their decision to surrender. In fact, as has been pointed out already, the Supreme War Council did not even think that confirmation of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was sufficient reason to convene the council. But, when news of the Soviet invasion reached Tokyo, the Supreme War Council met almost immediately.


Nice, given you had to post something completely different, it is apparant, everything else you posted was a lie. You can not address it, you can not link to the source of quotes. You can not link and quote studies you claim exist. And now you post more bullshit. 

It is obvious you are charlatan that parrots what you can cut/paste from the internet. So be it. 

You claimed that the bombing was extreme, immoral, that the japanese needed weeks to contemplate what happened, and now here, you claim dropping two atomic bombs on japan was nothing, that it did not even garner a response?

The bombs meant absolutely nothing to the Japanese? So why do you claim they needed time to study, investigate, send scientists? How is the bombing immoral, if the japanese did not care, at all?

More questions derived from the ridiculous parroting of the charlatan griffter.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> To follow up on Herken's use of Tsuyoshi Hasegawe's _Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan,_ it is one of the most highly acclaimed books on Japan's surrender ever written, and Hasegawe spends dozens of pages documenting the fact that it was the Soviet invasion, not the nukes, that (1) enabled the moderates to convene a meeting with the emperor and the Supreme War council where the emperor could order a surrender and (2) persuaded the hardliners to accept the emperor's order to surrender.





> “Without the twin shocks of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, the Japanese never would have surrendered in August.”


So much for your use of Hasegawe, he says something different than you claim. Feel free to quote your copy of the book. Ha, ha, ha, you aint got a copy, do you!


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> [The latest and best scholarship on the surrender, based on Japanese records, concludes that the Soviet Union’s unexpected entry into the war against Japan on Aug. 8 was probably an even greater shock to Tokyo than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima two days earlier. .


"The latest and best..." Meaning, we must dictate we are right by dictating our writers are right!
So be it, but what is missing, is that the Soviet Union's entry into the war was not unexpected. The japanese tried to get the soviet uniton to negotiate a peace settlement that they refused. Certainly the Russian refusal to negotiate a ceasefire and their build up of military in China was telling. Peoples think the soviet invaded out of nowhere? That the Japanese did not see the soviet buildup?

The japanese were not shocked, the japanese fought the USSR until September of 1945, weeks after they surrendered to the USA, yet we are to believe the japanese feared fighting the soviets more than seeing two cities destroyed in a fraction of a second?

Think about it, the Japanese fought the USSR, the Russians until september! They did not surrender to the Russians, they fought after the Russians entered the war! The Japanese fought the Russians for weeks after they entered the war? But the Russian entry into the war caused the Japanese to quit fighting the Americans but not the Russians? 

Revisionist require their parish of worshipers to be brain dead.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.


And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians". 

Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win. 

Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ...
> 
> Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.




Nothing could be more obvious than that _you_ do not believe that.


----------



## MaryL

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Lets see here: yeah, it took 2 nukes to convince the Japanese military they were washed up. And more people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo. Its too bad  for the  Japanese. It sucks, most of us prefer Nagasaki  to  millions  killed in a needless invasion that would taken years?   How humane would that have been? Explain that to us.


----------



## 22lcidw

War seems to be nobility of rules on who dies. We spent centuries trying to stop the killing of civilians and then in the 20th century threw that away. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just the last two dominoes in that breech of civility. Anyway I get the feeling that the Japanese were just a little goody two shoes people during this time period. Their empire designs and treatment of people was not nice during the decades leading up to WW2. The argument over the use of nukes on them can go on. But they lived by far more honor in their cause and disdain for the enemy was part of it. So if they had it, would they have used the bomb?


----------



## Dan Stubbs

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


----------



## elektra

22lcidw said:


> War seems to be nobility of rules on who dies. We spent centuries trying to stop the killing of civilians and then in the 20th century threw that away. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just the last two dominoes in that breech of civility. Anyway I get the feeling that the Japanese were just a little goody two shoes people during this time period. Their empire designs and treatment of people was not nice during the decades leading up to WW2. The argument over the use of nukes on them can go on. But they lived by far more honor in their cause and disdain for the enemy was part of it. So if they had it, would they have used the bomb?


The Japanese soldiers gang raped 10 year old girls until they died, fact, documented. There is no civility in war, never was.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Dr. Ward Wilson has written extensively about Japan's surrender and, like so many other scholars, has debunked the traditional story that Japan surrendered because we nuked them. I quote from one of his articles on the surrender, "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan . . . Stalin Did":

The first problem with the traditional interpretation is timing. And it is a serious problem. The traditional interpretation has a simple timeline: The U.S. Army Air Force bombs Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon on Aug. 6, three days later they bomb Nagasaki with another, and on the next day the Japanese signal their intention to surrender.* One can hardly blame American newspapers for running headlines like: “Peace in the Pacific: Our Bomb Did It!”

When the story of Hiroshima is told in most American histories, the day of the bombing — Aug. 6 — serves as the narrative climax. All the elements of the story point forward to that moment: the decision to build a bomb, the secret research at Los Alamos, the first impressive test, and the final culmination at Hiroshima. It is told, in other words, as a story about the Bomb. But you can’t analyze Japan’s decision to surrender objectively in the context of the story of the Bomb. Casting it as “the story of the Bomb” already presumes that the Bomb’s role is central.

Viewed from the Japanese perspective, the most important day in that second week of August wasn’t Aug. 6 but Aug. 9. That was the day that the Supreme Council met — for the first time in the war — to discuss unconditional surrender. The Supreme Council was a group of six top members of the government — a sort of inner cabinet — that effectively ruled Japan in 1945. Japan’s leaders had not seriously considered surrendering prior to that day. Unconditional surrender (what the Allies were demanding) was a bitter pill to swallow. The United States and Great Britain were already convening war crimes trials in Europe. What if they decided to put the emperor — who was believed to be divine — on trial? What if they got rid of the emperor and changed the form of government entirely? Even though the situation was bad in the summer of 1945, the leaders of Japan were not willing to consider giving up their traditions, their beliefs, or their way of life. Until Aug. 9. What could have happened that caused them to so suddenly and decisively change their minds? What made them sit down to seriously discuss surrender for the first time after 14 years of war?

It could not have been Nagasaki. The bombing of Nagasaki occurred in the late morning of Aug. 9, after the Supreme Council had already begun meeting to discuss surrender, and word of the bombing only reached Japan’s leaders in the early afternoon — after the meeting of the Supreme Council had been adjourned in deadlock and the full cabinet had been called to take up the discussion. Based on timing alone, Nagasaki can’t have been what motivated them.

Hiroshima isn’t a very good candidate either. It came 74 hours — more than three days — earlier. What kind of crisis takes three days to unfold? The hallmark of a crisis is a sense of impending disaster and the overwhelming desire to take action now. How could Japan’s leaders have felt that Hiroshima touched off a crisis and yet not meet to talk about the problem for three days? ( The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan ... Stalin Did )​Another thing to keep in mind is that a number of the Japanese records that prove that the Soviet invasion was the main factor in the surrender decision were never meant to be seen by the public, and some of them were only found years after the war. These include records and notes of secret meetings to decide Japan's fate; nobody ever intended that they would be made public. So the fact that they show that it was the Soviet invasion that spurred the surrender decision is especially insightful and decisive.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Another thing to keep in mind is that a number of the Japanese records that prove that the Soviet invasion was the main factor in the surrender decision were never meant to be seen by the public, and some of them were only found years after the war. These include records and notes of secret meetings to decide Japan's fate; nobody ever intended that they would be made public. So the fact that they show that it was the Soviet invasion that spurred the surrender decision is especially insightful and decisive.


More copy/paste, no replies to all the other posts that show this charlatan's lies ad the lies they are.

Fiction based on fact. 

A nuclear bomb was insignificant? A meeting which must be pre-arranged, to get all the leaders in one spot, takes how long? It is said that this meeting is because of the soviets entering the war? 

Yet, the Japanese knew prior to this day that the USSR was going to attack and had already prepared their troops to defend against the USSR.

Why would the Japanese wait so long to respond to the USSR? Yes, the USSR declared war on the 9th, after they saw the Japanese were beaten by the USA. Yes, the Japanese did not surrender to the USSR, the fought them for weeks. Yes the Japanese saw the inevitable, the USSR would not negotiate peace the weeks prior. The Japanese were fully aware of the USSR's military buildup in China.

Like all charlatans, he will not let us see the source material this canard is s based upon. 

You can be assured, the one or two sentences about the surrender are cherry picked from documents you could right a book from.

More lies. I expect even more lies. 

As you can see the OP is no longer addressed by the author, the OP has been proven a false premise, as this newest post by the author of the OP has.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Dr. Ward Wilson has written extensively about Japan's surrender and, like so many other scholars, has debunked the traditional story that Japan surrendered because we nuked them. I quote from one of his articles on the surrender, "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan . . . Stalin Did":
> 
> The first problem with the traditional interpretation is timing. And it is a serious problem. The traditional interpretation has a simple timeline: The U.S. Army Air Force bombs Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon on Aug. 6, three days later they bomb Nagasaki with another, and on the next day the Japanese signal their intention to surrender.* One can hardly blame American newspapers for running headlines like: “Peace in the Pacific: Our Bomb Did It!”
> 
> When the story of Hiroshima is told in most American histories, the day of the bombing — Aug. 6 — serves as the narrative climax. All the elements of the story point forward to that moment: the decision to build a bomb, the secret research at Los Alamos, the first impressive test, and the final culmination at Hiroshima. It is told, in other words, as a story about the Bomb. But you can’t analyze Japan’s decision to surrender objectively in the context of the story of the Bomb. Casting it as “the story of the Bomb” already presumes that the Bomb’s role is central.
> 
> Viewed from the Japanese perspective, the most important day in that second week of August wasn’t Aug. 6 but Aug. 9. That was the day that the Supreme Council met — for the first time in the war — to discuss unconditional surrender. The Supreme Council was a group of six top members of the government — a sort of inner cabinet — that effectively ruled Japan in 1945. Japan’s leaders had not seriously considered surrendering prior to that day. Unconditional surrender (what the Allies were demanding) was a bitter pill to swallow. The United States and Great Britain were already convening war crimes trials in Europe. What if they decided to put the emperor — who was believed to be divine — on trial? What if they got rid of the emperor and changed the form of government entirely? Even though the situation was bad in the summer of 1945, the leaders of Japan were not willing to consider giving up their traditions, their beliefs, or their way of life. Until Aug. 9. What could have happened that caused them to so suddenly and decisively change their minds? What made them sit down to seriously discuss surrender for the first time after 14 years of war?
> 
> It could not have been Nagasaki. The bombing of Nagasaki occurred in the late morning of Aug. 9, after the Supreme Council had already begun meeting to discuss surrender, and word of the bombing only reached Japan’s leaders in the early afternoon — after the meeting of the Supreme Council had been adjourned in deadlock and the full cabinet had been called to take up the discussion. Based on timing alone, Nagasaki can’t have been what motivated them.
> 
> Hiroshima isn’t a very good candidate either. It came 74 hours — more than three days — earlier. What kind of crisis takes three days to unfold? The hallmark of a crisis is a sense of impending disaster and the overwhelming desire to take action now. How could Japan’s leaders have felt that Hiroshima touched off a crisis and yet not meet to talk about the problem for three days? ( The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan ... Stalin Did )​Another thing to keep in mind is that a number of the Japanese records that prove that the Soviet invasion was the main factor in the surrender decision were never meant to be seen by the public, and some of them were only found years after the war. These include records and notes of secret meetings to decide Japan's fate; nobody ever intended that they would be made public. So the fact that they show that it was the Soviet invasion that spurred the surrender decision is especially insightful and decisive.


How about linking to what you quote as the forum rules demand.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".
> 
> Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.
> 
> Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:

"We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".
> 
> Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.
> 
> Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:
> 
> "We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
Click to expand...

Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender. 

What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.

Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.

Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding? 

And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
I am not incorrect in the least.


----------



## anynameyouwish

MaryL said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see here: yeah, it took 2 nukes to convince the Japanese military they were washed up. And more people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo. Its too bad  for the  Japanese. It sucks, most of us prefer Nagasaki  to  millions  killed in a needless invasion that would taken years?   How humane would that have been? Explain that to us.
Click to expand...



"most of us prefer Nagasaki to millions killed in a needless invasion that would taken years?"

right.


because THOSE were the only 2 choices.

There was absolutely no way that we could have nuked 2 of their military bases, installations or armies....

nope.

couldn't be done.

impossible.

we HAD  TO nuke 2 cities of old people and children.

and obviously nuking 2 cities shortened the war.
where-as if we had nuked 2 armies the ghosts of the dead soldiers would have killed even MORE of our troops.


(sarcasm)


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".
> 
> Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.
> 
> Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:
> 
> "We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.
> 
> What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.
> 
> Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.
> 
> Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?
> 
> And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
> I am not incorrect in the least.
Click to expand...

You said, "the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded." The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time said, "Japan... has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." Explicitly stating that they were willing to lose that which they had invaded. In other words, you're incorrect. And you're also implying that unconditional surrender is the only type of surrender, which is also not correct. Conditional surrender is still surrender.


----------



## Picaro

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".
> 
> Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.
> 
> Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:
> 
> "We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.
> 
> What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.
> 
> Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.
> 
> Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?
> 
> And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
> I am not incorrect in the least.
Click to expand...


Japan still had millions of troops under arms on the mainland as well. and then there was demonstrations for the enlightenment of Mao and Stalin, both of whom needed to know that their mass wave attacks were not something we were going to fear and have to be pushed around by the scum.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the atomic bomb, as Japanese records show, had very little influence on the emperor, his advisers, and the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka Supreme War Council) on their decision to surrender. In fact, as has been pointed out already, the Supreme War Council did not even think that confirmation of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was sufficient reason to convene the council. But, when news of the Soviet invasion reached Tokyo, the Supreme War Council met almost immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, given you had to post something completely different, it is apparant, everything else you posted was a lie. You can not address it, you can not link to the source of quotes. You can not link and quote studies you claim exist. And now you post more bullshit.
> 
> It is obvious you are charlatan that parrots what you can cut/paste from the internet. So be it.
> 
> You claimed that the bombing was extreme, immoral, that the japanese needed weeks to contemplate what happened, and now here, you claim dropping two atomic bombs on japan was nothing, that it did not even garner a response?
> 
> The bombs meant absolutely nothing to the Japanese? So why do you claim they needed time to study, investigate, send scientists? How is the bombing immoral, if the japanese did not care, at all?
> 
> More questions derived from the ridiculous parroting of the charlatan griffter.
Click to expand...


Now you're just lying. People can go back and read what I wrote. I never said it would take "weeks" for the Japanese to formulate a response to Hiroshima. I have said repeatedly that it was the Soviet invasion, not Hiroshima, that pushed the hardliners into a situation where the emperor could order a surrender. I have said that three days was not enough time for Japan's government to formulate a response to Hiroshima, especially given the fact that they were greatly consumed with processing and dealing with the Soviet invasion, which began in the wee hours of 9 August. You see contradiction where there is none. None of these points excludes the others. It's just that your analysis is overly simplistic and ignores crucial facts that you can't explain.

No, the atomic bomb did not have a major impact on the hardliners' decision to accept surrender, as Japanese records show. They were willing to sacrifice many more cities to being wiped by either conventional or nuclear bombs. But the Soviet invasion raised the unacceptable prospect of Soviet occupation.

Truman and his inner circle ignorantly assumed, or perhaps knowingly adopted the lie, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused Japan to surrender. They took this position to excuse their war crime of nuking Nagasaki just three days after Hiroshima. Truman and his militarists had been briefed enough on the workings of the Japanese government to know that three days was hardly enough time for the Japanese government to formulate a response to Hiroshima, even making the erroneous assumption that Hiroshima pushed them toward surrender.

Truman did not know that Hiroshima did not even cause the Supreme War Council to convene a meeting of any kind, much less an emergency meeting (but the Soviet invasion did).

When you analyze this issue, you can't just assume Truman's perceptions were valid. He was so misinformed about the Japanese government that he believed the government propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was one of the militarists. How anyone could have thought such a thing is hard to fathom, since militarists had tried to overthrow the government and had killed and/or tried to kill some of Hirohito's cabinet members and advisers in 1936, just nine years earlier.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".
> 
> Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.
> 
> Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:
> 
> "We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.
> 
> What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.
> 
> Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.
> 
> Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?
> 
> And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
> I am not incorrect in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said, "the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded." The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time said, "Japan... has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." Explicitly stating that they were willing to lose that which they had invaded. In other words, you're incorrect. And you're also implying that unconditional surrender is the only type of surrender, which is also not correct. Conditional surrender is still surrender.
Click to expand...

Wrong, your post proves nothing. Was that deal made? Who approved the deal? Certainly it had to come from higher up than the minister, so where is the document that proves this was approved by the emperor? Where is the proof that this is approved by the military. 

There is zero mention of any kind of surrender in the document you refer to. That document has nothing to do with a surrender.

Japan was not at war with russia, how can they negotiate with Russia? 

Sorry, a cable to russia, from someone not in command of the war, is hardly meaningful to the USA.

Seems like the Japanese were trying to do anything but surrender.

Either way your post, your cable, the link never mentions surrender, yet you insert that word where it is not.

Again, you are very much, wrong.


----------



## HenryBHough

Nobody knew for sure that America only had the two nukes that were used to end World War II.

Where Truman went wrong was in delivering a long oration when all he should have said was:

_*"NEXT??"*_​


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Now you're just lying. People can go back and read what I wrote. I never said it would take "weeks" for the Japanese to formulate a response to Hiroshima. I have said repeatedly that it was the Soviet invasion, not Hiroshima, that pushed the hardliners into a situation where the emperor could order a surrender. I have said that three days was not enough time for Japan's government to formulate a response to Hiroshimar.



Yes, you are a charlatan that parrots someone else's work. You ignore many posts and that is because you can not answer the hard questions let alone the easy questions.

Let me try something very simple, this will be your chance to prove you know the subject.

How much time did the japanese need if three days was not enough?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".
> 
> Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.
> 
> Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:
> 
> "We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
Click to expand...


Yes, and the Japanese told the Nationalists the same thing many times as they tried to get the Nationalists to agree to a negotiated peace. Japan's only main condition for peace with the Nationalists was recognition, or at least acceptance, of Manchukuo, which the Nationalists had never really controlled anyway, as even the League of Nations acknowledged in the Lytton Commission report. But Chiang Kaishek was under great pressure from FDR-Truman and from the Soviets not to make a peace deal with Japan.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> [
> . I have said repeatedly that it was the Soviet invasion, not Hiroshima, that pushed the hardliners into a situation where the emperor could order a surrender. I have said that three days was not enough time for Japan's government to formulate a response to Hiroshima, especially given the fact that they were greatly consumed with processing and dealing with the Soviet invasion, which began in the wee hours of 9 August. You see contradiction where there is none.


And after the council met, after the Soviets announced they were at war with Japan. Japan did not surrender? Japan fought the soviets another 8 to 20 days (depending on what one reads).

Yet, after a 2nd atomic bomb completely destroys another city that japanese do surrender. 

See how that works. 2 bombs one surrender. 

The japanese were prepared for the Soviet invasion. That was not a surprise. The defence was already in place. The only thing that forced the Japanese into a council meeting was a city completely disappearing with one bomb.

Your idea that the Japanese would not convey a meeting to discuss a weapon never before seen, that destroys whole cities is a complete lie. Conjecture? 

That is exactly the same as saying, if Godzilla attacked Japan the japanese would do nothing. Do nothing unless Russia declared war and attacked china? China not Japan!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".
> 
> Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.
> 
> Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:
> 
> "We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.
> 
> What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.
> 
> Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.
> 
> Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?
> 
> And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
> I am not incorrect in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said, "the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded." The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time said, "Japan... has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." Explicitly stating that they were willing to lose that which they had invaded. In other words, you're incorrect. And you're also implying that unconditional surrender is the only type of surrender, which is also not correct. Conditional surrender is still surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, your post proves nothing. Was that deal made? Who approved the deal? Certainly it had to come from higher up than the minister, so where is the document that proves this was approved by the emperor? Where is the proof that this is approved by the military.
> 
> There is zero mention of any kind of surrender in the document you refer to. That document has nothing to do with a surrender.
> 
> Japan was not at war with russia, how can they negotiate with Russia?
> 
> Sorry, a cable to russia, from someone not in command of the war, is hardly meaningful to the USA.
> 
> Seems like the Japanese were trying to do anything but surrender.
> 
> Either way your post, your cable, the link never mentions surrender, yet you insert that word where it is not.
> 
> Again, you are very much, wrong.
Click to expand...

And you are very much choosing to play pedantic games rather than admit that you were clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> And now we have gone from, the Japanese were trying to surrender to, "the japanese were negotiating with Russians".
> 
> Yes, it is well known, that the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace where they lost nothing that they had invaded. They were not trying to surrender, they were negotiating a truce, where they still win.
> 
> Thank you for once again proving the morality of using atomic bombs to end the war. As it was the only way the war was to end, in august of 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. From a cable intercepted by the United States:
> 
> "We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true, incorrect, your link does not mention surrender. As I stated, they were negotiating anything but, surrender.
> 
> What territories were they exactly, speaking of? Burma? Who knows.
> 
> Either way the russians said no, and we were not involved at all.
> 
> Holding the Russian territories, what about the countries japan was holding?
> 
> And again, the cable does not mention a surrender.
> I am not incorrect in the least.
Click to expand...


Are you just pretending not to understand the plain import of Togo's statement?  Do you understand that Togo was Japan's Foreign Minister and one of the biggest peace advocates in the cabinet?  

Togo was detailing the terms for a surrender that he hoped would be brokered by the Soviets. In China, the Japanese repeatedly tried to get the Nationalists to agree to a negotiated peace. The Japanese even offered to withdraw from all Chinese territory they had occupied after 1937 and only asked that the Nationalists recognize, or at least accept, Manchukuo, the Japanese state in Manchuria, which the Nationalists had never controlled anyway. 

Can you never admit to being wrong, no matter how clear the evidence?


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> And you are very much choosing to play pedantic games rather than admit that you were clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.


A minor point? 
The fact that this message does not mention surrender, is a minor point?
The fact that, at the time of this communication Japan was not at war with Russia is a minor?
The fact that the "message" is vague, not stating what territories? That is a minor point?
The fact that Togo, was not in a position of power, is that a minor point?

How about you, quit playing games, what was Truman suppose to do? With a vague cable or message to russia from japan? Truman was suppose to maybe put a bullet in his own head? What should of Truman done? 

And remember, this was simply Togo. Speaking to the Russians, who were not at war with Japan?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Are you just pretending not to understand the plain import of Togo's statement?  Do you understand that Togo was Japan's Foreign Minister and one of the biggest peace advocates in the cabinet?


Togo was the biggest peace advocate? Before or after Pearl Harpor? Before or after Nanking? What was Togo's position on the japanese attack of the USS Panay in 1937?

Togo, had no power within the Japanese government, had Togo been an influential or powerful man, he would not of had to retire during WW II. Is that not correct!!!!!! Of course it is!!!!

Nobody listened to Togo within the Japanese government. 

So we are suppose to do what, when Togo contacts the Soviet Union?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Togo was detailing the terms for a surrender that he hoped would be brokered by the Soviets. I
> 
> Can you never admit to being wrong, no matter how clear the evidence?


Togo was negotiating surrender with the soviets who you specifically stated were not at war with Japan? 

Togo never ever once, mentioned surrender? But you as a charlatan lying parrot of others work, insert the word surrender, where it has never existed. 

Can I admit I am wrong, sure. 

Can you go back and answer the dozens of posts that I made, that point out you are wrong? Can you address those posts, in which I tackle each of the points of the OP. Where I prove you OP is a false premise? Can you address those posts. 

Have you ever separated your Mormon religion from this OP you made? I do not think so. But right now, you have the opportunity to prove to everyone reading this, you know more than me, by addressing each of my posts. 

Will you, no, of course not, you are the one that can not admit you have no answers. And the reason you have no answers is because all you site and link to is not your work, it belongs to someone else, so you are at a loss to explain it.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> .......... clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.


technically, I pointed out, major points.

Am I to believe you engaged with me because of minor points? 

A minor point hardly deserves a response? Does it not? Nice try at deflecting.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Now you're just lying. People can go back and read what I wrote. I never said it would take "weeks" for the Japanese to formulate a response to Hiroshima......        I have said that three days was not enough time for Japan's government to formulate a response to Hiroshima,


You have made posts since I have addressed this, you have ignored this, why? Is it because you once again can not provide an explanation to the things you have posted! 

This is the danger of being charlatan that simply parrots somebody else's work. When confronted with a question on the content of what you simply copy/paste. You have no answer. 

So how many days would of been adequate. This is the second time I ask. How many days would of been adequate for the japanese to contemplate the complete loss of a city. And remember, you claim that the Soviets merely confirming what the Japanese knew would happen, the declaration of war, resulted in an immediate response. Tell us then, how the complete destruction of one city resulted in no thought, no meeting, no action of the Japanese, and that we should of waited, how long? 

Soviets say we are at war with Japan, response in hours? 
The loss of Hiroshima, the meeting immediately after you claim had nothing to do with a devastating loss. So how long after do you figure the japanese at least say, "wow, that sucked?" 3 days is not enough, so how long? 

You can not answer for nobody you parrot answered that question.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> . Truman and his militarists had been briefed enough on the workings of the Japanese government to know that three days was hardly enough time for the Japanese government to formulate a response to Hiroshima, even making the erroneous assumption that Hiroshima pushed them toward surrender.


But the Japanese could formulate a response in hours, to the soviet announcement that it was at war with Japan? And as you stated, the Soviets entering the war was much more detrimental, than simply losing a complete city to a bomb that the world has never ever seen? So how do they formulate a response to an act you claim was worst, than dropping a bomb. 

Following your logic, they needed much more time to respond to the Russian threat? 

And if they needed much more time to respond to Hiroshima, if they really could not decide after one bomb, then if is very obvious, a second bomb was needed!

You just made the case for the second bomb.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I have said that three days was not enough time for Japan's government to formulate a response to Hiroshima,


Three days was too much time. We should of dropped a second bomb the day after, and then we should of dropped the third bomb on the third day. 

You have made the point, that the Japanese were not going to surrender with simply one bomb. It took two in three days. Point made. 

Truman failed by not dropping the second bomb right after the first, and then dropping the third right after the second. 

You are right, we should of used every bomb that first day, with no warning, and no chance at surrender. 

As it was, or were, we dropped leaflets on Nagasaki warning the people to run for their lives, and they did. a 100 thousand saved. 

But you are right, without the second bomb in three days, Japan would of stalled forever, never surrendering.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are very much choosing to play pedantic games rather than admit that you were clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.
> 
> 
> 
> A minor point?
> The fact that this message does not mention surrender, is a minor point?
> The fact that, at the time of this communication Japan was not at war with Russia is a minor?
> The fact that the "message" is vague, not stating what territories? That is a minor point?
> The fact that Togo, was not in a position of power, is that a minor point?
> 
> How about you, quit playing games, what was Truman suppose to do? With a vague cable or message to russia from japan? Truman was suppose to maybe put a bullet in his own head? What should of Truman done?
> 
> And remember, this was simply Togo. Speaking to the Russians, who were not at war with Japan?
Click to expand...

A "negotiated peace" is conditional surrender. Again, pedantic.

That Japan was not at war with "Russia" is not even a relevant point to this discussion. They were reaching out to the Soviets for a negotiated peace because they were already defeated by the US and knew that with the rest of the Axis defeated they couldn't fight the Americans and the Soviets.

It's only vague to you, seemingly. Everyone else is capable of understanding the explicit content of the message.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs was not a position of power? Seems like a weak argument but go ahead and make it if you like.

And yes, the point that Japan explicitly stated they would give up territory that they conquered is a minor point, but since you incorrectly stated that they never agreed to do so it's a point nonetheless. One that you were wrong about.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......... clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.
> 
> 
> 
> technically, I pointed out, major points.
> 
> Am I to believe you engaged with me because of minor points?
> 
> A minor point hardly deserves a response? Does it not? Nice try at deflecting.
Click to expand...

Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......... clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.
> 
> 
> 
> technically, I pointed out, major points.
> 
> Am I to believe you engaged with me because of minor points?
> 
> A minor point hardly deserves a response? Does it not? Nice try at deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.
Click to expand...

You post does not mention surrender, you link does not mention surrender. It was surrender I spoke of.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> E]
> Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.


Claiming a document is about surrendering, when that document never comes close to mentioning surrender is not a minor point. It is a glaring error. 

Again, you are wrong.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> A "negotiated peace" is conditional surrender. Again, pedantic.


No it is not, it is not even close. At best, it is a truce.

But that is how the charlatans revise history. By calling the misuse of words a minor issue. 
A "negotiated peace", it did not get that far. 

Further, Japan was not at war with the Russians. 

Words have meaning, except when one must change history to a revised narrative.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> It's only vague to you, seemingly. Everyone else is capable of understanding the explicit content of the message.


Vague? You are calling the fact that the document you produced never contains the word surrender, as minor. That is kind of vague. And in this post you say the message is explicit. Which it is, it explicitly never mentions surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......... clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.
> 
> 
> 
> technically, I pointed out, major points.
> 
> Am I to believe you engaged with me because of minor points?
> 
> A minor point hardly deserves a response? Does it not? Nice try at deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.
Click to expand...



He has been proven wrong on just about every point on this thread over and over again. He’s at the “lalalala I can’t hear you!” stage of denying his failure at this point.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":


Wow, you wrote an article? Impressive. Impress us with answers to questions we have of your OP. 

If three days was not enough time for Japan to react to the complete destruction of a city by a weapon never ever before seen or used, then how much time would of been enough for Japan to formulate a response?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......... clearly wrong about a fairly minor point.
> 
> 
> 
> technically, I pointed out, major points.
> 
> Am I to believe you engaged with me because of minor points?
> 
> A minor point hardly deserves a response? Does it not? Nice try at deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post does not mention surrender, you link does not mention surrender. It was surrender I spoke of.
Click to expand...

You may have also been discussing surrender, which is covered by the source I cited as anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension can see, but I also directly quoted where you stated that the Japanese were refusing to give up any territory they conquered. That was proven incorrect.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> E]
> Yes, actually. You made a demonstrably false statement about a minor point that I proved wrong. That is exactly why I engaged you.
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming a document is about surrendering, when that document never comes close to mentioning surrender is not a minor point. It is a glaring error.
> 
> Again, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

You're narrowly defining a term to suit your purposes, but it doesn't make you correct.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "negotiated peace" is conditional surrender. Again, pedantic.
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not, it is not even close. At best, it is a truce.
> 
> But that is how the charlatans revise history. By calling the misuse of words a minor issue.
> A "negotiated peace", it did not get that far.
> 
> Further, Japan was not at war with the Russians.
> 
> Words have meaning, except when one must change history to a revised narrative.
Click to expand...

Most surrenders are conditional. A truce is not quite the same thing. Now you're simply redefining words.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only vague to you, seemingly. Everyone else is capable of understanding the explicit content of the message.
> 
> 
> 
> Vague? You are calling the fact that the document you produced never contains the word surrender, as minor. That is kind of vague. And in this post you say the message is explicit. Which it is, it explicitly never mentions surrender.
Click to expand...

Whether or not it says the actual word "surrender" is indeed a minor issue.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> you may have also been discussing surrender, which is covered by the source I cited as anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension can see, but I also directly quoted where you stated that the Japanese were refusing to give up any territory they conquered. That was proven incorrect.


The Japanese entered into negotiations with Russia? When, where, who was involved? No historian has gone that far, but you can try to stretch out you flimsy quote of an intercepted cable and explain how that was indeed a real negotiation between the top leaders of both countries.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> You're narrowly defining a term to suit your purposes, but it doesn't make you correct.


No, I am not, surrender means one thing. 

You are broadly defining the term peace? Are you not. You like to play with words, distort the meaning, and then accuse me of narrowly defining, surrender.

A negotiated peace with a country you are not at war with is not a surrender to the country you started the war with. "Negotiated", it never got that far. Russia refused to listen to offers, period.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> you may have also been discussing surrender, which is covered by the source I cited as anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension can see, but I also directly quoted where you stated that the Japanese were refusing to give up any territory they conquered. That was proven incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese entered into negotiations with Russia? When, where, who was involved? No historian has gone that far, but you can try to stretch out you flimsy quote of an intercepted cable and explain how that was indeed a real negotiation between the top leaders of both countries.
Click to expand...

The Japanese were attempting to open up negotiations with the Soviet Union, as evidenced by the cable I posted, because they wanted the USSR to assist them in negotiating a conditional surrender with the United States.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're narrowly defining a term to suit your purposes, but it doesn't make you correct.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not, surrender means one thing.
> 
> You are broadly defining the term peace? Are you not. You like to play with words, distort the meaning, and then accuse me of narrowly defining, surrender.
> 
> A negotiated peace with a country you are not at war with is not a surrender to the country you started the war with. "Negotiated", it never got that far. Russia refused to listen to offers, period.
Click to expand...

And I'm bored now.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Whether or not it says the actual word "surrender" is indeed a minor issue.


And at that, the cable was meaningless, minor. It was not a negotiation. It was a desperate act of the Japanese pleading with the Russians, for they feared the USA more than they feared the Russians. 

So yes, the cable that was nothing more than a simple question of a minor issue which was shrugged off as such.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Most surrenders are conditional. A truce is not quite the same thing. Now you're simply redefining words.


A truce, where no side wins, a negotiated peace. 

Surrender, submitting to the authority of your enemy who has kicked your ass in war. 

Negotiated peace was never on the table. That is why the Russian government brushed that thought aside and went to war with Japan.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're narrowly defining a term to suit your purposes, but it doesn't make you correct.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not, surrender means one thing.
> 
> You are broadly defining the term peace? Are you not. You like to play with words, distort the meaning, and then accuse me of narrowly defining, surrender.
> 
> A negotiated peace with a country you are not at war with is not a surrender to the country you started the war with. "Negotiated", it never got that far. Russia refused to listen to offers, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm bored now.
Click to expand...

You should be, you lost the point you tried to make and have nothing left.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most surrenders are conditional. A truce is not quite the same thing. Now you're simply redefining words.
> 
> 
> 
> A truce, where no side wins, a negotiated peace.
> 
> Surrender, submitting to the authority of your enemy who has kicked your ass in war.
> 
> Negotiated peace was never on the table. That is why the Russian government brushed that thought aside and went to war with Japan.
Click to expand...

A truce is where no side wins, see the Korean War. A negotiated peace, or conditional surrender, is where one side surrenders assuming certain conditions are met. They still lose, but on their own terms.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> A truce is where no side wins, see the Korean War. A negotiated peace, or conditional surrender, is where one side surrenders assuming certain conditions are met. They still lose, but on their own terms.


A negotiated peace is not a surrender. Never was, never will be. And again, a cable to russia is not a negotiation so your opinion of the matter does not reflect reality. 

Japan intended on keeping it's armies. 
Japan said it would give back which territories, specifically? There are no specifics. What about territories Japan took before the war? Would they give them back? And of course they were speaking in the context of Russian territories? Nothing more? Again the cable is nothing more than a simple message that never reached the level of a negotiation, let alone a negotiated peace.

The USA's position was always unconditional surrender. The Russians new that, and refuted the Japanese's "message".


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A truce is where no side wins, see the Korean War. A negotiated peace, or conditional surrender, is where one side surrenders assuming certain conditions are met. They still lose, but on their own terms.
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated peace is not a surrender. Never was, never will be. And again, a cable to russia is not a negotiation so your opinion of the matter does not reflect reality.
> 
> Japan intended on keeping it's armies.
> Japan said it would give back which territories, specifically? There are no specifics. What about territories Japan took before the war? Would they give them back? And of course they were speaking in the context of Russian territories? Nothing more? Again the cable is nothing more than a simple message that never reached the level of a negotiation, let alone a negotiated peace.
> 
> The USA's position was always unconditional surrender. The Russians new that, and refuted the Japanese's "message".
Click to expand...

Very boring.


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Very boring.


I am glad to see that is all you can reply with. I do not expect you to eat crow and enjoy it.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days..
> 
> Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to .... McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:


Labored, embarrassing, and immoral. According to your Mormon, religious, faith. Sound like trolling and flaming as a title. Odd to pick a fight in this first sentence.

Other high officials? I must assume. Given your long list of academic credentials that it is not a mistake, that you intended to state McGeorge Bundy was a "high official" in the Truman administration?

McGeorge Bundy was not in the Truman administration and as a lieutenant in the army for most of WW II, he was absolutely a LOW ranking officer.

Irrelevant in this discussion yet you elevate him to high position? Simply because, decades after, he may of said something you agree with?

May of said, because you do not source your post. The reason you dont source is you mostly parrot others hence you have no idea where to look for an actual quote and source.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> .


Yet tokyo found out about the destruction within minutes.

What is your need to sensationalize your post with such drama and deceit. 

Japan had radios, much more reliable during war than today's internet. 

It is a shame we can not see your tears while we read your post.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan.


FDR provoked Japan? ha ha ha. Let us make this another post you have no answer to. I will try and keep it simple. Why did FDR impose "crippling sanctions", and what was the date?


----------



## elektra

DGS49 said:


> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.


Amen


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen
Click to expand...




You lost the argument about 100 pages ago.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument about 100 pages ago.
Click to expand...

Actually the Nips lost the argument


----------



## mikegriffith1

> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*



This is a warped, inaccurate picture that seems to come straight from WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda. I know you never will, but you should read at least two or three books that challenge this wartime propaganda.



> f you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.



This is sheer, militaristic ignorance. FYI, **many people** did publicly question the nuking of Japan soon after the war and in the two decades that followed, including a number of leading generals and admirals such as General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General Feller, General Clarke, and Admiral Halsey. Were they unpatriotic or guilty of dishonoring the war effort?

So your attempt to hide behind the flag and to invoke your warped version of "patriotism" while you endorse immoral militarism and the mass killing of tens of thousands of women and children falls flat on its face.



> Actually the Nips lost the argument.



Clearly, anti-Japanese bigotry is alive and well in some quarters of America even in our day.

Maybe our next topic of discussion in this thread can be Truman's decision to launch a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan on August 14, after their surrender offer had been sent. But, that's okay, since they were only "Nips" after all, right?


----------



## mikegriffith1

> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*



This is a warped, inaccurate picture that seems to come straight from WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda. I know you never will, but you should read at least two or three books that challenge this wartime propaganda.



> f you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.



This is sheer, militaristic ignorance. FYI, **many people** did publicly question the nuking of Japan soon after the war and in the two decades that followed, including a number of leading generals and admirals such as General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General Feller, General Clarke, and Admiral Halsey. Were they unpatriotic or guilty of dishonoring the war effort?

So your attempt to hide behind the flag and to invoke your warped version of "patriotism" while you endorse immoral militarism and the mass killing of tens of thousands of women and children falls flat on its face.



> Actually the Nips lost the argument.



Clearly, anti-Japanese bigotry is alive and well in some quarters of America even in our day.

Maybe our next topic of discussion in this thread can be Truman's decision to launch a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan on August 14, after the Japanese had sent their surrender message. But, that's okay, since they were only "Nips" after all, right?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> ​Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



What amount of time, waiting, between atomic bombs, would not be obscene. 

This is the premise of your OP.

I have asked many times. How long were we suppose to wait?


----------



## elektra

[QUOTE="mikegriffith1, post: 22891687, member: 40621"Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
.[/QUOTE]
McGeorge Bundy, he was a 24 year old lieutenant in the army during WW II. You argument is so weak, or you are so uneducated, that you base an OP on Bundy? A complete nobody at the time who had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. 

How about linking to your source on Bundy. You can at least follow the rules and link.


----------



## Frannie

mikegriffith1 said:


> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a warped, inaccurate picture that seems to come straight from WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda. I know you never will, but you should read at least two or three books that challenge this wartime propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is sheer, militaristic ignorance. FYI, **many people** did publicly question the nuking of Japan soon after the war and in the two decades that followed, including a number of leading generals and admirals such as General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General Feller, General Clarke, and Admiral Halsey. Were they unpatriotic or guilty of dishonoring the war effort?
> 
> So your attempt to hide behind the flag and to invoke your warped version of "patriotism" while you endorse immoral militarism and the mass killing of tens of thousands of women and children falls flat on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Nips lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, anti-Japanese bigotry is alive and well in some quarters of America even in our day.
> 
> Maybe our next topic of discussion in this thread can be Truman's decision to launch a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan on August 14, after their surrender offer had been sent. But, that's okay, since they were only "Nips" after all, right?
Click to expand...

You want me to thank the nips for attacking the USA

Fuck you


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:.



McGeorge Bundy, he was a 24 year old lieutenant in the army during WW II. You argument is so weak, or you are so uneducated, that you base an OP on Bundy? A complete nobody at the time who had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. 

How about linking to your source on Bundy. You can at least follow the rules and link.

Bundy? Do you not read and research the topics you post your opinion of?


----------



## Frannie

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McGeorge Bundy, he was a 24 year old lieutenant in the army during WW II. You argument is so weak, or you are so uneducated, that you base an OP on Bundy? A complete nobody at the time who had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
> 
> How about linking to your source on Bundy. You can at least follow the rules and link.
> 
> Bundy? Do you not read and research the topics you post your opinion of?
Click to expand...

All this moron wants is attention, and we are giving it to the fool


----------



## elektra

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> "We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945 https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf





mikegriffith1 said:


> Are you just pretending not to understand the plain import of Togo's statement?  Do you understand that Togo was Japan's Foreign Minister and one of the biggest peace advocates in the cabinet?
> 
> The Japanese even offered to withdraw from all Chinese territory they had occupied after 1937...
> 
> Can you never admit to being wrong, no matter how clear the evidence?


_"Can you never admit to being wrong", _ I just got the book, Togo was not authorized to offer any territories that japan was holding. Togo got admonished, chastised.




> We will certainly not convince them with pretty little phrases devoid of all connection with reality



The phrase was devoid of all connection with reality? Why? You leave out so much and accuse me of being the one who cannot accept being wrong! You are a CHARLATAN,  all you do is parrot other's work you cut and paste from the internet. If that is not true, than you are devious low life liar. You list academic credentials, proudly, yet it appears you know nothing of simply reading a book. 

I include a bit more with the pics to prove I got the book, you even get a bonus, feet.


----------



## elektra

Sato, goes much further, stating, "we must first of all make up our minds to terminate the war". Obviously,  the message to Russia was nothing more than a simple message trying to find out Russia's position. That quote is in my pic in previous post.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

JoeB131 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, because the Japanese tried for months to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade Russia, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet Union, provoked Japan to war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese had been carrying out a genocidal war in China for nearly a decade... you think FDR should have rewarded them for THAT?
> 
> The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis in WWII... we just don't hear that much about it because the Jews run Hollywood and just can't stop whining about Hitler.   Now, if the Chinese ran Hollywood, that'd be a different story.
Click to expand...

*I don't know where I read that China had bought a part of a Hollywood Studio.   I know they bought and opened a TV station in DC.  The do the news on it.   If you search this site someone post all the info on it.*


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945 https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just pretending not to understand the plain import of Togo's statement?  Do you understand that Togo was Japan's Foreign Minister and one of the biggest peace advocates in the cabinet?
> 
> The Japanese even offered to withdraw from all Chinese territory they had occupied after 1937...
> 
> Can you never admit to being wrong, no matter how clear the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Can you never admit to being wrong", _ I just got the book, Togo was not authorized to offer any territories that japan was holding. Togo got admonished, chastised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will certainly not convince them with pretty little phrases devoid of all connection with reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase was devoid of all connection with reality? Why? You leave out so much and accuse me of being the one who cannot accept being wrong! You are a CHARLATAN,  all you do is parrot other's work you cut and paste from the internet. If that is not true, than you are devious low life liar. You list academic credentials, proudly, yet it appears you know nothing of simply reading a book.
> 
> I include a bit more with the pics to prove I got the book, you even get a bonus, feet.
Click to expand...


You are totally, totally confused. The Togo-Sato cables are not talking about what the Japanese were offering to the Nationalists; they're talking about what the Japanese would offer to the U.S. to achieve a negotiated peace. By the way, part of the reason that Tojo was dumped was his opposition to surrender. You do realize that Tojo was ousted, right?  Right? 

Japan was not a dictatorship. Tojo was ousted and was replaced by the pro-peace Admiral Suzuki. Suzuki played a key role in helping to overcome the hardliners. Although Suzuki publicly called for continuing the war until the bitter end, privately he was saying and doing just the opposite. Suzuki was chosen to be prime minister precisely because it was known that he supported ending the war as soon as possible via surrender. 

Second, I did not quote Hasegawa on Japan's peace feelers. I cited him on his point that it was the Soviet invasion, not the atomic bomb, that caused Japan to surrender.

Third, it is a fact of history that Japan eventually offered the Nationalists a deal where Japan would retain only her territory in Manchuria, which was a very, very reasonable offer, especially given the fact that before the Japanese took control of Manchuria, it was a land of chaos under warlord rule (and in fact the main warlord had gone to war with the Nationalists!).


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a warped, inaccurate picture that seems to come straight from WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda. I know you never will, but you should read at least two or three books that challenge this wartime propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is sheer, militaristic ignorance. FYI, **many people** did publicly question the nuking of Japan soon after the war and in the two decades that followed, including a number of leading generals and admirals such as General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General Feller, General Clarke, and Admiral Halsey. Were they unpatriotic or guilty of dishonoring the war effort?
> 
> So your attempt to hide behind the flag and to invoke your warped version of "patriotism" while you endorse immoral militarism and the mass killing of tens of thousands of women and children falls flat on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Nips lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, anti-Japanese bigotry is alive and well in some quarters of America even in our day.
> 
> Maybe our next topic of discussion in this thread can be Truman's decision to launch a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan on August 14, after their surrender offer had been sent. But, that's okay, since they were only "Nips" after all, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want me to thank the nips for attacking the USA
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



Where is that post?


----------



## Unkotare

It is beyond hilarious that some clown posting here is so proud of himself for purchasing a book, as if this unbelievable accomplishment hasn’t been carried out billions and billions of times by others. This is clearly someone so desperate to role-play as a scholar but who is obviously a mere dilettante.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a warped, inaccurate picture that seems to come straight from WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda. I know you never will, but you should read at least two or three books that challenge this wartime propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is sheer, militaristic ignorance. FYI, **many people** did publicly question the nuking of Japan soon after the war and in the two decades that followed, including a number of leading generals and admirals such as General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General Feller, General Clarke, and Admiral Halsey. Were they unpatriotic or guilty of dishonoring the war effort?
> 
> So your attempt to hide behind the flag and to invoke your warped version of "patriotism" while you endorse immoral militarism and the mass killing of tens of thousands of women and children falls flat on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Nips lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, anti-Japanese bigotry is alive and well in some quarters of America even in our day.
> 
> Maybe our next topic of discussion in this thread can be Truman's decision to launch a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan on August 14, after their surrender offer had been sent. But, that's okay, since they were only "Nips" after all, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want me to thank the nips for attacking the USA
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that post?
Click to expand...


Where is what post?

Duh


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a warped, inaccurate picture that seems to come straight from WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda. I know you never will, but you should read at least two or three books that challenge this wartime propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is sheer, militaristic ignorance. FYI, **many people** did publicly question the nuking of Japan soon after the war and in the two decades that followed, including a number of leading generals and admirals such as General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General Feller, General Clarke, and Admiral Halsey. Were they unpatriotic or guilty of dishonoring the war effort?
> 
> So your attempt to hide behind the flag and to invoke your warped version of "patriotism" while you endorse immoral militarism and the mass killing of tens of thousands of women and children falls flat on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Nips lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, anti-Japanese bigotry is alive and well in some quarters of America even in our day.
> 
> Maybe our next topic of discussion in this thread can be Truman's decision to launch a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan on August 14, after their surrender offer had been sent. But, that's okay, since they were only "Nips" after all, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want me to thank the nips for attacking the USA
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is what post?
> 
> Duh
Click to expand...



The one where anyone ever asked you to thank Japan for attacking our naval base.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a warped, inaccurate picture that seems to come straight from WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda. I know you never will, but you should read at least two or three books that challenge this wartime propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is sheer, militaristic ignorance. FYI, **many people** did publicly question the nuking of Japan soon after the war and in the two decades that followed, including a number of leading generals and admirals such as General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General Feller, General Clarke, and Admiral Halsey. Were they unpatriotic or guilty of dishonoring the war effort?
> 
> So your attempt to hide behind the flag and to invoke your warped version of "patriotism" while you endorse immoral militarism and the mass killing of tens of thousands of women and children falls flat on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Nips lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, anti-Japanese bigotry is alive and well in some quarters of America even in our day.
> 
> Maybe our next topic of discussion in this thread can be Truman's decision to launch a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan on August 14, after their surrender offer had been sent. But, that's okay, since they were only "Nips" after all, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want me to thank the nips for attacking the USA
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is what post?
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The one where anyone ever asked you to thank Japan for attacking our naval base.
Click to expand...


The only problem with your Mother keeping you in the closet for that long, is that you got out.

However in case you forgot


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a warped, inaccurate picture that seems to come straight from WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda. I know you never will, but you should read at least two or three books that challenge this wartime propaganda.
> 
> This is sheer, militaristic ignorance. FYI, **many people** did publicly question the nuking of Japan soon after the war and in the two decades that followed, including a number of leading generals and admirals such as General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General Feller, General Clarke, and Admiral Halsey. Were they unpatriotic or guilty of dishonoring the war effort?
> 
> So your attempt to hide behind the flag and to invoke your warped version of "patriotism" while you endorse immoral militarism and the mass killing of tens of thousands of women and children falls flat on its face.
> 
> Clearly, anti-Japanese bigotry is alive and well in some quarters of America even in our day.
> 
> Maybe our next topic of discussion in this thread can be Truman's decision to launch a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan on August 14, after their surrender offer had been sent. But, that's okay, since they were only "Nips" after all, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You want me to thank the nips for attacking the USA
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is what post?
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The one where anyone ever asked you to thank Japan for attacking our naval base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> However in case you forgot...
Click to expand...



Forgot what?

And where is the post? You weren’t just lying, were you?


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want me to thank the nips for attacking the USA
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is what post?
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The one where anyone ever asked you to thank Japan for attacking our naval base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> However in case you forgot...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot what?
> 
> And where is the post? You weren’t just lying, were you?
Click to expand...


This is the point where I could say that I wish I knew what you were babbling on about, however in fact I do not care.  That said the fact that you feel some kind of win, is actually hysterical.

In fact, you are the winner, I could never hope to be in competition with a nip lover


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Well Mike, I believe that we have clashed on issues in the past, but I am with all the way on this. It was motivated by revenge and probably racism with no regard for human life or human decency.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.


And that changes what exactly? You know what they say about two wrongs.


----------



## Frannie

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Mike, I believe that we have clashed on issues in the past, but I am with all the way on this. It was motivated by revenge and probably racism with no regard for human life or human decency.
Click to expand...

It was motivated by the tiredness of war and motivated by the peace it created.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Frannie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Mike, I believe that we have clashed on issues in the past, but I am with all the way on this. It was motivated by revenge and probably racism with no regard for human life or human decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was motivated by the tiredness of war and motivated by the peace it created.
Click to expand...

Brilliant!! Just fucking brilliant!!


----------



## Frannie

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Mike, I believe that we have clashed on issues in the past, but I am with all the way on this. It was motivated by revenge and probably racism with no regard for human life or human decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was motivated by the tiredness of war and motivated by the peace it created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brilliant!! Just fucking brilliant!!
Click to expand...


My Father fought with the Marines on Okinawa, so FUCK YOU

*Summary: *The battle of Okinawa, also known as Operation Iceberg, took place in April-June 1945. It was the largest amphibious landing in the Pacific theater of World War II. It also resulted in the largest casualties with over 100,000 Japanese casualties and 50,000 casualties for the Allies. This article gives an account of the 80 day plus battle for the Island of Okinawa which some have described as the “typhoon of steel”.

WW2 had to end, Japan would have been surrendered by little kids to small to kill themselves, nuking these crazy slant eyes saved who knows how many.

My Father is in one of these pictures, perhaps someday I will find the one, he will have a cigar butt hanging out of his mouth.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> You are totally, totally confused. The Togo-Sato cables are not talking about what the Japanese were offering to the Nationalists; they're talking about what the Japanese would offer to the U.S. to achieve a negotiated peace.


The Japanese had nothing to offer the USA as the cables factually state.


> We will certainly not convince them with pretty little phrases devoid of all connection with reality



Japan had lost everything, Sato was angry with Togo, for offering what they knew they could not offer. Why? Why could they not offer the occupied lands? After losing Burma, the Phillipines, Okinawa, Guam, etc., why could the Japanese not offer any land for peace? As the cable makes clear? 

There is no substance which established the Japanese were preparing to surrender in the cables. The cables do not say what the cherry picked original quote was made to seem. 

If you think another part of the book makes your point, go ahead and quote that part of the book and we will see. 

Until then, why don't you answer how long you think we should of waited between atomic bombs, your premise of this OP is three days was not enough. How many days would of been sufficient?


----------



## candycorn

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> And that changes what exactly? You know what they say about two wrongs.
Click to expand...


Dunno.  I do know nuking Japan ended the war they started.  Would this qualify as a right?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Although Suzuki publicly called for continuing the war until the bitter end, privately he was saying and doing just the opposite. Suzuki was chosen to be prime minister precisely because it was known that he supported ending the war as soon as possible via surrender.


Suzuki rejected the Potsdam declaration, a very stupid thing to do, for the rejection of the Potsdam declaration is exactly why the Atomic was dropped to end the War. Suzuki really screwed up.


----------



## Frannie

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Suzuki publicly called for continuing the war until the bitter end, privately he was saying and doing just the opposite. Suzuki was chosen to be prime minister precisely because it was known that he supported ending the war as soon as possible via surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Suzuki rejected the Potsdam declaration, a very stupid thing to do, for the rejection of the Potsdam declaration is exactly why the Atomic was dropped to end the War. Suzuki really screwed up.
Click to expand...

There were multiple reasons for the bomb being dropped
1. The losses in the last large battle of Okinawa
2. The fear that the Japanese would not surrender creating more Okinawa type losses
3. The belief that this weapon would both end this war and raise the standing of the USA
4. A message not only intended for Japan


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> And that changes what exactly? You know what they say about two wrongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dunno.  I do know nuking Japan ended the war they started.  Would this qualify as a right?
Click to expand...


What many forget is that most of those affected in the pacific were not Japanese or Americans but third country non participants. Was it good to end the war as soon as possible?  Of course


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":


Well, how many days would of been enough time, between atomic bombs?


----------



## Frannie

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how many days would of been enough time, between atomic bombs?
Click to expand...

The first bomb confused the Japanese, nothing like this had ever happened before and they may have thought God was responsible because no weapon of war was anything like this previously


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is what post?
> 
> Duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The one where anyone ever asked you to thank Japan for attacking our naval base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> However in case you forgot...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot what?
> 
> And where is the post? You weren’t just lying, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the point where I could say that I wish I knew what you were babbling on about, however in fact I do not care.  That said the fact that you feel some kind of win, is actually hysterical.
> 
> In fact, you are the winner, I could never hope to be in competition with a nip lover
Click to expand...




So, you’re a racist douche who can’t support his claims or find the strength of character to admit when he’s full of shit.


----------



## eagle1462010

Here we go again.................those judging history by the mentality of today.

Let's see ...........Japan attacked first.............yup.

Then got beat....................yup.

Got nuked to save GI's from dying on the Japanese mainland............yup.

So...........Oh well.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Here we go again.................those judging history by the mentality of today.......




Many American military leaders _of that day_ recognized that the use of atomic bombs against civilians was unnecessary and immoral.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Many American military leaders _of that day_ recognized that the use of atomic bombs against civilians was unnecessary and immoral.


Liar, nobody here has proven that claim in regards to even one person. You think you did or anyone else, feel free to link to that post.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many American military leaders _of that day_ recognized that the use of atomic bombs against civilians was unnecessary and immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, nobody here has proven that claim in regards to even one person. You think you did or anyone else, feel free to link to that post.
Click to expand...



It has been proven to you dozens of times here and on other threads. You are just playing the petulant child at this point because you lack the strength of character to face the issue directly.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> It has been proven to you dozens of times here and on other threads. You are just playing the petulant child at this point because you lack the strength of character to face the issue directly.


You just did that, you failed to face the issue directly.

You have not the intelligence to see that what you accuse me of you are doing right now. 

You certainly win the stupid award.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is what post?
> 
> Duh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one where anyone ever asked you to thank Japan for attacking our naval base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> However in case you forgot...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot what?
> 
> And where is the post? You weren’t just lying, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the point where I could say that I wish I knew what you were babbling on about, however in fact I do not care.  That said the fact that you feel some kind of win, is actually hysterical.
> 
> In fact, you are the winner, I could never hope to be in competition with a nip lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you’re a racist douche who can’t support his claims or find the strength of character to admit when he’s full of shit.
Click to expand...


Says the nerd who follows the liberal form that all people who voted for Trump and do not agree with the liberal socialist agenda are racist.

PS. You forgot deplorable

CIAO


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many American military leaders _of that day_ recognized that the use of atomic bombs against civilians was unnecessary and immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, nobody here has proven that claim in regards to even one person. You think you did or anyone else, feel free to link to that post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has been proven to you dozens of times here and on other threads. You are just playing the petulant child at this point because you lack the strength of character to face the issue directly.
Click to expand...

Yea you are right, you are such a good prover, I do wish I could be as talented as you.  However I would have to trade my stock portfolio for beer


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one where anyone ever asked you to thank Japan for attacking our naval base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> However in case you forgot...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot what?
> 
> And where is the post? You weren’t just lying, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the point where I could say that I wish I knew what you were babbling on about, however in fact I do not care.  That said the fact that you feel some kind of win, is actually hysterical.
> 
> In fact, you are the winner, I could never hope to be in competition with a nip lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you’re a racist douche who can’t support his claims or find the strength of character to admit when he’s full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the nerd who follows the liberal form that all people who voted for Trump and do not agree with the liberal socialist agenda are racist.
> 
> PS. You forgot deplorable
> 
> CIAO
Click to expand...



I’ve never said anything remotely like that, liar.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> However in case you forgot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot what?
> 
> And where is the post? You weren’t just lying, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the point where I could say that I wish I knew what you were babbling on about, however in fact I do not care.  That said the fact that you feel some kind of win, is actually hysterical.
> 
> In fact, you are the winner, I could never hope to be in competition with a nip lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you’re a racist douche who can’t support his claims or find the strength of character to admit when he’s full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the nerd who follows the liberal form that all people who voted for Trump and do not agree with the liberal socialist agenda are racist.
> 
> PS. You forgot deplorable
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve never said anything remotely like that, liar.
Click to expand...


Says the art teacher


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Many American military leaders _of that day_ recognized that the use of atomic bombs against civilians was unnecessary and immoral.


Yes, right, like McGeorge Bundy, who is quoted in the OP. The 1st military leader mentioned in this OP. 

I have addressed Lieutenant Bundy, He was a 24 year old lieutenant in the army during Ww II. He was and is irrelevant to this discussion as he was not involved in any part of th e.g. atomic bomb being dropped. His opinion on this at the time, was like all in the army, thank god the war is over.

Military leaders, Bundy, not hardly.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> However in case you forgot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot what?
> 
> And where is the post? You weren’t just lying, were you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the point where I could say that I wish I knew what you were babbling on about, however in fact I do not care.  That said the fact that you feel some kind of win, is actually hysterical.
> 
> In fact, you are the winner, I could never hope to be in competition with a nip lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you’re a racist douche who can’t support his claims or find the strength of character to admit when he’s full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the nerd who follows the liberal form that all people who voted for Trump and do not agree with the liberal socialist agenda are racist.
> 
> PS. You forgot deplorable
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve never said anything remotely like that, liar.
Click to expand...

You are rrying the have an intellectual discussion with an uneducated racist.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been proven to you dozens of times here and on other threads. You are just playing the petulant child at this point because you lack the strength of character to face the issue directly.
> 
> 
> 
> You just did that, you failed to face the issue directly.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



The issue is that we used the most terrible weapon in the history of the world to deliberately slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.


----------



## Frannie

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot what?
> 
> And where is the post? You weren’t just lying, were you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point where I could say that I wish I knew what you were babbling on about, however in fact I do not care.  That said the fact that you feel some kind of win, is actually hysterical.
> 
> In fact, you are the winner, I could never hope to be in competition with a nip lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you’re a racist douche who can’t support his claims or find the strength of character to admit when he’s full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the nerd who follows the liberal form that all people who voted for Trump and do not agree with the liberal socialist agenda are racist.
> 
> PS. You forgot deplorable
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve never said anything remotely like that, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are rrying the have an intellectual discussion with an uneducated racist.
Click to expand...

Says the liberal fool.  Can you tell us again how Hillary really won


----------



## Unkotare

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot what?
> 
> And where is the post? You weren’t just lying, were you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point where I could say that I wish I knew what you were babbling on about, however in fact I do not care.  That said the fact that you feel some kind of win, is actually hysterical.
> 
> In fact, you are the winner, I could never hope to be in competition with a nip lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you’re a racist douche who can’t support his claims or find the strength of character to admit when he’s full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the nerd who follows the liberal form that all people who voted for Trump and do not agree with the liberal socialist agenda are racist.
> 
> PS. You forgot deplorable
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve never said anything remotely like that, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the art teacher
Click to expand...



There's another lie revealing more about your lack of character.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many American military leaders _of that day_ recognized that the use of atomic bombs against civilians was unnecessary and immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, right, like McGeorge Bundy, who is quoted in the OP. ......
Click to expand...



Then talk to the thread starter. I have never mentioned him, I have just watched several people make a fool of you on this thread.


----------



## Taz

We should go back and nuke Japan again. Then say: how is it being fucking sneak attacked, you slanty eyes sacks of wet rice.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Then talk to the thread starter. I have never mentioned him,


For that matter, have you mentioned anyone? I have shown how every person quoted, was misquoted, quoted out of context, the quotes are cherry picked, or the quotes do not appear where they are referenced. Once all that is shown, the original quote from the proper source does not confirm what you state and believe or anyone else that believes the OP.

So flame on turd face, that is all you are here for.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> The issue is that we used the most terrible weapon in the history of the world to deliberately slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.


The issue is you are not happy we won the war and saved thousands of our POW's from torture and death.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

eagle1462010 said:


> Here we go again.................those judging history by the mentality of today.


Which we should always do. Always.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then talk to the thread starter. I have never mentioned him,
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, have you mentioned anyone?....
Click to expand...



Yes. Stop hiding from the issue.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that we used the most terrible weapon in the history of the world to deliberately slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is you are not happy we won the war and saved thousands of our POW's from torture and death.
Click to expand...


When you resort to childish lies like that you are signalling your own personal surrender. Maybe you should stay out of the deep end.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> When you resort to childish lies like that you are signalling your own personal surrender. Maybe you should stay out of the deep end.


Lies? You are clearly not happy with the results of the Pacific War. We ended the war as quick as humanely possible. Any other ending, besides not existing, would of prolonged the suffering and dying of our POWs. 

So what am I to think of you. My posts are only a reflection of what you present of yourself. Certainly you are not part of this discussion. That much is very clear to anybody who reads your posts. Yes, I should ignore and block you. But, on occasion I try to goad you into joining humanity, but all things considered, you have chosen to be a turd on the sidewalk. Something normal people always avoid. I guess I felt sorry for you, seeing how you are definitely pretty fucked up psychologically.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you resort to childish lies like that you are signalling your own personal surrender. Maybe you should stay out of the deep end.
> 
> 
> 
> Lies? You are clearly not happy with the results of the Pacific War. .....
Click to expand...


That is a lie.

You continue to be a lying sack of crap.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again.................those judging history by the mentality of today.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many American military leaders _of that day_ recognized that the use of atomic bombs against civilians was unnecessary and immoral.
Click to expand...

Tell that to my relatives that were waiting to invade Japan.  The casualties were projected to be very high.  Whether you like it or not the Nukes actually saved lives on both sides.  The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death, and it would have killed millions possibly if they had their way.

They should have surrendered earlier.  It is their fault for STARTING THE WAR, and for refusing to surrender after they knew the War was lost.  They caused the deaths of those cities by their actions, and not our military.

Millions of people had already died in WWII.............and nobody back then really gave a damn about 2 more cities being destroyed to end the war.  Your continued outrage of it doesn't matter.............it is part of the history and a history that was caused by Japan.........Not the United States.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been proven to you dozens of times here and on other threads. You are just playing the petulant child at this point because you lack the strength of character to face the issue directly.
> 
> 
> 
> You just did that, you failed to face the issue directly.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that we used the most terrible weapon in the history of the world to deliberately slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Click to expand...

Killing the enemy is War is a deliberate act.  To win the War you either kill the enemy or break his will to continue.  That was achieved by the bombs. 

In that time frame the World fought Total War............and their is no innocent civilians in Total War..............This style of War was fought all over the War by all sides.............Bombing entire cities into rubble. 

The bombs intent was to force a quick surrender of Japan.  It worked.  End of story and end of the War.


----------



## eagle1462010

Tokyo after operation Meeting House.  Firebombing of Tokyo


----------



## HenryBHough

Lesson for all future presidents:

Don't start wars you don't have the balls to win.

Thank You, Harry!


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again.................those judging history by the mentality of today.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many American military leaders _of that day_ recognized that the use of atomic bombs against civilians was unnecessary and immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to my relatives that were waiting to invade Japan.  The casualties were projected to be very high.  Whether you like it or not the Nukes actually saved lives on both sides.  The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death, and it would have killed millions possibly if they had their way.
> 
> They should have surrendered earlier.  It is their fault for STARTING THE WAR, and for refusing to surrender after they knew the War was lost.  They caused the deaths of those cities by their actions, and not our military.
> 
> Millions of people had already died in WWII.............and nobody back then really gave a damn about 2 more cities being destroyed to end the war.  Your continued outrage of it doesn't matter.............it is part of the history and a history that was caused by Japan.........Not the United States.
Click to expand...



You've got a middle schooler's idea of the war (and war in general) at best. 

Atomic bomb or mass invasion were not the only two options.

Chicago Tribune History

The Necessity of Dropping A-Bombs on Japan Was Another Evil Deception

https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/FDR_denied_Japanese_surrender_memo

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor | Robert Higgs

FDR provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor


I'm very, very glad my country was victorious in that terrible war, but only children play cowboys and indians. Historians and cheerleaders are not the same thing. Tell anyone you want.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been proven to you dozens of times here and on other threads. You are just playing the petulant child at this point because you lack the strength of character to face the issue directly.
> 
> 
> 
> You just did that, you failed to face the issue directly.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that we used the most terrible weapon in the history of the world to deliberately slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing the enemy is War is a deliberate act.  To win the War you either kill the enemy or break his will to continue.  That was achieved by the bombs.
> 
> In that time frame the World fought Total War............and their is no innocent civilians in Total War.................
Click to expand...



If Germany had managed to develop an atomic bomb and sailed it into NY Harbor, you damn well know you would not be saying that no innocent civilians had been killed. You're being dishonest with yourself because you don't have the stomach to admit the moral consequence of what really happened.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again.................those judging history by the mentality of today.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many American military leaders _of that day_ recognized that the use of atomic bombs against civilians was unnecessary and immoral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to my relatives that were waiting to invade Japan.  The casualties were projected to be very high.  Whether you like it or not the Nukes actually saved lives on both sides.  The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death, and it would have killed millions possibly if they had their way.
> 
> They should have surrendered earlier.  It is their fault for STARTING THE WAR, and for refusing to surrender after they knew the War was lost.  They caused the deaths of those cities by their actions, and not our military.
> 
> Millions of people had already died in WWII.............and nobody back then really gave a damn about 2 more cities being destroyed to end the war.  Your continued outrage of it doesn't matter.............it is part of the history and a history that was caused by Japan.........Not the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've got a middle schooler's idea of the war (and war in general) at best.
> 
> Atomic bomb or mass invasion were not the only two options.
> 
> Chicago Tribune History
> 
> The Necessity of Dropping A-Bombs on Japan Was Another Evil Deception
> 
> https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/FDR_denied_Japanese_surrender_memo
> 
> How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor | Robert Higgs
> 
> FDR provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> I'm very, very glad my country was victorious in that terrible war, but only children play cowboys and indians. Historians and cheerleaders are not the same thing. Tell anyone you want.
Click to expand...

Take your Teachers BS and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.  The way to win a War is to kill or break the enemies will to fight.  Mission accomplished with the Atom bombs.  It broke the back of Japan who were continuing to fight even though they knew the War was lost.   They were trying to cause more casualties to try for a better surrender deal.  Their military was demanding to fight to the death.   They should have surrendered if they didn't want to get flattened.  I had Uncles over there waiting to invade mainland Japan.  They said that had this happened they wouldn't be here today as the casualties would be massive. 

Let's see...........should I listen to them or you.  One who is Bible thumping endlessly over the racism theory of how evil the United States is for using the bomb........using some low level officer's word in this thread to justify it with the ability of hindsite.   Playing the Racist card to the point of Nausism.....OR my uncles who fought there.

Let's see...................hmmmm........

I think i'll choose my uncles..............my father..........my father n law.........all who fought there...............And circular file your BS outrage of the United States doing what it needed to do to win the War with less American casualties.

Why don't you start a thread on the Japanese Attrocities in China, Phillipines, and well everywhere there were POW'S.............they worked captives to death......starved them..........tortured them......

So pardon me when I don't give a rats ass. about your outrage over using the bomb.

Japan shouldn't have attacked the United States............Shouldn't have invaded everyone in the region..............They chose that path and got their butts stomped.  They chose it........and they chose the destruction of their cities.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been proven to you dozens of times here and on other threads. You are just playing the petulant child at this point because you lack the strength of character to face the issue directly.
> 
> 
> 
> You just did that, you failed to face the issue directly.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that we used the most terrible weapon in the history of the world to deliberately slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing the enemy is War is a deliberate act.  To win the War you either kill the enemy or break his will to continue.  That was achieved by the bombs.
> 
> In that time frame the World fought Total War............and their is no innocent civilians in Total War.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Germany had managed to develop an atomic bomb and sailed it into NY Harbor, you damn well know you would not be saying that no innocent civilians had been killed. You're being dishonest with yourself because you don't have the stomach to admit the moral consequence of what really happened.
Click to expand...

If Hitler had gotten the bomb first, the Sadistic SOB would have used it.

Got news for you, when Japan surrendered they were trying to build Chemical and biological weapons.............You don't want to go there, because had they succeeded they would have used biological weapons on us...........so we won the tech race with the bomb..............and ended it..............That is how Wars are fought.  They don't give a damn about your morality when it comes to winning and survival..............Millions had already died.............sorry............the cities bombed by the Nukes were a drop in the bucket to the blood being shed in the War.

Japan started the War.............they shouldn't have done so.........they got what they deserved.  Again we can go to how they treated prisoners of War and what they did in China................You don't want to go there...............


----------



## sparky

Unkotare said:


> Historians and cheerleaders are not the same thing.



History teaches us the top WW2 brass  thought the 'bomb' _unnecessary _

Cheerleaders insist on an imaginary body count as _validation_

~S~


----------



## eagle1462010

sparky said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians and cheerleaders are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History teaches us the top WW2 brass  thought the 'bomb' _unnecessary _
> 
> Cheerleaders insist on an imaginary body count as _validation_
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

The body count of the GI's fighting the War were growing everyday.........Japan's surrender ended that.............now didn't it...................

History is what it is..................decisions made to save American lives and end the war.............Now the outrage about it forever...........on how evil we were for doing it.  Trashing America for Racial politics..................

Ignoring the horrible things the Japanese did in that War..........which helped cause the decision to drop the nukes......OH WELL.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ...
> 
> Let's see...........should I listen to them or you. ...........using some low level officer's word in this thread to justify it with the ability of hindsite [sic].   ....




"Low level" like Admiral Leahy? Secretary of War Stimson? Admiral Halsey? Eisenhower (you've heard of him maybe?)? 

If you're going to listen to anyone, maybe you should consider thinking too. Read the links I gave you.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ............the cities bombed by the Nukes were a drop in the bucket to the blood being shed in the War................




Again, you wouldn't think about casually writing off the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of American civilians (no one in their right mind would). Don't talk about history if you can't even bring yourself to look straight at it.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ...........on how evil we were for doing it.  .....




_You_ have used the word "evil" several times now. Only you. Maybe you don't realize  how you expose yourself when you resort to facile straw men like that.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ...
> 
> Ignoring the horrible things the Japanese did in that War..........which helped cause the decision to drop the nukes......OH WELL.




Are you saying the atomic bombs were used on behalf of China? I thought you claimed they were "necessary" to end the war? Was that a lie? Were hundreds of thousands of civilians slaughtered as an act of revenge for an attack on a US military base? Be consistent.


----------



## Markle




----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ............the cities bombed by the Nukes were a drop in the bucket to the blood being shed in the War................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you wouldn't think about casually writing off the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of American civilians (no one in their right mind would). Don't talk about history if you can't even bring yourself to look straight at it.
Click to expand...

History ...........how about the raping of Nanking by the Japanese army.  The Baton Death March.

They should have surrendered earlier.  Had this been done by carpet bombing the result would have been nearly the same.

The History shows they surrendered right after the bombs were dropped.  Mission accomplished.............your outrage today is meaningless...............The people dying and fighting in that war didn't give a damn if someone like you was offended 83 years later. 

Japan started a War it couldn't win........and got it's ass kicked ............end of story.......no amount of whining from you changes that............nor your outrage of the bombs.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...........on how evil we were for doing it.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ have used the word "evil" several times now. Only you. Maybe you don't realize  how you expose yourself when you resort to facile straw men like that.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm to you and your BS outrage went right over your head.  Let's clear this up............I don't give a rats behind you are outraged over the decision today.........neither did the people who fought it................Again.........I'll take the words of the people who fought there over you.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Ignoring the horrible things the Japanese did in that War..........which helped cause the decision to drop the nukes......OH WELL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the atomic bombs were used on behalf of China? I thought you claimed they were "necessary" to end the war? Was that a lie? Were hundreds of thousands of civilians slaughtered as an act of revenge for an attack on a US military base? Be consistent.
Click to expand...

You are twisted..............I said that if we want more history that we should go to what the Japanese army did in China...............and what they did to POW's.........Given what they had been doing in the War.............nobody cared when they dropped the bombs to make them say Uncle Sam...........

You can play this stupid little game of how outraged you are to the end of days.........doesn't change a thing.............and you will not win me over on being outraged with you.

Japan got what they deserved for attacking us and the whole dang region..........Oh well if it gets your panties in a wad.


----------



## mikegriffith1

eagle1462010 said:


> The body count of the GI's fighting the War were growing everyday.........Japan's surrender ended that.............now didn't it...................



HUH???  The only place where GIs were doing anything approaching substantive fighting when we nuked Japan was on Luzon, and that was only because we were needlessly pursuing the Japanese into the jungle after they had given up trying to engage us and had retreated. 



> History is what it is..................decisions made to save American lives and end the war.............Now the outrage about it forever...........on how evil we were for doing it.



I take it you haven't read the OP and my replies. We did not need to nuke Japan to end the war without an invasion. 



> Trashing America for Racial politics..................



No, but you're trashing American principles by defending the actions of Harry Truman, a liberal Democrat who later handed over China to Mao's Communists and sentenced at least 30 million Chinese to die under Mao's rule. 

Patriotism is not blindly defending the actions of a liberal Democratic administration, an administration that included Soviet spies and sympathizers. 



> Ignoring the horrible things the Japanese did in that War..........which helped cause the decision to drop the nukes......OH WELL.



You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true. Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too. And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> HUH???  The only place where GIs were doing anything approaching substantive fighting when we nuked Japan was on Luzon, and that was only because we were needlessly pursuing the Japanese into the jungle after they had given up trying to engage us and had retreated.


Thus far, you have lost all your debates in support of your OP.

The Japanese were at war with the USA the week we dropped the bomb on hiroshima. Over 1,000 U.S. military men were killed that week.

At least, 84 Americans were killed by the Japanese in one engagement alone! On August 6th, the day we stopped Hiroshima from actively fighting the war.

Certainly with the level of education you claim you know these simple facts. Hence, your post is pure lie.

You know the truth but choose to be a filthy liar.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.


After losing this thread, failing at supporting your OP and ignoring dozens of posts that point that out, I doubt you are man enough to prove this post of yours is anything but a lie, but who knows, maybe calling you out as a unpatriotic filthy liar will shame you into responding.

The Japanese had pilots and planes that could of intercepted the Enola Gay, that is pure fact, so your sick little fallacy that Hiroshima was defenseless illustrates your character, which as I stated is that of an unpatriotic filthy liar.

Further, the Japanese did shoot down a B-32 killing at least one man, over Japan, ten days after Hiroshima. How is it possible that a person as educated as yourself does not know this?

The answer is, it is impossible for you not to know. You are simply a purposeful, unpatriotic, filthy, liar.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.
> 
> 
> 
> After losing this thread, failing at supporting your OP and ignoring dozens of posts that point that out, I doubt you are man enough to prove this post of yours is anything but a lie, but who knows, maybe calling you out as a unpatriotic filthy liar will gall you into responding.
> 
> The Japanese has pilots and planes that could of intercepted the Enola Gay, that is pure fact, so your sick little fallacy that Hiroshima was defenseless illustrates your character, which as I stated is that of an unpatriotic filthy liar.
> 
> Further, the Japanese did shoot down a B-32 killing at least one man, over Japan, ten days after Hiroshima. How is it possible that a person as educated as yourself does not know this?
> 
> The answer is, it is impossible for you not to know. You are simply a purposeful, unpatriotic, filthy, liar.
Click to expand...



Disingenuous in the extreme.


----------



## Markle

mikegriffith1 said:


> You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true. Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too. And _*nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms*_ was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.



As you know, that is a total, 100% lie.  As with Germany, the ONLY acceptable terms was an unconditional surrender.  What part of that is not clear to you? 

QED!


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true. Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too. And _*nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms*_ was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, that is a total, 100% lie.  As with Germany, the ONLY acceptable terms was an unconditional surrender.  What part of that is not clear to you?
> 
> QED!
Click to expand...


In the end, we accepted the only condition emphasized in the overtures to surrender which were floated and about which fdr was informed long before the atomic bombs were dropped. Before, even, the bloody Battle of Okinawa. fdr didn’t care who died on either side as long as he could fulfill his desire to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Thus far, you have lost all your debates in support of your OP.



Uh-huh. You bet.



> The Japanese were at war with the USA the week we dropped the bomb on hiroshima. Over 1,000 U.S. military men were killed that week.



I already addressed this point, but, as usual, you simply ignored my response and repeated your talking point. Yeah, of course we were still "at war" with Japan--because Truman refused to do what most of his advisers urged him to do and because he refused to act on the intelligence that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to end the war on acceptable terms.



> At least, 84 Americans were killed by the Japanese in one engagement alone! On August 6th, the day we stopped Hiroshima from actively fighting the war.



See above. You do realize that by mid-June, at the latest, the Japanese had ceased all offensive operations, right? We were needlessly pursuing them when they were clearly contained and posed no threat to us, such as on Luzon.



> Certainly with the level of education you claim you know these simple facts. Hence, your post is pure lie. You know the truth but choose to be a filthy liar.



No, the problem is that you only seek talking points and refuse to read scholarship that challenges your warped sense of "patriotism."


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> In the end, we accepted the only condition emphasized in the overtures to surrender which were floated and about which fdr was informed long before the atomic bombs were dropped. Before, even, the bloody Battle of Okinawa. fdr didn’t care who died on either side as long as he could fulfill his desire to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.



It is so good that we have you who can commune with the long-deceased FDR.  Who else can we turn to for such pearls of wisdom!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

eagle1462010 said:


> The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death


Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.


----------



## MaryL

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


From my article: Oh come on now. The Japanese killed so many innocent civilians all through Indo China, and in China before 1941. I cant pinpoint the numbers. That, my friend was the REAL obscenity here.  Its too bad say, the massive firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 wasn't  enough to stop the  Japanese war machine... No.  One Nuke wasn't enough. No, it took two. The Japanese war machine had a certain momentum it took the blandishment of absolute power to curb their war dogs...


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, we accepted the only condition emphasized in the overtures to surrender which were floated and about which fdr was informed long before the atomic bombs were dropped. Before, even, the bloody Battle of Okinawa. fdr didn’t care who died on either side as long as he could fulfill his desire to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is so good that we have you who can commune with the long-deceased FDR.  Who else can we turn to for such pearls of wisdom!
Click to expand...



fdr was informed about feelers for surrender and responded by deriding McArthur for being poor at politics, and he disregarded the notion entirely. It is not an unreasonable conclusion that he was not interested in an earlier peace.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> From my article: Oh come on now. The Japanese killed so many innocent civilians all through Indo China, and in China before 1941.....
Click to expand...



So, you are claiming the the US decided to drop atomic bombs on civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of other nations?


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death
> 
> 
> 
> Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.
Click to expand...



The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus far, you have lost all your debates in support of your OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. You bet.
Click to expand...

Then answer the question, how many days should we of waited between dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you said three was too little. How many days should we of waited?

You also based the OP on McGeorge Bundy, who was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II who knew nothing of the Atomic bomb. Why would you use Bundy who knew nothing and was not involved in any decision making in regards to the Atomic bomb. 

Uh-huh, I bet, indeed. The basis of the OP, how many days and what in the hell does Bundy have to do with anything when he knew nothing. 

Go ahead. It is your OP.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare, once again, and I'll type slowly for you.

Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific.

*QED!*


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were at war with the USA the week we dropped the bomb on hiroshima. Over 1,000 U.S. military men were killed that week.
> 
> 
> 
> .....you simply ignored my response and repeated your talking point. Yeah, of course we were still "at war" with Japan--because Truman refused to do what most of his advisers urged him to do and because he refused to act on the intelligence that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to end the war on acceptable terms.
Click to expand...

It is a talking point? A fact of history, the deaths of thousands of our men fighting, is a "talking point".

You are nothing more than a lousy piece of shit. You are the one clinging to talking points while describing facts of history as such! The deaths of thousands of Americans is simply a talking point in your warped opinion!!!! That is the cheap work of lying charaltan that has lost, can not prove his OP to be truthful. 

You are truly, a dishonorable person. So highly educated, yet you can not admit facts of history, you must obfuscate the truth to make your troubled argument. Our men were dying because the Japanese were never going to surrender. 

Suburo Sakai says as much in August of 1945 right before the bomb is dropped,  in his book, Samurai, on page 347 "There was no possibility of surrender. We would fight to the last man".


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman refused to do what most of his advisers urged him to do and because he refused to act on the intelligence that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to end the war on acceptable terms.


You have not proven this, not in the least. Not one of Truman's advisors disagreed with Truman at any point on any point. You think you proved this, go ahead and link to the post. I am sure my response follows closely, which you ignored for you have no answer when confronted with facts and knowledge. 

And you call yourself educated? At over a dozen colleges and universities? 

Go ahead, show us, show us that you have proven this! Link to the post with the proof, prove you are not a lying charlatan.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Unkotare, once again, and I'll type slowly for you.
> 
> Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific.
> 
> *QED!*




A war that might have been ended sooner with less loss of life on both sides. Or don’t you care about at least the American lives that might have been saved?


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Then answer the question, how many days should we of waited between dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you said three was too little. How many days should we of waited?
> 
> You also based the OP on McGeorge Bundy, who was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II who knew nothing of the Atomic bomb. Why would you use Bundy who knew nothing and was not involved in any decision making in regards to the Atomic bomb.
> 
> Uh-huh, I bet, indeed. The basis of the OP, how many days and what in the hell does Bundy have to do with anything when he knew nothing.
> 
> Go ahead. It is your OP.



I already answered every one of these arguments in a previous reply.

And, again, FYI, Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's defense of nuking Japan. In fact, reportedly, he helped Stimson "change his mind" about the nuking.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer the question, how many days should we of waited between dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you said three was too little. How many days should we of waited?
> 
> You also based the OP on McGeorge Bundy, who was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II who knew nothing of the Atomic bomb. Why would you use Bundy who knew nothing and was not involved in any decision making in regards to the Atomic bomb.
> 
> Uh-huh, I bet, indeed. The basis of the OP, how many days and what in the hell does Bundy have to do with anything when he knew nothing.
> 
> Go ahead. It is your OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered every one of these arguments in a previous reply.
> 
> And, again, FYI, Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's defense of nuking Japan. In fact, reportedly, he helped Stimson "change his mind" about the nuking.
Click to expand...

Bundy helped Stimson write a book, so Bundy had absolutely nothing to do with dropping the bomb and thus far you have not provided a source or even an accurate quote as to what bundy had said. So your use of a lieutenant in the Army during the time has zero relevance. 

You answered? You are a lousy liar, period. If you answered you could easily link to the post. 

How many days would of been enough time waiting between bombs. You have not answered that, and stating that you did simply shows you are a liar, for it would be just as easy now, to state how many days. 

You have failed at proving that your opinion is based on any facts or is relevant to our history. Again, you are a lousy lying charlatan.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death
> 
> 
> 
> Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.
Click to expand...

History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered.  We were still at War.

Too damned bad Tojo...........


----------



## mikegriffith1

eagle1462010 said:


> The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death



False. Many senior military officers favored surrender, as did many regular soldiers. One of the moderates who played a crucial role in bringing about a surrender was Admiral Suzuki.



> Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.



This is the kind of juvenile and absurd barbarism that comes from bigotry. It is also the kind of un-American cruelty that one must espouse to defend Truman's decision to use nukes.



> History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered.  We were still at War.



How many times are you going to ignore the fact that by no later than July we knew from intercepts and other sources that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, were ready and willing to surrender on acceptable terms and that the only issue was the emperor's status in an "unconditional surrender"? You guys just keep ignoring this fact.



> Too damned bad Tojo...........



Uh, FYI, Tojo had long since been replaced as prime minister by the time we nuked Hiroshima. Tojo was forced to resign over a year earlier, in July 1944, after the fall of Saipan. Do you know who replaced him? One of the leading moderates and advocates of surrender: General Koiso. And do you know who replaced General Koiso four months before Hiroshima? Another leading moderate and surrender advocate: Admiral Suzuki. Do you see a pattern here?

Truman, whether through ignorance and incompetence and/or hatred and malice, did all he could to help the Japanese hardliners thwart all the moderates' surrender efforts. The hardliners' trump card was the argument that the U.S. would depose the emperor if Japan surrendered, since this was implied in the Potsdam Declaration and in other U.S. statements. The first draft of the Potsdam Declaration contained a clarification that said the emperor would not be deposed, but Truman removed it.

The other card that the hardliners played was that the Soviets would remain neutral until the neutrality/non-aggression pact ended in April 1946, especially since the Soviets had not signed the Potsdam Declaration. The hardliners knew that a Soviet invasion would necessitate a speedy surrender to avoid Soviet occupation. 

If Truman had given the Japanese any indication that the Soviet Union would attack them in the near future, this would have caused even most hardliners to support surrender. If the Soviets had signed the Potsdam Declaration, this likewise would have caused most hardliners to support surrender. Do you know why the Soviets did not sign the Potsdam Declaration? Because Truman would not let them. He wanted the Japanese to think that the Soviets were still neutral. Truman's deception greatly aided the hardliners and helped them to stall surrender.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> -- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.
> .


Yet, on August 6th, 1945, the USS Bullhead was sunk, by the Japanese air force, 84 men dead.

August 17th, 1945 a B-32 was shot down by the japanese, one dead.

If my uneducated self can find these facts then you can as well. Given your many degrees and college studies, it would appear you are a purposeful lying charlatan. 

Defenseless, nope, not at all. The Japanese could of shot down the Enola Gay but the mistakenly thought one bomber was nothing to worry about.

Japan was busy killing Americans while you claim they were beat and surrendering. 

But, to you, the charlatan the deaths of americans are "talking points".


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death
> 
> 
> 
> Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered.  We were still at War.
> 
> Too damned bad Tojo...........
Click to expand...



Tojo had already been removed well before the end of the war. If you want to talk about history, maybe you should know something about it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Markle said:


> Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific


Thank you Captain Obvious. But this is a discussion about whether or not it could have ended differently.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Yet, on August 6th, 1945, the USS Bullhead was sunk, by the Japanese air force, 84 men dead.



Uh, well, like you said, we were still at war. And, umm, where was the USS Bullhead sunk?  The Java Sea.



> August 17th, 1945 a B-32 was shot down by the japanese, one dead.



Actually, it was August 18th. And why was it shot down? Why was it even flying over Tokyo after the emperor had already announced Japan's surrender? It was not the only B-32 in the air over Tokyo: it just happened to be the only one that got shot down. Why were we flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo on August 18th, four days after the Japanese had surrendered? Since we did not bother to notify the Japanese that we were going to flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo, the Japanese logically feared that we were going to bomb Tokyo in violation of the surrender agreement, so they sent up some fighters to intercept our bombers and fighters.



> Defenseless, nope, not at all.



Is this nonsense how you justify Truman's barbarism in your own mind? Go read the USSBS's report on Japan's prostrate condition as of July 1944. As I've pointed out, by June 1945, the odds of an American bomber or fighter getting shot down over Japan were 3 in 1,000, or 0.003%. 

Technically speaking, one can say that the Japanese were not completely defenseless against air attack, but when they were only able to shoot down 0.003% of our planes, one can certainly say that they were "virtually defenseless." 



> The Japanese could of shot down the Enola Gay but the mistakenly thought one bomber was nothing to worry about.



If we had thought there was any chance that the Enola Gay and its two sister planes would come under attack, we would have sent fighters to escort them once they neared Hiroshima. The fact that we did not bother to do this speaks volumes.



> Japan was busy killing Americans while you claim they were beat and surrendering.



More ahistorical and disingenuous comedy. Japan had ceased offensive operations in the Pacific many months before Hiroshima. The only Americans who were killed after Okinawa were those who were engaged in offensive operations. No Americans would have been killed if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and had not refused to simply specify that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender.



> But, to you, the charlatan the deaths of americans are "talking points".



Still trying to wrap your anti-American, pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese Communist barbarism in the flag, hey?  Eisenhower opposed using nukes, partly because he knew that Japan was already beaten. Ike would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed. Admiral Leahy would have done the same thing. So would Admiral Nimitz. So would General Feller. So would General Clarke. So would many other good and decent senior American military officers.

It is sick and sad to see anyone seek to excuse Truman's cruelty and barbarism by wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming to be "patriots." Well, your warped definition of "patriotism" defends a man who not only nuked two cities when he knew Japan was willing to surrender on acceptable terms, but who also handed over China to Mao's Communists and thus sentenced over 30 million Chinese to death.

George Washington never would have used nukes, would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers, and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. Ditto for Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ulysses Grant, and several other presidents.

You are no patriot, at least not according to the standard American definition and understanding of the term.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare, once again, and I'll type slowly for you.
> 
> Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific.
> 
> *QED!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A war that might have been ended sooner with less loss of life on both sides. Or don’t you care about at least the American lives that might have been saved?
Click to expand...


How could it have been ended sooner?  With a CONDITIONAL SURRENDER?  Totally unacceptable, especially given the terms demanded by Japan.  All that would have done is put a temporary halt to hostilities only to be started again at a future date.  Precisely as what happened in WW-I with Germany.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, on August 6th, 1945, the USS Bullhead was sunk, by the Japanese air force, 84 men dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, like you said, we were still at war. And, umm, where was the USS Bullhead sunk?  The Java Sea.
Click to expand...

But you said that Japan was defenseless, beat, trying desperately to surrender, yet they attack? Your opinion that Japan was defenseless is pure bullshit. 84 men dead.

Trying to surrender while killing our soldiers? That is a really great way to show you are striving for peace.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, on August 6th, 1945, the USS Bullhead was sunk, by the Japanese air force, 84 men dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, like you said, we were still at war. And, umm, where was the USS Bullhead sunk?  The Java Sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August 17th, 1945 a B-32 was shot down by the japanese, one dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was August 18th. And why was it shot down? Why was it even flying over Tokyo after the emperor had already announced Japan's surrender? It was not the only B-32 in the air over Tokyo: it just happened to be the only one that got shot down. Why were we flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo on August 18th, four days after the Japanese had surrendered? Since we did not bother to notify the Japanese that we were going to flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo, the Japanese logically feared that we were going to bomb Tokyo in violation of the surrender agreement, so they sent up some fighters to intercept our bombers and fighters.
Click to expand...

I guess, as a "D" student of history at numerous colleges, you would not know the terms of the surrender, would you. 

The flights began on the 17th? The B-52 got shot down on the 18th? Who cares, either way you are either an idiot or a liar. An idiot who had no idea that the Japanese were not defenseless or a charlatan liar. 

Which is it?

Why would we fly air reconnaissance over a country that surrendered to us? Maybe to locate the prison camps? Maybe to photograph the Japanese airplanes? Maybe to plan our route into Tokyo for our occupation of the conquered? 

The unconditional surrender included unconditional flights over Japan! It was agreed to! In the surrender! It was not a bomber per se, it was a damned reconnaissance flight. 

You said Japan was defenseless? Long before the surrender! You are at best a "D" student of history. Although I would say you fail on the topic of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Japanese aces Saburo Sakai and Sadamu Komachi are in Japan, with thee best Japanese Zeros.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> You are no patriot, at least not according to the standard American definition and understanding of the term.


I am no patriot? But I said you were unpatriotic, first! Can you not come up with your own insults or like your poor parroting of other's revisionists works, you are now going to steal from me?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Still trying to wrap your anti-American, pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese Communist barbarism in the flag, hey?  Eisenhower opposed using nukes, partly because he knew that Japan was already beaten. Ike would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed.


Eisenhower never opposed the Nuking of Japan, before it happened! Eisenhower never knew of the Atom bomb. Go ahead and quote any book you like and I will be ready with that book to use with my reply. 

Being beat, being beaten as you say, is not the same as surrendering. Being beat does not mean the Japanese were going to surrender or that the Japanese had quit fighting. 

The sinking of the USS Indianapolis with the deaths of 900 sailors proves that fact (July30th, 1945).

Go ahead and quote Eisenhower.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> No Americans would have been killed if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and had not refused to simply specify that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender.


Japan never sent out peace feelers, not once. You can make the claim that one or two, maybe three people sent a telegram or message to a Russian Ambassador? But you can not make the claim that Japan, as a unified Nation, to include the Military Leaders, the Civilian government, and the Japanese Emperor where all unified, seeking surrender, together, unanimously. 

As it was, the Emperor did surrender, after Nagasaki was destroyed, the Emperor surrendered without getting his guarantee that his life would be spared. 

I guess what all this proves, is the first bomb that was used in White Sands New Mexico should of been tested in July on Hiroshima.

Everything you stated, proves we did not develop the bombs fast enough and that we should of tested the first bomb on a Japanese city. 

Then the war would of ended, earlier.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> :
> ....Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
> 
> ...... There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


How many days should we of waited?
McGeorge Bundy, was a 25 year old Lieutenant in the army, having absolutely nothing to do with the Atomic bomb, let alone knowing about this Top Secret Atomic bomb. So what does his non-quoted, non-linked, paraphrased opinion matter?

No internet? Yea, you live, breath, and think only through a Google search, hence you can not fathom the reliability of having a nice radio to communicate with.

Yes, if the Japanese were able to use Skype, three days would not of been immoral?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Americans would have been killed if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and had not refused to simply specify that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan never sent out peace feelers, not once. You can make the claim that one or two, maybe three people sent a telegram or message to a Russian Ambassador? But you can not make the claim that Japan, as a unified Nation, to include the Military Leaders, the Civilian government, and the Japanese Emperor where all unified, seeking surrender, together, unanimously.
> 
> As it was, the Emperor did surrender, after Nagasaki was destroyed, the Emperor surrendered without getting his guarantee that his life would be spared.
> 
> I guess what all this proves, is the first bomb that was used in White Sands New Mexico should of been tested in July on Hiroshima.
> 
> Everything you stated, proves we did not develop the bombs fast enough and that we should of tested the first bomb on a Japanese city.
> 
> Then the war would of ended, earlier.
Click to expand...



Disingenuous halfwit.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> George Washington never would have used nukes, would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers, and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. Ditto for Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ulysses Grant, and several other presidents.


You are a bigger moron than words can describe. Thank you for this comment. 

George Washington attacked the British on Christmas night, after they got drunk and were still asleep. George Washington would of nuked them if he could. Certainly, he used every advantage that those times provided, would George Washington have acted differently in 1945? 

This certainly proves you have lost your OP, you have lost your mind, and have always been a failing student in the study of History. Claiming to know what our founders would do in these circumstances? Weak indeed.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> And, again, FYI, Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's defense of nuking Japan. In fact, reportedly, he helped Stimson "change his mind" about the nuking.


Fine, we will use Bundy, I will quote what Bundy wrote, and seeings how you based your OP on Bundy, what Bundy wrote is clearly fact! This again, proves you a failed student of history.


> On Active Service in Peace and War, page 613
> "At no time, from 1941 to 1945, did I ever hear it suggested by the President, or any other responsible member of the government, that atomic energy should not be used in war."



Nobody opposed using the bomb to force the Japanese to surrender. According to your source, McGeorge Bundy. 

There is much more, from your source of McGeorge Bundy. We have established, that you consider Bundy, infallible, hence I will use the source you based your OP on. Eisenhower next? Grew?


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Eisenhower never opposed the Nuking of Japan, before it happened! Eisenhower never knew of the Atom bomb. Go ahead and quote any book you like and I will be ready with that book to use with my reply.



What an incredibly erroneous statement. Yes, Ike did oppose nuking Japan before it happened. Stimson met with him and told him about the plan to nuke Japan, and Ike told him that he had "grave misgivings" about using such a weapon because using nukes was no longer necessary given Japan's extremely weak condition.

Hiroshima: Quotes



> Japan never sent out peace feelers, not once. You can make the claim that one or two, maybe three people sent a telegram or message to a Russian Ambassador?



Good grief! I've already refuted this nonsense. I posted a detailed review of Japan's peace feelers and noted that the emperor, two foreign ministers, senior military officers, and others approved of peace feelers through third parties. I've also pointed out that we knew in July, from intercepts and other sources, that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only issue, the only concern, was his status in a surrender.



> But you can not make the claim that Japan, as a unified Nation, to include the Military Leaders, the Civilian government, and the Japanese Emperor where all unified, seeking surrender, together, unanimously.



This is a dishonest dodge. Of course the Japanese government was not completely unified on surrender! Our government wasn't unified on surrender either! There were numerous senior military and civilian officials who were arguing strongly that we should assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, that we should warn the Japanese that we had the atomic bomb, and that we should advise the Japanese that Russia would enter the Pacific War in the near future. I've pointed this out dozens of times!

In Japan, there were hardliners in the military who kept thwarting surrender efforts because they were able to argue that the emperor would be deposed in a surrender! That was why it was so critical for Truman to stipulate that this would not happen!

You've simply shifted the goalposts by dozens of yards to try to avoid dealing with facts that refute your position.



> As it was, the Emperor did surrender, after Nagasaki was destroyed, the Emperor surrendered without getting his guarantee that his life would be spared.



LOL!  You even twist well-known, undisputed history. The Japanese surrender offer insisted on the condition that the emperor would not be deposed, even though the Soviets had invaded and we had nuked two cities.

We did not reject that condition. Truman wanted to convey our acceptance of that condition but to do so in language that would not seem to be a concession on our part. The Byrnes Note, which was our reply to the Japanese surrender offer, implied that the emperor would remain in place but that he would act under our authority. Most of Japan's leaders read the note as indicating that the emperor would not be deposed, although most--not all, but most--of the hardliners took advantage of the lack of a clear statement to this effect and argued that the note gave no guarantee about the emperor. Plus, the Japanese were getting back-channel indications that we would not depose the emperor.

And, of course, there is also the fact that we did not depose the emperor when we occupied Japan. In fact, the emperor proved to be a great ally and help in getting the Japanese to accept occupation and the transition to democracy.



> I guess what all this proves, is the first bomb that was used in White Sands New Mexico should of been tested in July on Hiroshima.



No, what it proves is that your attitude toward the Japanese is not only hateful and bigoted but that it borders on being sadistic. Your barbaric and vicious posturing is thoroughly un-American. 

Americanism does not mean you butcher hundreds of thousands of women and children when you know you can achieve an acceptable surrender without killing any more people. Americanism does not mean you side with a murderous tyranny that was twice as bad as Nazi Germany and then hand over Eastern Europe to that tyranny and hand over China to an even worse tyranny. Americanism does not mean you spurn peace offers from an anti-communist, capitalist nation and deliberately provoke that nation to attack you so you can get your country to enter a war on the side of the Soviet Union.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington never would have used nukes, would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers, and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. Ditto for Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ulysses Grant, and several other presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a bigger moron than words can describe. Thank you for this comment.
> 
> George Washington attacked the British on Christmas night, after they got drunk and were still asleep. ......
Click to expand...



British soldiers.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare, once again, and I'll type slowly for you.
> 
> Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific.
> 
> *QED!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A war that might have been ended sooner with less loss of life on both sides. Or don’t you care about at least the American lives that might have been saved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could it have been ended sooner?  With a CONDITIONAL SURRENDER?  Totally unacceptable, especially given the terms demanded by Japan.  ....
Click to expand...


Incorrect


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare, once again, and I'll type slowly for you.
> 
> Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific.
> 
> *QED!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A war that might have been ended sooner with less loss of life on both sides. Or don’t you care about at least the American lives that might have been saved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could it have been ended sooner?  With a CONDITIONAL SURRENDER?  Totally unacceptable, especially given the terms demanded by Japan.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect
Click to expand...


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> What an incredibly erroneous statement. Yes, Ike did oppose nuking Japan before it happened. Stimson met with him and told him about the plan to nuke Japan, and Ike told him that he had "grave misgivings" about using such a weapon because using nukes was no longer necessary given Japan's extremely weak condition.
> Hiroshima: Quotes


You are a fool, you never read the book. Here is page 380, that statement is not there! YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK!

I have the book, and more books written by Eisenhower, that is why I deliberately baited you into making this post. To show all you have done is read stuff on the internet hence you have no idea what the truth is. 



Not there, where is it. Am I suppose to do the scholarly work for you? You brag about your scholarly credentials. So why is your link wrong?

How about we use your credible source McGeorge Bundy? Oh, wait, this meeting between Stimson and Eisenhower never happened so your source, bundy, did not write about it in the Stimson book. Significant event, they wrote much to include Grew's opinion. So where is Bundy's statement confirming this meeting.

And let's not forget you stated, high ranking officials, lie.


----------



## elektra

I got more in regards to Eisenhower, do not think I will rely on one or two books. I got much more on this one statement that you can not get right.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> What an incredibly erroneous statement. Yes, Ike did oppose nuking Japan before it happened. Stimson met with him and told him about the plan to nuke Japan, and Ike told him that he had "grave misgivings" about using such a weapon because using nukes was no longer necessary given Japan's extremely weak condition..



From Bundy's and Stimson's book, Bundy who you use to establish this OP, Bundy who you state is a credible source, Bundy contradicts your google searched Eisenhower quote, which is not found on the page referenced. I guess charlatans need not be accurate. 


> On Active Service in Peace and War, page 613
> "At no time, from 1941 to 1945, did I ever hear it suggested by the President, or any other responsible member of the government, that atomic energy should not be used in war."


Given that Bundy opposed the atomic bombs as you stated, certainly had Eisenhower said what you claim, that statement would of been included along with Grew's?


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> You are a fool, you never read the book. Here is page 380, that statement is not there! YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK!
> 
> I have the book, and more books written by Eisenhower, that is why I deliberately baited you into making this post. To show all you have done is read stuff on the internet hence you have no idea what the truth is.
> 
> Not there, where is it. Am I suppose to do the scholarly work for you? You brag about your scholarly credentials. So why is your link wrong?



You sound like a kid in a candy shop over your perception that you have exposed some great error.

Okay, let's back up here just a second. Is your copy of Ike's book the hardback version or the paperback version? Now, look at pages 312-313. Or, look at page 360. Seven of the eight sources I checked cite pages 312-313 as the pages where the statement appears, while one (the Congressional Record) cites page 360. So, yes, Long might have simply mistyped 360 as 380 if he was using a different version than the one you have.

The Eisenhower Foundation confirms that Ike opposed nuking Japan before it was nuked:

Eisenhower shared his own opinions in 1945 before the bomb was dropped, recalling a conversation with then Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson: “During his 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…” Eisenhower would later confirm these opinions in a 1963 interview, stating that “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Eisenhower Foundation, KS)​


> How about we use your credible source McGeorge Bundy? Oh, wait, this meeting between Stimson and Eisenhower never happened so your source, bundy, did not write about it in the Stimson book. Significant event, they wrote much to include Grew's opinion. So where is Bundy's statement confirming this meeting.



HUH?  My "credible source"?!  I was citing Bundy as a hostile witness. I said that "even" Bundy, the rabid defender of nuking Japan, agreed that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki. Bundy was a lying dog. He was the main ghost writer of "Stimson's" infamous article in defense of Truman's decision. Bundy twisted and lied all over the place in that article. He also took advantage of Stimson's poor health and weakened mental state and "persuaded" him to "change his mind." The record is clear that before Hiroshima, Stimson was one of the main advocates for giving the Japanese assurance that we would not depose the emperor.

If you could not tell that I was using Bundy as a hostile witness, I don't know what to tell you. I noted repeatedly that Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's article and that he was a defender of nuking Japan. Again, that's why I said "even" when I cited Bundy.



> And let's not forget you stated, high ranking officials, lie.



You can deny the Earth is round all day, but it'll still be round. The fact that MacArthur, Clarke, Feller, Nimitz, Grew, Bard, Leahy, etc., etc., not to mention most of the dozens of scientists who worked on the bomb, opposed nuking Japan has been documented and discussed in hundreds of scholarly studies.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool, you never read the book. Here is page 380, that statement is not there! YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK!
> 
> I have the book, and more books written by Eisenhower, that is why I deliberately baited you into making this post. To show all you have done is read stuff on the internet hence you have no idea what the truth is.
> 
> Not there, where is it. Am I suppose to do the scholarly work for you? You brag about your scholarly credentials. So why is your link wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a kid in a candy shop over your perception that you have exposed some great error.
> 
> Okay, let's back up here just a second. Is your copy of Ike's book the hardback version or the paperback version? Now, look at pages 312-313. Or, look at page 360. Seven of the eight sources I checked cite pages 312-313 as the pages where the statement appears, while one (the Congressional Record) cites page 360. So, yes, Long might have simply mistyped 360 as 380 if he was using a different version than the one you have.
> 
> The Eisenhower Foundation confirms that Ike opposed nuking Japan before it was nuked:
> 
> Eisenhower shared his own opinions in 1945 before the bomb was dropped, recalling a conversation with then Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson: “During his 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…” Eisenhower would later confirm these opinions in a 1963 interview, stating that “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Eisenhower Foundation, KS)​
> 
> 
> 
> How about we use your credible source McGeorge Bundy? Oh, wait, this meeting between Stimson and Eisenhower never happened so your source, bundy, did not write about it in the Stimson book. Significant event, they wrote much to include Grew's opinion. So where is Bundy's statement confirming this meeting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH?  My "credible source"?!  I was citing Bundy as a hostile witness. I said that "even" Bundy, the rabid defender of nuking Japan, agreed that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki. Bundy was a lying dog. He was the main ghost writer of "Stimson's" infamous article in defense of Truman's decision. Bundy twisted and lied all over the place in that article. He also took advantage of Stimson's poor health and weakened mental state and "persuaded" him to "change his mind." The record is clear that before Hiroshima, Stimson was one of the main advocates for giving the Japanese assurance that we would not depose the emperor.
> 
> If you could not tell that I was using Bundy as a hostile witness, I don't know what to tell you. I noted repeatedly that Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's article and that he was a defender of nuking Japan. Again, that's why I said "even" when I cited Bundy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let's not forget you stated, high ranking officials, lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny the Earth is round all day, but it'll still be round. The fact that MacArthur, Clarke, Feller, Nimitz, Grew, Bard, Leahy, etc., etc., not to mention most of the dozens of scientists who worked on the bomb, opposed nuking Japan has been documented and discussed in hundreds of scholarly studies.
Click to expand...

Of course I am like a kid in the candy shop. You have failed to substantiate your OP, and as you try, you show that you do not know what you are talking about.

Eisenhower was a great example. Glaring errors in the links you use. Why are there errors? Because the work is sloppy. The work is not scholarly as you claim.

Why did your credible source, bundy, not include Eisenhower's statement at potsdam? Because it did not exist. Eisenhower was never told of the top secret bomb.

Further, bundy contradicts Eisenhower's claim. You based this OP on what Bundy stated. You established, that Bundy is credible. Here is what Bundy wrote.



> On Active Service in Peace and War, page 613
> "At no time, from 1941 to 1945, did I ever hear it suggested by the President, or any other responsible member of the government, that atomic energy should not be used in war."


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> The Eisenhower Foundation confirms that Ike opposed nuking Japan before it was nuked:
> 
> Eisenhower shared his own opinions in 1945 before the bomb was dropped, recalling a conversation with then Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson: “​




Eisenhower shared his own opinion? Where? Which magazine or newspaper published this opinion? Which radio broadcast or newsreel? Before the bomb was dropped? 

Again, as you stated, public officials lie!

Thank you for providing this, now source the statement which will prove it was made before the bomb was dropped.

Bundy did not find the opinion while reading stimson's diary? Had he, it would be in the book he wrote.

So let us all see you find this opinion being expressed before the bomb was dropped. 
​


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eisenhower never opposed the Nuking of Japan, before it happened! Eisenhower never knew of the Atom bomb. Go ahead and quote any book you like and I will be ready with that book to use with my reply.
> 
> 
> 
> What an incredibly erroneous statement. Yes, Ike did oppose nuking Japan before it happened. Stimson met with him and told him about the plan to nuke Japan, and Ike told him that he had "grave misgivings" about using such a weapon because using nukes was no longer necessary given Japan's extremely weak condition.
> Hiroshima: Quotes
Click to expand...

Erroneous? Me? I baited you into making your comment so I could show you are wrong. Of course I am like a kid in a candy shop. It is really fun, being right, and showing someone that is "educated", that education does not make you smart. I own the books you are finding links to on the internet. Your links are cherry picking quotes, taking them out of context, or ignoring glaring errors as I am pointing out. My next step in this will be to go to Yale University Library where Stimson's diary is on microfiche. I could use your link which references the diary extensively. We could assume that Doug Long would of referenced the Eisenhower quote from Stimson's diary. But Doug Long does not. Why? Most likely because the meeting never happened. 

Ike did not oppose nuking Japan in 1948 when he wrote Crusade in Europe. Your link, chooses to use a quote from a later book Eisenhower wrote in 1963, (getting the page number wrong, which hides the context in which the quote was made?) .

Revisionists will choose which book to use, based on their opinion.

In 1948 Eisenhower claims he learned of the bomb before it was tested, in 1963 Eisenhower claims he was told after it was tested? 

Crusade in Europe, 1948


> I had a long talk with Secretary Stimson, who told me that very shortly there would be a test in New Mexico of the Atomic bomb, which American scientists had finally succeeded in developing....
> 
> I expressed the hope that we would never have to use such a thing against any enemy because I disliked seeing the United States take the lead in introducing into war something as horrible and destructive as this new weapon was described to be.
> 
> ..... In any even it was decided that unless Japan surrendered promptly in accordance with the demands communicated to the Japanese Government from Potsdam the plan for using the atomic bomb would be carried out.



Mandate for Change, 1963


> But the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction,



We see here, that Eisenhower did not oppose dropping the bomb in 1948! That Eisenhower gives two versions of the same story! And I will end by stating Eisenhower lied about the meeting, that Stimson nevere divulged the Top Secret of the atom bomb to Eisenhower.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Of course I am like a kid in the candy shop. You have failed to substantiate your OP, and as you try, you show that you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Eisenhower was a great example. Glaring errors in the links you use. Why are there errors? Because the work is sloppy. The work is not scholarly as you claim.
> 
> Why did your credible source, bundy, not include Eisenhower's statement at potsdam? Because it did not exist. Eisenhower was never told of the top secret bomb.
> 
> Further, bundy contradicts Eisenhower's claim. You based this OP on what Bundy stated. You established, that Bundy is credible. Here is what Bundy wrote.
> 
> On Active Service in Peace and War, page 613
> "At no time, from 1941 to 1945, did I ever hear it suggested by the President, or any other responsible member of the government, that atomic energy should not be used in war."



Uh, I never said that Bundy ever opposed using nukes! What on earth are you talking about?  I've said repeatedly that Bundy was a defender of Trumna's nuke decision and that he was the main ghost writer for Stimson's infamous article that defended that decision.

Did you ever check pp. 312-313 of your copy of Ike's book?  How about page 360?

I have the book, but it's packed away in a box in my garage. I have about 2,000 books and can't keep all of them in my bookcases.

So now you're saying the Eisenhower Foundation, which is dedicated to preserving and defending Ike's legacy, is lying about what he said about nuking Japan?  Really?

On the fact that Stimson opposed nuking Japan without first trying to explore peace by assuring the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, and on the fact that Stimson's infamous 1947 pro-nuking-Japan article in _Harper's Magazine_ was not really his work, I would refer you to Dr. Sean Malloy's book _Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb Against Japan _(Cornell University Press, 2008). In chapter 8, Malloy discusses the authorship and editing of the _Harper's Magazine _article.

Regarding the use of websites as sources, I've never said that this is necessarily invalid. What I have said is that when one only uses websites and has not done any other research, this is when problems can occur. There is a ton of material in printed books and articles that is simply not yet available on the internet.

Finally, do you know why Tojo was replaced by the moderate Koiso after the fall of Saipan and why Koiso was replaced by the equally moderate Admiral Suzuki four months before Hiroshima? These things happened because Japan was not a tyrannical dictatorship ruled by one man, unlike Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. Japan was a constitutional monarchy with a legislative assembly (the Diet). Elections for Diet members were held during the war. Japan also had an independent judiciary that prevented the vast majority of unjust legal actions that some over-zealous government officials tried to impose on certain dissenters and critics, as is documented in Israeli historian Ben Shillony's book _Politics and Culture in Wartime Japa_n (Clarendon Press, 1991), in Meron Medzini's _Under the Shadow of the Rising Sun: Japan and the Jews during the Holocaust Era_ (Academic Studies Press, 2016), and in Samuel Yamashita's _Daily Life in Wartime Japan, 1940-1945_ (University of Kansas Press, 2017).

Many readers will be astounded to learn of the degree and frequency of political opposition and criticism that was tolerated in wartime Japan. They will also be surprised to learn that much more often than not Japan's legal system protected citizens against unjust actions by the government. Japan was certainly not as free and open as America and England were during the war, but open criticism/opposition and the rule of law existed in Japan to a degree that was unheard of in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> So now you're saying the Eisenhower Foundation, which is dedicated to preserving and defending Ike's legacy, is lying about what he said about nuking Japan?  Really?


You have a real comprehension problem. First, Bundy, you really were not very clear in use of Bundy and now that you have called him a scandalous liar, I have to call your character into question for using him at all. 

Your comprehension problem. The Eisenhower Foundation? When have I ever mentioned the Eisenhower Foundation. What I did do, is quote Eisenhower from the books he wrote. I included pictures so that you would not be able to get even a little bit confused. But here you are, trying to obfuscate what I presented to you, which is what Eisenhower wrote. 

It is clear Eisenhower changed his story from 1948 to 1963. I know it is hard for you to be confronted with facts but facts is what I gave you. It is clear you did not read my post, at least you did not comprehend what you read. Go back and read what I wrote and read what I included, that which Eisenhower wrote. 

I got more on Eisenhower, I will add another day. It is stuff I already posted in your thread. You might of missed it or not comprehended the significance. 

Eisenhower wrote more than one book, Eisenhower described the same incident it two very different ways. One must be true, the other must be a lie. Eisenhower did keep a diary, so it is not simply a matter of how he remembered something.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> On the fact that Stimson opposed nuking Japan without first trying to explore peace by assuring the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, and on the fact that Stimson's infamous 1947 pro-nuking-Japan article in _Harper's Magazine_ was not really his work


Stimson opposed nuking Japan without first exploring peace by assuring the emperor? Conjecture on anyone's part. Stimson wrote extensively, and not once did he state that the bomb must wait until we lessened our demands of unconditional surrender. 

Yes, Stimson said the declaration should include the possibility of a monarchy. But, no declaration was going to be declared until the end of the Potsdam conference. We issued our ultimatum on July 26th without a mention of the Emperor, either way. The Japanese soundly refused to surrender. The bombs were dropped. That is history. Would they have surrendered had we began weakening our demands? Doubtful, chances are the war would of been prolonged, Americans would of continued to die. 

It certainly was the shock of the bombs that caused Japan to surrender. Had we made a demand that the Emperor must go, would the Emperor still of surrendered. The answer is yes. It is clear when one reads of the emperor. 

Of course, you have argued that it was the Russians entering the war that caused the Japanese to surrender, and if that is true, then why were the Japanese worried about what we thought of the Emperor? 

That is a great question. If it was simply Russia entering the war that caused Japan to surrender, what difference does it make what we stated or did not state?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> What an incredibly erroneous statement. Yes, Ike did oppose nuking Japan before it happened. Stimson met with him and told him about the plan to nuke Japan, and Ike told him that he had "grave misgivings" about using such a weapon because using nukes was no longer necessary given Japan's extremely weak condition.
> Hiroshima: Quotes


Yes, Hiroshima Quotes.

Eisenhower, gives to different versions of his meeting with Stimson. Two versions that contradict each other. One must be a lie. Which book to believe? We can also use MacArthur to show that it is unlikely that Eisenhower was told about the Top Secret Atomic Bomb while MacArthur was not. So there is ample reason to not use Eisenhower if one is trying to make the case, that the Atomic bomb was not needed. You can not use a liar, period. Also the page number for the quote is wrong? 

MacArthur, quoted from William Manchester's biography of MacArthur. Manchester? A proven liar, who lied about valor on Okinawa. Stolen Valor, that is what Manchester is guilty of, at the least. An author who is best left to collect dust, simply for lying about his own military record. And boy did he lie. What a prick!

Hoover? I do see a pattern, I am not about to go out and by a Hoover book to make a point about this terrible list of errors and proven liars. 

Leahy, that appears correct although I will have to cross reference Leahy to Stimson/Truman and whoever else may be important. 

The rest, I may address at my leisure. There is much written by those who were part of the decision. Truman and Stimson, for the most part. The Interim Committee. And more. But without addressing everything, there is a disturbing pattern of cherry picking sources, making errors while sourcing the quotes, even taking the quotes out of context. Books are a better source than the cherry picked scholarly papers scattered across the internet. 

Using google as a source is a terrible way to debate history.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * Anyone who thinks Japan's move in China was pure aggression has only read one side of the story.


And Indo-China? The Philippines? Korea? I will leave out Manchuria. But, feel free to enlighten us.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Wow, the myths being rolled out here are unreal. A few points:
> * By April 1945, if not earlier, Japan posed no threat to us. By that time, Japan had no ability to carry out offensive operations against us.


Yet, they did not surrender, and they did carry out offensive operations. The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead. 

Not being able to carry out a sizeable offensive operation is much different than still fighting.


----------



## mikegriffith1

I’ll get around to responding to some of the recent replies very soon, but for now I wanna talk about an amazing discovery I just made.

Much to my astonishment, Dr. Michael Sherry, in his famous and classic book _The Rise of American Air Power _(Yale University Press, 1987), condemns Truman for nuking Japan without first trying to determine if the Japanese would surrender if he assured them that the emperor would not be deposed. Given that Dr. Sherry’s famous book has been endorsed by such heavyweights as Stephen Ambrose and Russell Weigley, when I began to read the book a few days ago, I just assumed that Sherry would defend—indeed, staunchly defend—Truman’s decision to nuke Japan. So I was astounded to find that Sherry does the opposite. Not only that, but Dr. Sherry also condemns the conventional bombing of Japanese cities. Here is part of what Dr. Sherry says about Ike and the nuking of Japan:

Eisenhower provided a striking example of how doubt arose outside of normal channels. When he heard about the atomic bomb is unclear, but apparently at the time of Potsdam he learned that an atomic bomb was a weapon in hand. He immediately objected to its use. According to the various accounts of his talk with Stimson, he objected on the grounds that Japan “was already defeated,” that the United States “should avoid shocking world opinion” by using the bomb, and that it might prevent a nuclear arms race if other nations remained “ignorant of the fact that the problem of nuclear fission had been solved”. . . .​
And here is part of Dr. Sherry’s eloquent condemnation of Truman’s decision to nuke without trying negotiation:

Since precisely this issue of the emperor’s fate held up surrender even after Hiroshima and Russia’s entry into the war, until Byrnes and Truman offered firmer assurances, their decision at Potsdam has been widely and rightly condemned as the most tragic blunder in American surrender policy, even by insiders who otherwise supported the bomb’s use. There can be no certainty would have accepted in July what it submitted to in August, but the chance was there, and as Ralph Bard had argued earlier, the risks of pursuing it were small. Moreover, the moral risks in the opposite direction, in pursuing an atomic solution before attempting to break the diplomatic impasse, were large. Michael Walzer has explained them persuasively:​
“If killing millions (or many thousands) of men and women was militarily necessary for their conquest and overthrow, then it was morally necessary—in order not to kill those people—to settle for something less. . . .  If people have a right not to be forced to fight, they also have a right not to be forced to continue fighting beyond the point when the war might justly be concluded. Beyond that point, there can be no supreme emergencies, no arguments about military necessity, no cost-accounting in human lives. To press the war further than that is to re-commit the crime of aggression. In the summer of 1945, the victorious Americans owed the Japanese people an experiment in negotiation. To use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting such an experiment, was a double crime.”​
Of course, the double crime extended beyond use of the atomic bomb. A larger failure in surrender policy had sanctioned the razing of Japan’s cities. (pp. 329, 334-335)​
Whatever lame, dishonest attempts some might make to paint the Japanese as a formidable foe in August 1945 because they managed to shoot down a plane and sink a ship that month, there can be no denying that Truman did not even try to explore the peace feelers that he knew Japan was putting out, even though he knew from Japanese intercepts that Emperor Hirohito himself wanted to surrender as soon as possible. Truman did not even try to negotiate privately, through third parties, to explore the peace opening that he knew from intercepts was there to be explored.

Truman not only refused to hold any kind of negotiations with the Japanese, but he refused to advise them that he would not depose the emperor if they surrendered. He also refused to alert the Japanese that Russia would soon be entering the Pacific War against them. These two crucial pieces of information would have been of enormous value to the Japanese moderates and would have deprived the hardliners of their two main--and really their only--arguments against surrender.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Eisenhower provided a striking example of how doubt arose outside of normal channels. When he heard about the atomic bomb is unclear, but apparently at the time of Potsdam he learned that an atomic bomb was a weapon in hand. He immediately objected to its use. According to the various accounts of his talk with Stimson, he objected on the grounds that Japan “was already defeated,” that the United States “should avoid shocking world opinion” by using the bomb, and that it might prevent a nuclear arms race if other nations remained “ignorant of the fact that the problem of nuclear fission had been solved”. . . .​


Eisenhower never knew we had an Atomic bomb. Eisenhower was not involved in any way with the war against Japan. Eisenhower was consumed by Germany.

Eisenhower told two very different stories of the same incident in two books. Can Eisnohower know we have an Atomic bomb yet be ignorant of the fact that nuclear fission is now a reality, the problem solved?

Various accounts of the talk with Stimson? The only various accounts come from Eisenhower contradicting himself. Are you trying to obfuscate the truth, hence you are liar. Or are stumbling through other's work?

Defeated and Surrender are not the same. One can be defeated, and still kill another 1,000 American Military personal, as Japan did from July 30th to their surrender. The war is not over until one side loses or both sides quit. Japan never quit, until she surrendered.

Stimson kept the bomb a Top Secret as it was. Truman never learned that there was an Atomic Bomb project while he was Vice President. Why would Stimson let the secret out, by telling a General in Europe? Stimson had not told the Pacific General, MacArthur, and that is documented. So how does Eisenhower rise further up "the need to know", which authorized the divulging of Top Secrets.

Either was, in 1948 Eisenhower had no idea that a bomb existed, as he wrote.
                 in 1963 Eisenhower discovers a bomb existed, as he wrote?

Eisenhower only proves that the revisionists only have lies, you and they, are charlatans.


----------



## Unkotare

LOL

Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Yet, they did not surrender,



You again simply ignore the fact that most of Japan's leaders were trying to surrender. You just keep ignoring this with this silly and grade-school simplistic line that "they did not surrender." They were trying to surrender. And we knew they were trying to surrender. But they--the moderates--needed to overcome the hardliners, who, though a minority, could paralyze and even bring down the government if any one of their two cabinet members refused to vote for surrender or if they resigned and their service refused to appoint a successor. 

The moderates desperately needed our help to overcome the hardliners, but Truman did nothing but help the hardliners over and over again. It was as if he wanted to ensure that the Japanese did not surrender until he could nuke them and until the Soviets were ready to invade. 



> and they did carry out offensive operations. The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead.



LOL. Oh, so a lone submarine on a rare patrol that stumbles across an unescorted USN ship far from Japan and sinks it--that's an "offensive operation"?!  That's comical. That's not an offensive operation, much less a sizable one. 

The word "offensive operation" in a military context refers to multiple forces launching a coordinated attack with an objective of seizing territory and/or destroying substantial numbers of enemy personnel and equipment (ships, tanks, planes, etc.).



> Not being able to carry out a sizeable offensive operation is much different than still fighting.



Uh, yeah, that's the point. They were only fighting because we were still attacking them. They were powerless to attack us in any kind of an offensive operation. Most of their ships were stuck in harbor for lack of fuel (and fear of getting sunk). Their air force rarely sortied out in even halfway substantial numbers due to a lack of fuel, and their airplane production was almost zero due to a lack of raw materials. That's why our losses in air raids were less than 1%. 

Most of their leaders were trying to surrender and had been trying for several weeks, but they could not overcome the hardliners because, thanks to Truman, the hardliners could put forward two powerful arguments that the moderates could not overcome, i.e., that the emperor would be deposed if Japan surrendered and that the Soviet Union would remain neutral until the neutrality pact ended in April 1946.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> You again simply ignore the fact that most of Japan's leaders were trying to surrender.


Most? 1 out of 4? 

As long as you are vague there is no discussion.

Use names. I will. 

You are very dismissive of the Japanese killing Americans. How can you hate us, so much. The Indianapolis was not attacking the sub that sank it? And if Japan was sincere, why would they continue attacking, as in not simply defending. Daily POW's died, from torture and beatings, that is how you define trying to surrender.

How about we use books you have linked to or referenced.

Technically, you are pretty emotional, responding with your vague opinion based on other peoples work. I on the other hand, respond with multiple sources I own. 

Everything quoted from Eisenhower is from a book written many years late. Hiroshima: Quotes  Mr Long references stimson's diary, Long being your source. But when it comes to a conversation between Stimson and Eisenhower Long uses the 2nd contradictory book Eisenhower wrote, why? Why not quote Eisenhower's diary? Your source could only find what he wanted to hear in a book that is unsourced. The quote is not referenced other than coming from a book Eisenhower wrote yet there is a diary for both men?


----------



## elektra

Will Griffith answer in regards to Eisenhower's conflicting statement?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL. Oh, so a lone submarine on a rare patrol that stumbles across an unescorted USN ship far from Japan and sinks it--that's an "offensive operation"?!  That's comical. That's not an offensive operation, much less a sizable one.


You are going to ignore all the facts of the end of the war and pretend it was only one ship that was sunk after Okinawa? Certainly that is not a defensive operation? As you describe it, far from Japan? Far from Japan yet close enough to die at the hands of the Japanese, what a funny way to surrender.

So what about all the other people who died? 

How about the 15 beheaded, what about the 15 americans beheaded after Japan surrendered? Is that comical as well, ASSHOLE!

Trying to surrender? Hell, they surrendered and still killed Americans. How many Americans should of died, while we negotiated with the Japanese? Who was suppose to bring the cookies and milk? Should we have been on our knees, begging, the Japanese to surrender? They killed our boys, after they surrendered? They were killing our men, while you claim they were defenseless. They killed and the killed, they never stopped killing. 

It took Atomic bombs to convince the Emperor to Surrender. What the Emperor did after the Atomic bomb he could of done before, but he was always safe. He always had hope, that somehow Japan would win, negotiate peace, and never surrender. 

But you go ahead and try to post your bullshit crap. I will point out the errors in your links, I will point out the lies of Eisenhower. I will point out when the people  you link to, who did all the work for you, I will point out how they are wrong. 

Thus far, there is not one of my posts you have been able to refute. You keep making emotional arguments, you keep posting opinion, or you link to somewhere on the internet where you kind find anything that fits your opinion, especially if you are an unpatriotic american hater here to trash our fine history. But my posts, where I show I have the books you reference, and I quote from those books, and show them to be wrong, you have no reply to any of that.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman did not even try to explore the peace feelers that he knew Japan was putting out, even though he knew from Japanese intercepts that Emperor Hirohito himself wanted to surrender as soon as possible.


Back to this? post the intercepts?
Why would we have to intercept a peace feeler to the us? We are the ones at war with Japan so they would have to negotiate with us, to surrender or for peace. They never did that. 

Trying to surrender to Russia, as soon as possible, go ahead, post that transcript. It does not exist, now you are simply back to being an emotional lousy liar.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
> 
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
> .​


Can you answer your own questions, how many days should we have waited. If you can not answer the simple your OP is simply opinion with no basis in history.

Your OP is a poor attempt at portraying the USA as being wrong, and you are so poor at writing and articulating your point, you eventually discredit one of your opening quotes!

Bundy was not lying when you like what he said, but when he said what you did not like, he was lying?
The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima


> Bundy was a lying dog. He was the main ghost writer of "Stimson's" infamous article in defense of Truman's decision. Bundy twisted and lied all over the place in that article. He also took advantage of Stimson's poor health and weakened mental state and "persuaded" him to "change his mind."


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> LOL
> 
> Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.



lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously.  It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.


----------



## Picaro

elektra said:


> So what about all the other people who died?
> 
> How about the 15 beheaded, what about the 15 americans beheaded after Japan surrendered? Is that comical as well, ASSHOLE!
> 
> Trying to surrender? Hell, they surrendered and still killed Americans. How many Americans should of died, while we negotiated with the Japanese? Who was suppose to bring the cookies and milk? Should we have been on our knees, begging, the Japanese to surrender? They killed our boys, after they surrendered? They were killing our men, while you claim they were defenseless. They killed and the killed, they never stopped killing.



They also avoid any mention of how Japanese soldiers report being amazed at how well they were treated by Marines after being captured,a far more common experience for Japanese prisoners than the usual scumbag reported to the contrary.



> It took Atomic bombs to convince the Emperor to Surrender. What the Emperor did after the Atomic bomb he could of done before, but he was always safe. He always had hope, that somehow Japan would win, negotiate peace, and never surrender.
> 
> But you go ahead and try to post your bullshit crap. I will point out the errors in your links, I will point out the lies of Eisenhower. I will point out when the people  you link to, who did all the work for you, I will point out how they are wrong.
> 
> Thus far, there is not one of my posts you have been able to refute. You keep making emotional arguments, you keep posting opinion, or you link to somewhere on the internet where you kind find anything that fits your opinion, especially if you are an unpatriotic american hater here to trash our fine history. But my posts, where I show I have the books you reference, and I quote from those books, and show them to be wrong, you have no reply to any of that.



Thank you for your efforts here; it's better than these hacks deserve.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I
> 
> Of course, the double crime extended beyond use of the atomic bomb. A larger failure in surrender policy had sanctioned the razing of Japan’s cities. (pp. 329, 334-335)​
> Whatever lame, dishonest attempts some might make to paint the Japanese as a formidable foe in August 1945 because they managed to shoot down a plane and sink a ship that month, there can be no denying that Truman did not even try to explore the peace feelers that he knew Japan was putting out, even though he knew from Japanese intercepts that Emperor Hirohito himself wanted to surrender as soon as possible. Truman did not even try to negotiate privately, through third parties, to explore the peace opening that he knew from intercepts was there to be explored.
> 
> Truman not only refused to hold any kind of negotiations with the Japanese, but he refused to advise them that he would not depose the emperor if they surrendered. He also refused to alert the Japanese that Russia would soon be entering the Pacific War against them. These two crucial pieces of information would have been of enormous value to the Japanese moderates and would have deprived the hardliners of their two main--and really their only--arguments against surrender.


Now, the charlatans have decided to lie about history.

The Japanese only decided to surrender after two atomic bombs were dropped.

Notice, the entire post was an opinion, a narrative.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously.  It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.
Click to expand...



Who but YOU has referenced Zinn? He’s irrelevant, just like you.


----------



## elektra

Picaro said:


> lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously.  It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.


Howard Zinn, the pied piper of the charlatans. Griffter1 and Unitard are so pathetic they do not even know their opinions are entirely formed from Zinn's propaganda.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously.  It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who but YOU has referenced Zinn? He’s irrelevant, just like you.
Click to expand...



hahaha says the clown car passenger who cites Zinn verbatim, and doesn't even know where his rubbish comes from.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Defekla is beginning his surrender himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously.  It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who but YOU has referenced Zinn? He’s irrelevant, just like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...who cites Zinn verbatim.....
Click to expand...



Never have, never will. Stop lying.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Picaro said:


> lol elektra has thoroughly discredited you commies as usual. Nobody can take you or Griffith seriously.  It's what people who rely on Howard Zinn's nonsense and premises can expect.



LOL!  You must be talking about some other thread in a parallel world. Apparently you are unaware that most scholars who have studied and published on the issue have concluded that nuking Japan was unnecessary. And your comment about "you commies" is especially humorous, and puzzling, given that Truman's handling of the end of the Pacific War resulted in the Communist takeover of China and North Korea. The Soviets, who were Communists, wanted to invade Manchuria and Japan's northern islands, and Truman let them do it.

I've never used any of Howard Zinn's stuff, but here's what Dr. J. Samuel Walker, a former Chief Historian of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said on the issue of nuking Japan:

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it. (Hiroshima Nagasaki Viewpoints: Atomic Bombing Decision - Doug Dillon)​I will deal with Elektra's Maddox-based arguments about Ike's statements regarding the bomb shortly. Apparently Elektra is unaware that many scholars have answered Maddox's misleading and rather nonsensical attempt to minimize/question Ike's statements.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> will deal with Elektra's Maddox-based arguments about Ike's statements regarding the bomb shortly. Apparently Elektra is unaware that many scholars have answered Maddox's misleading and rather nonsensical attempt to minimize/question Ike's statements.​


​You have not dealt with any of my posts, now you will start? Oh, you will dictate what I am to believe on faith! 

You certainly run from the holes your opinion falls through.

Ignorance is certainly not knowing how you believe  Zinn. How your opinion is Zinn.


----------



## elektra

Scholars? Ha, ha, ha. They dont even get the page numbers right when they quote.


----------



## elektra

The charlatans will use google as a deck of cards, taking the top card, playing it as if that card, that result, wins the hand.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Scholars? Ha, ha, ha. They dont even get the page numbers right when they quote.



Oh, of course, because scholars never get page numbers wrong, right? One can occasionally find such errors in the best historical scholarship. And what do you mean that I have not dealt with any of your posts? Uh, I have responded to several of your replies, and I have posted other replies that address arguments you have made. 

Okay, now let's deal with your claims about Eisenhower’s statements on nuking Japan. I suspect your claims are based on Robert Maddox’s book _Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism. _It is ironic that Maddox thinks of himself as battling “revisionism” when in fact the majority of scholars who have published on this subject disagree with him. To give you some idea of how extreme he is on the issue, Maddox stridently applauds the censoring and cancellation of the modestly objective and carefully worded text of the _Enola Gay _exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution in 1995, even though dozens of leading historians—including historians from Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Ohio State, Dartmouth, Georgetown, and Stanford—condemned the censoring and removal of the text.

When dealing with the fact that General Omar Bradley confirmed in his memoir that Ike voiced objection to nuking Japan to Stimson and Truman, Maddox argues that that part of Bradley’s book was fabricated by Bradley’s co-author!

Perhaps sensing that his claim that Bradley’s confirming account was fabricated might seem doubtful, Maddox notes that Bradley wrote to Eisenhower and expressed support for the nuking of Japan. Maddox then argues that Bradley would not have done this if he had witnessed Ike objecting to Stimson and Truman about using the atomic bomb. This is silly. Bradley could have expressed his view to Ike precisely because he knew Ike disagreed and because he was trying to change his mind about it. Or, Bradley might not have even been trying to persuade Ike on this issue but just felt like expressing his opinion that Japan surrendered because of the nukes.

Maddox makes much of the fact that Eisenhower might have erred in his recollection that he was present when Stimson received the first or second cable on the a-bomb test because Ike first met with Stimson two days after the second cable arrived. Maddox pretends this is a huge problem with Ike’s account, while others might see the account as essentially correct and credible given that Ike was recalling events that happened 18 years earlier. And, Maddox is forced to admit that one of Stimson’s aides recorded that Stimson and Eisenhower did in fact discuss the atomic bomb when the two had lunch at Ike’s HQ on July 27, even though Stimson’s diary for that day says nothing about it, which should warn us about making arguments from silence.

Maddox argues that Eisenhower’s recollection of his July 20 conversation with Stimson “grew more vivid with the passage of time.” Really? And Maddox is supposed to be a historian? In his 1948 book _Crusade in Europe, _Ike said he told Stimson that he hoped we would never need to use such a weapon against an enemy because he did not want America to be the first to use such a “horrible and destructive” weapon. Ike’s account of this conversation in his 1963 book _Mandate for Change _contains more details but follows the identical thrust, i.e., that Ike was repulsed by the very idea of nuking Japan.

Eisenhower’s 1963 account contains two additional details: that Ike told Stimson that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that Stimson got upset when Ike expressed his misgivings about nuking Japan. It is perfectly understandable that Ike would have withheld such information in 1948, when feelings were still raw and when the principals were all alive: he did not want to rock the boat nor embarrass anyone. And it is equally understandable that 18 years later, Ike would have felt more at liberty to give the full account of the meeting. But Maddox, ignoring this reasonable consideration, simply assumes that Eisenhower invented the additional details in his 1963 book.

Maddox minimizes the indisputable fact that in Eisehhower’s 1963 interview with _Newsweek, _he said we did not need to nuke Japan because Japan was already defeated.

In reply to Maddox and other Truman defenders, Professor Gar Alperovitz has said the following:

There is a long-standing debate about whether or not General Eisenhower--as he repeatedly claimed--urged Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson (and possibly President Truman) not to use the atomic bomb. In interviews with his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, he was insistent that he urged his views to one or another of these men at the time. [THE DECISION, p. 358 n.] Quite apart from what he said at the time, there is no doubt, however, about his own repeatedly stated opinion on the central question:

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

During his 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. . . . [THE DECISION, p. 4.]​* Eisenhower made similar public and private statements on numerous occasions. He put it bluntly in a 1963 interview, stating quite simply: ". . . it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." [THE DECISION, p. 356.] (Several of the occasions during which Eisenhower offered similar judgments are discussed at length in THE DECISION [pp. 352-358].)

(B) It is sometimes urged that there is no record of any of the military men directly advising President Truman not to use the atomic bomb--and that this must mean that they felt its use was justified at the time. However, this is speculation. The fact is there is also no record of military leaders advising President Truman _to use the bomb_:

We simply have little solid information one way or the other on what was said by top military leaders on the key question at the time: There are very few direct contemporaneous records on this subject. And there is certainly no formal recommendation that the atomic bomb be used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

On the other hand, what little contemporaneous evidence we do have strongly suggests that _before_ the atomic bomb was used at least two of the four members of the Joint Chiefs did not believe that military considerations required the destruction of Japanese cities without advance warning. Here, for instance, is how General George C. Marshall put it in a discussion more than two months before Hiroshima was destroyed (McCloy memo, May 29, 1945):

... he thought these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave--telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers.... Every effort should be made to keep our record of warning clear. We must offset by such warning methods the opprobrium which might follow from an ill-considered employment of such force. [THE DECISION, p. 53.]​The President's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy--the man who presided over meetings of the Joint Chiefs--noted in his diary of June 18, 1945 (seven weeks _prior to_ the bombing of Hiroshima):

It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. [THE DECISION, p. 324.]​(Leahy also stated subsequently something which should be obvious--namely that the Chief of Staff regularly made his views known to the President. His well-documented comments in a meeting with the President urging assurances for the Emperor this same day--June 18--are only one indication of this. Although we have no records of their private conversations, we know that the two men met to discuss matters of state every morning at 9:45 a.m. [THE DECISION, pp. 324-6.])

There is also substantial, but less direct evidence (including some which seems to have come from President Truman himself) that General Arnold argued explicitly that the atomic bomb was not needed [THE DECISION, pp. 322-4; 335-7]--and as noted above, that Arnold instructed his deputy Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker that although he did not wish to press the point, he did not believe the bomb was needed. As also noted above, in his memoirs Arnold stated that "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." [THE DECISION, p. 334.] (In this connection, as we shall discuss in Part III, it is commonly forgotten that by the time Hiroshima was bombed orders had already been given to alter targeting priorities so as to down-play city bombing. Although there were some difficulties in the field, the new priorities were on the verge of being moved into implementation as the war ended. [THE DECISION, p. 342-3.]) (Decision: Part I)



​


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scholars? Ha, ha, ha. They dont even get the page numbers right when they quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, of course, because scholars never get page numbers wrong, right? One can occasionally find such errors in the best historical scholarship. And what do you mean that I have not dealt with any of your posts? Uh, I have responded to several of your replies, and I have posted other replies that address arguments you have made.
> 
> Okay, now let's deal with your claims about Eisenhower’s statements on nuking Japan. I suspect your claims are based on Robert Maddox’s book _Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism. _It is ironic that Maddox thinks of himself as battling “revisionism” when in fact the majority of scholars who have published on this subject disagree with him.
Click to expand...


You literally, are an idiot. Yes respond, with replies that ignore what I post.

You are lazy and have not read the posts in this thread. I dont think you read what you quote.

This post is a great example. My post was specific with sources. I never mentioned Maddox nor quoted Maddox. Now you are off on a tangent in regards to Maddox.

I shake my head at your stupidity. 

It is as if your brain barely functions. Your brain functions just enough to do a Google search. Google is thinking for you. I bet your head hurts.


----------



## Picaro

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scholars? Ha, ha, ha. They dont even get the page numbers right when they quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, of course, because scholars never get page numbers wrong, right? One can occasionally find such errors in the best historical scholarship. And what do you mean that I have not dealt with any of your posts? Uh, I have responded to several of your replies, and I have posted other replies that address arguments you have made.
> 
> Okay, now let's deal with your claims about Eisenhower’s statements on nuking Japan. I suspect your claims are based on Robert Maddox’s book _Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism. _It is ironic that Maddox thinks of himself as battling “revisionism” when in fact the majority of scholars who have published on this subject disagree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You literally, are an idiot. Yes respond, with replies that ignore what I post.
> 
> You are lazy and have not read the posts in this thread. I dont think you read what you quote.
> 
> This post is a great example. My post was specific with sources. I never mentioned Maddox nor quoted Maddox. Now you are off on a tangent in regards to Maddox.
> 
> I shake my head at your stupidity.
> 
> It is as if your brain barely functions. Your brain functions just enough to do a Google search. Google is thinking for you. I bet your head hurts.
Click to expand...


It's easy to spot bullshit artists; they completely ignore answering questions, and fall back on cutting and pasting long posts, trying to bury the bulshit and hoping it overwhelms the audience into thinking they must know something or the posts wouldn't be so long n stuff. lol what a crock.


----------



## HenryBHough

Remember, if Obama had been president at the time he'd have given Japan both of America's nukes as a gesture of good will.  Oh, and cash to fund the fuel for bombers to deliver them - to The U.S.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> [
> (B) It is sometimes urged that there is no record of any of the military men directly advising President Truman not to use the atomic bomb--and that this must mean that they felt its use was justified at the time. However, this is speculation. The fact is there is also no record of military leaders advising President Truman _to use the bomb_:
> 
> We simply have little solid information one way or the other on what was said by top military leaders on the key question at the time: There are very few direct contemporaneous records on this subject. And there is certainly no formal recommendation that the atomic bomb be used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.​



Yes, that is very true, there is no record of military men, the generals, advising the president. You know why, BECAUSE IT WAS TOP SECRET

Sadly, for the Japanese, they lost the war. With the lost of a brutal war comes a brutal ending. They got hit with the most powerful bomb in the world. ​


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave--telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers.... Every effort should be made to keep our record of warning clear. We must offset by such warning methods the opprobrium which might follow from an ill-considered employment of such force. [THE DECISION, p. 53.]​


​We did warn them, the Potsdam declaration was given and heard, by the Japanese. Complete utter destruction was the warning.

Further over a 100,000 people fled the cities. It was not a secret, that the cities were being bombed. 

You post a sloppy cherry picked quote here and there leaving out, that this was the ending of the war, that the Japanese knew they were at war, that the Japanese knew the cities were being destroyed. 

Yes, the Japanese were warned and knew that they could very much die, in a city.


----------



## eagle1462010

mikegriffith1 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Many senior military officers favored surrender, as did many regular soldiers. One of the moderates who played a crucial role in bringing about a surrender was Admiral Suzuki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the kind of juvenile and absurd barbarism that comes from bigotry. It is also the kind of un-American cruelty that one must espouse to defend Truman's decision to use nukes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered.  We were still at War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times are you going to ignore the fact that by no later than July we knew from intercepts and other sources that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, were ready and willing to surrender on acceptable terms and that the only issue was the emperor's status in an "unconditional surrender"? You guys just keep ignoring this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too damned bad Tojo...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, FYI, Tojo had long since been replaced as prime minister by the time we nuked Hiroshima. Tojo was forced to resign over a year earlier, in July 1944, after the fall of Saipan. Do you know who replaced him? One of the leading moderates and advocates of surrender: General Koiso. And do you know who replaced General Koiso four months before Hiroshima? Another leading moderate and surrender advocate: Admiral Suzuki. Do you see a pattern here?
> 
> Truman, whether through ignorance and incompetence and/or hatred and malice, did all he could to help the Japanese hardliners thwart all the moderates' surrender efforts. The hardliners' trump card was the argument that the U.S. would depose the emperor if Japan surrendered, since this was implied in the Potsdam Declaration and in other U.S. statements. The first draft of the Potsdam Declaration contained a clarification that said the emperor would not be deposed, but Truman removed it.
> 
> The other card that the hardliners played was that the Soviets would remain neutral until the neutrality/non-aggression pact ended in April 1946, especially since the Soviets had not signed the Potsdam Declaration. The hardliners knew that a Soviet invasion would necessitate a speedy surrender to avoid Soviet occupation.
> 
> If Truman had given the Japanese any indication that the Soviet Union would attack them in the near future, this would have caused even most hardliners to support surrender. If the Soviets had signed the Potsdam Declaration, this likewise would have caused most hardliners to support surrender. Do you know why the Soviets did not sign the Potsdam Declaration? Because Truman would not let them. He wanted the Japanese to think that the Soviets were still neutral. Truman's deception greatly aided the hardliners and helped them to stall surrender.
Click to expand...

Our men were still dying...........We were still at War............Japan should have surrendered earlier..........or never started the War to begin with.

None of this matters...........as this thread tries to frag the decision to use the weapons back then.  We weren't there.....our Fathers were waiting to invade and waiting to die...........What were they saying .....our fathers..........fuck the Japanese.......they have been killing my friends and fellow Americans............

They agreed to the bombs..........they told me so..............And it ended the War..........Mission Accomplished.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death
> 
> 
> 
> Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered.  We were still at War.
> 
> Too damned bad Tojo...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tojo had already been removed well before the end of the war. If you want to talk about history, maybe you should know something about it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher when you can't recognize sarcasm directed at you.

My point stands............Japan started the War and got their asses beat..........The Nukes were a part of that ass whooping...........If they didn't want it..........then they should have never started the fight...............Their torture of people and prisoners is the act of BARBARIANS.......................they deserved NO SYMPATHY at the end of the world.

Had we fire bombed those cities instead of the Nukes.................those cities would be just as dead...........

So cry me a river.


----------



## mikegriffith1

It should be noted that not all WW II veterans blindly backed Truman’s decision to nuke Japan, and most of them did not express the barbaric, cruel attitude that some people in this thread have expressed. From 2000 to 2001, a pair of researchers from Ohio State University, Uday Hohan and Leo Maley, interviewed Pacific War veterans on this issue and also searched for previous printed interviews. I quote from their article, “Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent,” which is carried on the Ohio State University website:

. . . not all Pacific War veterans applaud the atomic annihilation of two Japanese cities.​
Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."​
Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima."​
Or take Ed Everts, a major in the 7th weather squadron of the Army Air Corps. Everts, who received an air medal for surviving a crash at sea during the battle at Iwo Jima, told us that America's use of atomic bombs was "a war crime" for which "our leaders should have been put on trial as were the German and Japanese leaders."​
While the great sacrifice and heroism of veterans should never be forgotten, their often impassioned defense of the bombing of Hiroshima does us all a disservice. It substitutes a simplistic history for a complex set of events. It narrows historical evidence about a White House decision to the question of what soldiers in the Pacific believed. . . . (Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective)​
Hohan and Maley go on to note that Admiral Halsey expressed the view that nuking Japan was unnecessary:

Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. (Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective)​
Naturally, veterans who believed that Japan would not have surrendered without being nuked and that nuking Japan saved the lives of half a million American soldiers—naturally, those veterans supported Truman’s decision. I used to think the same thing and feel the same way.

But, those veterans who knew a bit more about the subject, i.e., who had learned of Japan’s peace feelers and of her prostrate condition, and who had learned that many senior military officers, including Eisenhower, Leahy, and Nimitz, believed we should not have nuked Japan—those veterans did not support Truman’s decision.

Dr. Leó Szilárd, one of the scientists who worked on the a-bomb project, and the man who first proposed building atomic weapons, put the nuking of Japan into moral perspective in a 1960 interview with _U.S. News and World Report:_

Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them? (“We Had Adopted an Ethical Standard Common to the Barbarians of the Dark Ages” the Atomic Bombing Of Nagasaki)​
There was a reason that when Truman first told the American people about the nuking of Hiroshima, he falsely claimed that Hiroshima was a “military base,” not just a military target, but a military base. Actually, of course, it was neither. If Hiroshima was a “military base,” or even a “military target,” then so is every American city with a sea port, an airport, and a contingent of military reservists and/or National Guard soldiers. Hiroshima’s port was mined and useless; Hiroshima had no fortifications; the troops there were in garrison and constituted a small fraction of the city’s population; and most of the city’s factories were on the outskirts of the city and were undamaged in the atomic attack because the bomb was dropped over the center of the city. The factories could have been destroyed with conventional bombing without killing over 100,000 civilians.


----------



## eagle1462010

mikegriffith1 said:


> It should be noted that not all WW II veterans blindly backed Truman’s decision to nuke Japan, and most of them did not express the barbaric, vicious attitude that some people in this thread have expressed


Not all....................my relatives supported the decision................just because some said they wouldn't do it doesn't outweigh those who didn't give a damn.  They just wanted to win the War and get the hell home.  Not die on some shit hole island in the Pacific...........they didn't care that the nukes were dropped.............

They cared that they could stop fighting and finally go home..........Not about the cities hit by the bomb.


----------



## KissMy

Truman hit Japan much harder with the six-month fire-bombing campaign against 67 Japanese cities that preceded the smaller nuclear attacks on Hiroshima. Truman warned them a Nuclear bombing was coming.

Hiroshima was in most newspaper headlines the next day.

Plus the Nagasaki nuke missed the city, only harming half as many as Hiroshima.

We have much more radioactive contamination here in the USA from building those bombs, than Japan has from US bombing them.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010

Story of Marcus McDilda - Kempeitai Torture - WW2 FEPOW

The cruelty of the Japanese soldiers towards Allied POWs is well documented, from the Bataan death march on the Philippines, to the execution of doctors, nurses and patients at the British Alexandra Barracks hospital in Singapore. They believed themselves to be or were led to believe they were ‘Samurai’, a perverted and distorted version of the warrior class of Feudal Japan, and as such considered themselves to be superior to their Allied counterparts, who dishonoured themselves by being defeated in battle and captured alive. *This so called “Bushido code” turned a modern military force into a barbaric and xenophobic mass of indoctrinated troops, as bad as, if not worse than the SS-Totenkopfverbände.*

One of the men who could testify to this is Marcus McDilda, a United States Army Air Force fighter pilot captured on 8th August 1945, just two days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. As reported by US Marine Brigadier General Hagen in _War in the Pacific_, McDilda was paraded through the city streets of Osaka, bound and blindfolded, while being beaten by the civilian populace in retaliation for the bombing. *Bundled into a Kempeitai interrogation room, he continued to be questioned, beaten and tortured.*


McDilda survived the Second World War and was liberated from Omori by the 4th US Marine Regiment after the Japanese surrender. However, many of his captured comrades were not so lucky. It is very likely that the lie saved his life,* since it was later discovered that 50 USAAF POWs in Osaka, the camp in which he had been held before being transferred for further questioning, had been executed shortly after the broadcast of the Japanese surrender.*


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."



Um... Okay, we were dropping a lot more conventional bombs on women and children in Japan. the firebombing of Tokyo (and for that matter, Dresden) killed a lot more people.  

The reality... It was just another weapon in a war that had seen a lot of weapons deployed.  

The reason why we go through this hand-wringing today is because we've lived for 75 years with the threat of "nuclear annihilation", two words most people in 1945 wouldn't have understood.  They just knew the Japanese had attacked us and they were going to pay, dammit.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> It  The factories could have been destroyed with conventional bombing without killing over 100,000 civilians.


This comment comes from an, idiot, that quotes a source, let's say, McGeorge Bundy. Begins the OP with the quote. Then after hundreds of comments griffter1 calls his source a lousy liar? Which discredits there own source.

Then the griffter1 links to a "Scholar", who can not get the simple right, like the page number in the book he is supposedly using, this gross error repeatedly made? Griffter1 calls that scholarly work?

Now the griffter1 claims factories can be destroyed with conventional bombing. This shows the very deep ignorance and lack of understanding griffter1 has in regards to conventional bombs in WW II.

The Krupp factories in Germany  were always quickly manufacturing after being bombed. Why is that. How is it thee most significant bombing of the war never prevented the Krupp factories from operating?


----------



## eagle1462010

'Would I drop the atomic bomb again? Yes, I would'


*You always knew people would be very seriously hurt'*
It would be wrong to hold Van Kirk, now 89, in any sense responsible for the extreme human suffering that the bomb caused. As Harry Truman, the president who ordered the dropping of the bomb, told Tibbets when they met in 1948: "I'm the guy who sent you. If anybody gives you a hard time about it, refer them to me."

"Nothing. It was just a trip to Japan, that's all."

I can't believe that, I say. Nagasaki had just been entirely flattened by a nuclear explosion.

"Yes, we saw a city that was completely levelled. All you saw was plain, flat, level ground."

That must have been a powerful sight, I say.

"There was not much difference between an atomic bomb and a conventional bomb. The difference was in the area that it covered."

Did he see the shadows of people who had been burned to dust on the walls and pavements?

"Yes, you saw that."

And wasn't that shocking?

"It was shocking as you wondered how the heat of that bomb had done something like that. But you were immune to it because they told you during your training that would happen."

Have you ever allowed yourself to read accounts of what it was like to be at the receiving end of the bomb?

"Yes."

And what was your reaction?

"An information reaction."

Did he ever wish he had never taken part in the Enola Gay's atomic mission?

"No, I was proud to be on the Enola Gay. The war ended on 14 August. I don't know when it would have ended if we had not dropped the atomic bombs."

Would you do it again?

"Under the same circumstances – and I realise you can never have them exactly again – yes, I would do it again."


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death
> 
> 
> 
> Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered.  We were still at War.
> 
> Too damned bad Tojo...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tojo had already been removed well before the end of the war. If you want to talk about history, maybe you should know something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher when you can't recognize sarcasm directed at you.
> 
> My point stands............Japan started the War and got their asses beat..........The Nukes were a part of that ass whooping...........If they didn't want it..........then they should have never started the fight...............Their torture of people and prisoners is the act of BARBARIANS.......................they deserved NO SYMPATHY at the end of the world.
> 
> Had we fire bombed those cities instead of the Nukes.................those cities would be just as dead...........
> 
> So cry me a river.
Click to expand...



Have you read ANY of the other posts on this thread?


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered.  We were still at War.
> 
> Too damned bad Tojo...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tojo had already been removed well before the end of the war. If you want to talk about history, maybe you should know something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher when you can't recognize sarcasm directed at you.
> 
> My point stands............Japan started the War and got their asses beat..........The Nukes were a part of that ass whooping...........If they didn't want it..........then they should have never started the fight...............Their torture of people and prisoners is the act of BARBARIANS.......................they deserved NO SYMPATHY at the end of the world.
> 
> Had we fire bombed those cities instead of the Nukes.................those cities would be just as dead...........
> 
> So cry me a river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read ANY of the other posts on this thread?
Click to expand...

yes.......................but not all.

And it is an attempt to condemn the actions of a different mindset from a different generation ..........aka different era.

The decision was made based on the morality of the past not today.........as we attempt to judge the actions of that time based on our era's perception of that time..................

The Japanese were brutal..............they were creating biological and chemical weapons.........torturing and executing prisoners of War........Starving them to death...............In China they played a game of who can kill 100 with a sword........later tried and convicted of War Crimes for it.............and executed.............

They were executing POW's days after the nukes were dropped in Japan..............and I just put that information into the thread...................What I posted helped figure in why the dropped the bomb.............to end the War.........and stop the killing in the region.................

The decision to drop the bombs ended the War in a matter of days..................which was why they were dropped to begin with................Your shouting how evil it was doesn't change that conclusion..............nor the morality of how evil we were for doing so...........

My point stands...............end of equation.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.
> 
> 
> 
> History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered.  We were still at War.
> 
> Too damned bad Tojo...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tojo had already been removed well before the end of the war. If you want to talk about history, maybe you should know something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher when you can't recognize sarcasm directed at you.
> 
> My point stands............Japan started the War and got their asses beat..........The Nukes were a part of that ass whooping...........If they didn't want it..........then they should have never started the fight...............Their torture of people and prisoners is the act of BARBARIANS.......................they deserved NO SYMPATHY at the end of the world.
> 
> Had we fire bombed those cities instead of the Nukes.................those cities would be just as dead...........
> 
> So cry me a river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read ANY of the other posts on this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes.......................but not all.......
Click to expand...



Then go do your work before making an ass of yourself.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> History shows that as of the date the bombs were dropped Japan hadn't surrendered.  We were still at War.
> 
> Too damned bad Tojo...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tojo had already been removed well before the end of the war. If you want to talk about history, maybe you should know something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher when you can't recognize sarcasm directed at you.
> 
> My point stands............Japan started the War and got their asses beat..........The Nukes were a part of that ass whooping...........If they didn't want it..........then they should have never started the fight...............Their torture of people and prisoners is the act of BARBARIANS.......................they deserved NO SYMPATHY at the end of the world.
> 
> Had we fire bombed those cities instead of the Nukes.................those cities would be just as dead...........
> 
> So cry me a river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read ANY of the other posts on this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes.......................but not all.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then go do your work before making an ass of yourself.
Click to expand...

Who da fck are you to demand a dang thing from me................You may be a teacher but you sure as hell aren't mine..............

Your outrage over history is noted and discarded....................the decision was made and it ended the War quickly.............and I agree with it now just as many did back then.

This thread doesn't show the brutality of the Japanese during the War that helped cause the decision to be made............doesn't show the mass execution of prisoners at the end of the War.............the skeleton's of starved POW's at the end of the War now does it..............

Wars aren't MORAL.............they ARE THE SANCTIONED MURDER of each other when all discussion is over...................No reason to say it differently.........it's the way it is.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ...
> And it is an attempt to condemn the actions of a different mindset from a different generation ..........aka different era........




Many of America's military leaders of _that generation, that era, that day_ saw the  use of the atomic bombs on civilians of a defeated enemy as unnecessary and morally problematic.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tojo had already been removed well before the end of the war. If you want to talk about history, maybe you should know something about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher when you can't recognize sarcasm directed at you.
> 
> My point stands............Japan started the War and got their asses beat..........The Nukes were a part of that ass whooping...........If they didn't want it..........then they should have never started the fight...............Their torture of people and prisoners is the act of BARBARIANS.......................they deserved NO SYMPATHY at the end of the world.
> 
> Had we fire bombed those cities instead of the Nukes.................those cities would be just as dead...........
> 
> So cry me a river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read ANY of the other posts on this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes.......................but not all.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then go do your work before making an ass of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who da fck are you to demand a dang thing from me......................
Click to expand...



In other words, you're happy being ignorant - you need to remain ignorant - because it allows you to wallow comfortably in your emotions. So much easier than thinking.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ....
> 
> The Japanese were brutal....................




Make up your mind. Were the atomic bombs used to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge, or in order to end the war?


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> And it is an attempt to condemn the actions of a different mindset from a different generation ..........aka different era........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of America's military leaders of _that generation, that era, that day_ saw the  use of the atomic bombs on civilians of a defeated enemy as unnecessary and morally problematic.
Click to expand...

And more than many didn't care if it was used...............They weren't in charge and that is the end of it.

It is history...........and I see you don't care about the Japanese torturing and killing POW's days after the 1st bomb dropped.  Those articles that I posted.  

Japan should have surrendered earlier................period...........their fault that the U.S. brought out the big guns........aka nukes to make them surrender...............

Do you deny the barbarism of the Japanese army.........the torture.......the rape..........and complete destruction of killing entire villages..........cities.........to every man woman and child in places like Nanking.............DO YOU????????

You are trying to make the United States into a villian..........We didn't do this to Japanese POW's...............we didn't execute every prisoner in a camp.............we didn't starve and work them to death...............That is all Japan during the War.......Now we are supposed to cry that the decision to drop the bomb and end the War was so bad................I don't think so..........

On Japanese atrocities.............DID THEY DO IT..................


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you shouldn't be a teacher when you can't recognize sarcasm directed at you.
> 
> My point stands............Japan started the War and got their asses beat..........The Nukes were a part of that ass whooping...........If they didn't want it..........then they should have never started the fight...............Their torture of people and prisoners is the act of BARBARIANS.......................they deserved NO SYMPATHY at the end of the world.
> 
> Had we fire bombed those cities instead of the Nukes.................those cities would be just as dead...........
> 
> So cry me a river.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read ANY of the other posts on this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes.......................but not all.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then go do your work before making an ass of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who da fck are you to demand a dang thing from me......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're happy being ignorant - you need to remain ignorant - because it allows you to wallow comfortably in your emotions. So much easier than thinking.
Click to expand...

AKA  Anyone that disagrees with you is ignorant..................That dog doesn't hunt with me.............Your never ending outrage for the nukes is boring............you've been doing the same thing for a long time now..............and are upset that no one is really listening to you.

That is your personal problem and not mine.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> The Japanese were brutal....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind. Were the atomic bombs used to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge, or in order to end the war?
Click to expand...

The decision was made to end the War.............Did the part of revenge help make up their minds..........Your damned skippy.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> The Japanese were brutal....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind. Were the atomic bombs used to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge, or in order to end the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The decision was made to end the War.............Did the part of revenge help make up their minds..........Your damned skippy.
Click to expand...



It wasn’t necessary to end the war. That leaves just the revenge. Killing over 100,000 civilians in atomic incineration and its aftermath, and throwing AMERICANS into concentration camps in revenge against a military enemy? Is that what you think America is about?


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read ANY of the other posts on this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> yes.......................but not all.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then go do your work before making an ass of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who da fck are you to demand a dang thing from me......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're happy being ignorant - you need to remain ignorant - because it allows you to wallow comfortably in your emotions. So much easier than thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA [sic] Anyone that disagrees with you is ignorant..................
Click to expand...





 I never said that. You said that you had not read all of the information provided in just this one brief thread and did not care to. What would you call that if not ignorant?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> When dealing with the fact that General Omar Bradley confirmed in his memoir that Ike voiced objection to nuking Japan to Stimson and Truman, Maddox argues that that part of Bradley’s book was fabricated by Bradley’s co-author!


You should read what Omar N. Bradley says, before making false claims. Bradley does not mention Stimson in his memoir? General Bradley does make it clear that not once during the War did Eisenhower mention nuclear or atomic bombs, hence Bradley does not confirm what you claim.

Seriously, by now, I would think you would of figured out that if you do not do the scholarly work yourself you have no idea if they are lying. In this case, you fail again. Seriously, cutting/pasting other people's work leaves you empty headed when I can quote the book.

No mention of Stimson, "at no time during the war", did Eisenhower mention the bomb! Care to bring somebody else up, that proves you are wrong. This is almost comical, but very sad, on your part.


 

 

[/QUOTE]


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> You literally, are an idiot. Yes respond, with replies that ignore what I post.
> 
> You are lazy and have not read the posts in this thread. I dont think you read what you quote.
> 
> This post is a great example. My post was specific with sources. I never mentioned Maddox nor quoted Maddox. Now you are off on a tangent in regards to Maddox.
> 
> I shake my head at your stupidity.
> 
> It is as if your brain barely functions. Your brain functions just enough to do a Google search. Google is thinking for you. I bet your head hurts.



It is amazing that you could make these statements after reading my reply. I suspect you read the first paragraph and then skimmed over the rest. My reply answers every essential argument you've made about Ike's statements on nuking Japan. All of your arguments against Ike's statements follow the general thrust of Maddox's arguments, except that some of your assumptions are erroneous and are not even made by Maddox. Let's examine your arguments:



> Eisenhower, gives to different versions of his meeting with Stimson.



I addressed that argument in my reply.  



> Two versions that contradict each other.



No, they do not, not by any standard of sound scholarship. They are not mutually exclusive: it's just that the later version gives more detail. Nothing in the first version conflicts with the second version, and vice versa. 



> One must be a lie.



That's a simplistic, sophomoric conclusion that shows you have no understanding of serious historical research. Just because one account provides more information than the other does not mean that one of them is a "lie."



> Which book to believe?



Again, the two accounts are not mutually exclusive. Even in the first account, Ike made it clear that he expressed misgivings about nuking Japan. As I mentioned in my reply, it is entirely reasonable and understandable that Ike's first account, written in 1948, would be rather circumspect, but that his later account, written 15 years later, would contain more information because he felt more at liberty to provide a fuller version. 

I notice you ignored the point that Gen. Omar Bradley confirmed in his memoir that Eisenhower expressed strong objections to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson. Why didn't you address that point?



> We can also use MacArthur to show that it is unlikely that Eisenhower was told about the Top Secret Atomic Bomb while MacArthur was not.



LOL!  Uh, as even Maddox admits, one of Stimson's aides recorded that Ike and Stimson discussed the atomic bomb! Did you even read my reply?

Furthermore, just FYI, Truman, Stimson, and the rest of Truman's gang _hated _MacArthur! How can you not know this?! So it's not at all surprising that Mac was kept in the dark. Furthermore, MacArthur was not nearby when Stimson was in Potsdam, whereas Eisenhower was, and Truman and Stimson liked Ike. And, again, we have documentary evidence from one of Stimson's aides that Stimson and Eisenhower discussed nuking Japan.

I might add that Eisenhower insisted to his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, that he objected to using nukes on Japan when he met with Stimson. I mentioned this fact in my reply as well, but you ignored it. 



> So there is ample reason to not use Eisenhower if one is trying to make the case, that the Atomic bomb was not needed. You can not use a liar, period.



My, my, my. So you, who has tried to wrap your barbarism in the flag and who has questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with you--here you are calling one of our greatest WW II generals, and one of our most beloved presidents, a liar. You're no "patriot." 

In point of fact, there is no credible reason to doubt that Eisenhower opposed nuking Japan before the fact. And, of course, there is no question that the more he studied the issue, the firmer he came to believe that nuking Japan was both wrong and unnecessary, as he explained in his 1963 interview with _Newsweek._


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Eisenhower, gives to different versions of his meeting with Stimson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed that argument in my reply.
> 
> No, they do not, not by any standard of sound scholarship. They are not mutually exclusive: it's just that the later version gives more detail. Nothing in the first version conflicts with the second version, and vice versa.
> 
> That's a simplistic, sophomoric conclusion that shows you have no understanding of serious historical research. Just because one account provides more information than the other does not mean that one of them is a "lie."
Click to expand...

One account provides more information? Sure, one account, which is the lie, includes a lot more information. In this case though, one version is completely different. It is not simply that one contains more information, it is simply that it is very different account of something that seems to have never of happened. 

In one account, Ike finds out about the Atomic Bomb before the test in New Mexico. In the 2nd account Ike finds out after. 

In the 1st quote from Eisenhower's first book, Eisenhower says that he was told the bomb was soon to be detonated yet later in the same paragraph Eisenhower says he was not told that a bomb was made or was being made? 



 


> Two versions that contradict each other.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I notice you ignored the point that Gen. Omar Bradley confirmed in his memoir that Eisenhower expressed strong objections to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson. Why didn't you address that point?


???? Maybe you did not update your browser, so that you can see, that my post addressing Gen Omar Bradley, with pics from the memoir, appears right before you ask your little, late, question.

The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> My, my, my. So you, who has tried to wrap your barbarism in the flag and who has questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with you--here you are calling one of our greatest WW II generals, and one of our most beloved presidents, a liar. You're no "patriot."


I will readdress this post, when I go back through your posts, and find the one where you say a patriot technically, posts just as I did. I can call Eisenhower a liar, for he wrote two versions of the same story. He did not merely add more information in the 2nd story. In the 2nd version, it is simply very different. 

I have addressed Eisenhower, using his words, showing that he lied. 
I have addressed Eisenhower, with your claim that Gen Omar Bradly confirms Ike's story. Bradly contradicts Eisenhower. 

Care to read what MacArthur wrote? 

You make many claims. Each one falls as if it is not a fact. Each claim you make falls like a leave from a tree. 
Now you make many more excuses and claims in regards to Eisenhower. Not one of your claims can hold water. 

Later, another day, when I am bored I will continue to show how you fail to show your OP to contain any truth.

I still love how you used Bundy, then discredited Bundy by calling him a filthy liar. That was a class one screw up on your part. Simply showing that those who do not have facts, can not weave a credible lie.


----------



## Markle

In case you haven't noticed, you're talking to yourself and NO ONE CARES.

It is over, we dropped two bombs, the war ended in days.  QED


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes.......................but not all.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then go do your work before making an ass of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who da fck are you to demand a dang thing from me......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're happy being ignorant - you need to remain ignorant - because it allows you to wallow comfortably in your emotions. So much easier than thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA [sic] Anyone that disagrees with you is ignorant..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that. You said that you had not read all of the information provided in just this one brief thread and did not care to. What would you call that if not ignorant?
Click to expand...

I read a  lot of what's in this thread...........Your opinion of my opinion doesn't matter.  You are ticked off because I refuse to apologize and say the United States Sucks because we used the nukes...............

1.  We didn't start the freaking war.
2.  We didn't torture prisoners.
3.  We didn't rape and behead civilians as a game as the Japanese did during the War.
4.  They were executing POW's at the end of the War including after the 1st Nuke was dropped.
5.  Japan was developing Chemical and Biological Weapons.
6.  Japan was doing Human experiments on live patients for chemical and biological weapons.

They got what they deserved.....................period.............War is Murder on a grand scale...........the Nukes ended the War..............PERIOD.

We have no reason to apologize for the actions of our country to end a War we didn't start.  You are just trying to play the America Sucks card.........and justify your greatness because you are a Teacher.............

That dog doesn't hunt.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then go do your work before making an ass of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Who da fck are you to demand a dang thing from me......................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're happy being ignorant - you need to remain ignorant - because it allows you to wallow comfortably in your emotions. So much easier than thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA [sic] Anyone that disagrees with you is ignorant..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that. You said that you had not read all of the information provided in just this one brief thread and did not care to. What would you call that if not ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read a  lot of what's in this thread...........Your opinion of my opinion doesn't matter.  You are ticked off because I refuse to apologize and say the United States Sucks because we used the nukes...............
Click to expand...



No one asked you to do that, liar. Put away the straw man and grow up.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ...
> 
> 1.  We didn't start the freaking war.....




How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl Harbor | Robert Higgs

Was FDR Planning on Joining World War II Before Pearl Harbor?


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ...
> 2.  We didn't torture prisoners.......




So you wanted a souvenir? Here's a Japanese skull. - How enemy mutilation entered US mainstream in WWII


The Worst War Crimes The U.S. Committed During World War II


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ....
> 3.  We didn't rape and behead civilians as a game ......




Incinerating nearly 200,000 civilians in atomic hellfire was better?


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> .....
> 6.  Japan was doing Human experiments on live patients.....




Tuskegee Study - Timeline - CDC - NCHHSTP


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ... You are just trying to play the America Sucks card.....




You are the only one here repeating that offensive expression.


----------



## elektra

And, what is totally ignored, is the American. The American Prisoner of War. The American still at War. The Americans who died on July 30th, the Americans who died on July31st, the Americans who died on August 1st, the Americans who died on August 2nd, the Americans who died on August 3rd, the Americans who died on August 4th, the Americans who died on August 5th, the Americans who died on August 6th, the Americans who died on August 7th, the Americans who died on August 8th, the Americans who died on August 9th, the 10th, the 11th, the 12th, the 13th, the 14th! the 15th!! the 16th!!! the 17th!!!!

When was the last American's death because of the Japanese barbaric sadistic rampage? 

Nobody can answer that, because the "scholars" who can not quote correctly, the "scholars" who got "D's", hence they can not even proof read their garbage and get page numbers correct. Nobody knows cause the "scholars" are busy chasing a history that does not exist while ignoring the truth of what was War.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> And, what is totally ignored, is the American. The American Prisoner of War. The American still at War. The Americans who died on July 30th, the Americans who died on July31st, the Americans who died on August 1st, the Americans who died on August 2nd, the Americans who died on August 3rd, the Americans who died on August 4th, the Americans who died on August 5th, the Americans who died on August 6th, the Americans who died on August 7th, the Americans who died on August 8th, the Americans who died on August 9th, the 10th, the 11th, the 12th, the 13th, the 14th! the 15th!! the 16th!!! the 17th!!!!.......





Remember all the Americans who died in the war in the time after fdr received MacArthur's memorandum before leaving for Yalta. The bloodthirsty fdr ignored the possibility of ending the war long before many, many more Americans died fighting, because fdr couldn't care less about any human life, including Americans - soldier or civilian. This is what YOU "totally ignore."


----------



## elektra

So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.




Yes, people like fdr who had nothing but contempt for life - soldier or civilian, American or other - and who spat upon the Constitution. Scum indeed, just like their apologists today are.What can we call them? Call them what they were and are: democrats.


----------



## elektra

So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.




Yes, people like fdr who had nothing but contempt for life - soldier or civilian, American or other - and who spat upon the Constitution. Scum indeed, just like their apologists today are.What can we call them? Call them what they were and are: democrats.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.



You mean "scum" like General and President Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy, Admiral Nimitz, Ambassador Grew, Ralph Bard, General Clarke, General MacArthur, etc., etc.? 

Not one American soldier would have died in the Pacific in August if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and what he knew about them from intercepts. 

Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children is not the American way and is not what America is about. Handing over hundreds of millions of people to Communist tyranny is not the American way either. The American way is to fight honorably and to pursue every option for peace before resorting to force. The American way is to hit military targets, if you must use force, not bomb virtually defenseless cities filled mostly with seniors, women, and children. 

For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy. _Richard Frank is the other major Truman/nuke apologist. In the article below, Hasegawa dismantles Frank's arguments and along the way shows how Frank misuses sources and ignore statements that don't fit his narrative. It's a very long article, but it has to be--it's very thorough. Hasegawa's ground-breaking book proves that it was the Soviet invasion, not nukes, that led to Japan's surrender. The article below contains most of the key information found in the book. 

The Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion: What Drove Japan's Decision to Surrender? | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy_


Oh my god! I have that book too! Go ahead and try quoting from your copy then I will use my copy to show everyone you are wrong, again. 

Everybook you have mentioned, you can not quote from nor can you refute my posts that show you are wrong.

so go ahead, I have that book, let us begin!!!


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy_
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god! I have that book too! Go ahead and try quoting from your copy then I will use my copy to show everyone you are wrong, again.
> 
> Everybook you have mentioned, you can not quote from nor can you refute my posts that show you are wrong.
> 
> so go ahead, I have that book, let us begin!!!View attachment 279920
Click to expand...



  Still thinks he's a 'scholar' because he bought a book! Dilettante of the year award!

The "look at my socks in the shitter!" part is a classy touch. Much more credible than the exact same content from a website.


----------



## elektra

Where is the reply? None, you see, the democrats would burn all the books. Do the Democrats here use books? Nope, they use google which simply is, propaganda.

If one is to use a book, they are made fun of, they are not engaged. I am to be demeaned, insulted, flamed. And for what, for daring to use a book that the OP says is relevant. 

Yes, the Democrats would burn all the books and have us dictated to by, Google.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Where is the reply? None, you see, the democrats would burn all the books. Do the Democrats here use books? Nope, they use google which simply is, propaganda.
> 
> If one is to use a book, they are made fun of, they are not engaged. I am to be demeaned, insulted, flamed. And for what, for daring to use a book that the OP says is relevant.
> 
> Yes, the Democrats would burn all the books and have us dictated to by, Google.




And yet you seem to worship the worst democrat of them all.


----------



## elektra

I guess when confronted with the book, the debate ends. No quotes from the book? The OP does not own the book or has read the book. Yet claims are made?


----------



## elektra

We can cut right to the chase. The conclusion of the book is Truman was not at fault nor a villian. I look forward to a discussion of the book. Of course, if it us like all the other books referred to in this OP,  mikegriffter1 does not own the book hence.he can only cherry pick google results.

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy. _


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> We can cut right to the chase. The conclusion of the book is Truman was not at fault nor a villian. I look forward to a discussion of the book. Of course, if it us like all the other books referred to in this OP,  mikegriffter1 does not own the book hence.he can only cherry pick google results.
> 
> Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy._



Talk about "cherry picking"!  I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read the article, because therein Hasegawa says the following:

I argue that Soviet entry into the war against Japan alone, without the atomic bombs, might have led to Japan’s surrender before November 1, but that the atomic bombs alone, without Soviet entry into the war, would not have accomplished this. Finally, I argue that had U.S. President Harry Truman sought Stalin’s signature on the Potsdam Proclamation, and had Truman included the promise of a constitutional monarchy in the Potsdam Proclamation, as Secretary of War Henry Stimson had originally suggested, the war might have ended sooner, possibly without the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan.​
Anyway, Elektra, a few notes about Eisenhower’s opposition to nuking Japan:

* In 1955, Eisenhower wrote to friend and businessman William Pawley about his discussion on the bomb with Stimson:

On the other hand, when I suggested to Secretary of War Stimson, who was then in Europe, that we avoid using the atomic bomb, he stated that it was going to be used because it would save hundreds of thousands of American lives. (Eisenhower papers, Eisenhower to Pawley, April 9, 1955, in Gar Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 354)​
* Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower, confirmed in a 1967 interview that Ike told Stimson he was opposed to nuking Japan when the two spoke at Potsdam:

The story has been told, I’m sure, of Dad’s reaction to the atomic bomb when Stimson told him about it at the time of the Potsdam conference. Stimson told Dad about this thing, and Dad was very depressed about this new bomb, although its possibility had been at the back of everybody’s mind. There’d been special efforts to hit heavy-water plants in Trondheim in the bombardment programs. The idea of Hitler developing a bomb that could have turned the tide in this European war was not to be sneezed at completely. So Dad had some idea of it, but he was sorry that it had been developed, and was against its being used. . . .

Dad said [later that night, after the meeting], “Well, again, it’s none of my business, but I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it.” (John Eisenhower interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, DDEL, in Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _pp. 356-357)​
Now, Elektra, getting back to your “scum” comment, guess which “scum” said the following:

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 was the conclusion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) (USSBS report, p. 26), which was led by such “scum” and “commies” as:

- Paul Nitze, who went on to serve as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense, and who was chosen by President Ronald Reagan to be his chief negotiator at the SALT talks.

- Frank A. McNamee, who received the Decorated Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, while in the military, and who served as the deputy director of the Office Civil Defense.

- Frank Searls, from the Office of War Mobilization.

- Theodore P. Wright, an expert on American aviation who served in the Civil Aeronautics Administration until 1948.

- Dr. Louis R. Thompson, director of the National Institutes of Health from 1937 to 1942.

- Dr. Harry Bowman, Drexel Institute.

- Dr. Rensis Likert, Columbia University. During the war he worked for the Office of War Information (OWI).

The Survey's staff included 300 civilians, 350 officers, and 500 enlisted men. The Survey operated from headquarters in Tokyo, with sub-headquarters in Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and with mobile teams operating in other parts of Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the Asiatic mainland. The Survey “secured the principal surviving Japanese records and interrogated top Army and Navy officers, Government officials, industrialists, political leaders, and many hundreds of their subordinates throughout Japan. It was thus possible to reconstruct much of wartime Japanese military planning and execution, engagement by engagement and campaign by campaign, and to secure reasonably accurate data on Japan's economy and war production, plant by plant, and industry by industry.”


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can cut right to the chase. The conclusion of the book is Truman was not at fault nor a villian. I look forward to a discussion of the book. Of course, if it us like all the other books referred to in this OP,  mikegriffter1 does not own the book hence.he can only cherry pick google results.
> 
> Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about "cherry picking"!  I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read the article, because therein Hasegawa says the following:
> 
> I argue that Soviet entry into the war against Japan alone, without the atomic bombs, might have led to Japan’s surrender before November 1, but that the atomic bombs alone, without Soviet entry into the war, would not have accomplished this. Finally, I argue that had U.S. President Harry Truman sought Stalin’s signature on the Potsdam Proclamation, and had Truman included the promise of a constitutional monarchy in the Potsdam Proclamation, as Secretary of War Henry Stimson had originally suggested, the war might have ended sooner, possibly without the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan.​
> Anyway, Elektra, a few notes about Eisenhower’s opposition to nuking Japan:
> 
> * In 1955, Eisenhower wrote to friend and businessman William Pawley about his discussion on the bomb with Stimson:
> 
> On the other hand, when I suggested to Secretary of War Stimson, who was then in Europe, that we avoid using the atomic bomb, he stated that it was going to be used because it would save hundreds of thousands of American lives. (Eisenhower papers, Eisenhower to Pawley, April 9, 1955, in Gar Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 354)​
> * Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower, confirmed in a 1967 interview that Ike told Stimson he was opposed to nuking Japan when the two spoke at Potsdam:
> 
> The story has been told, I’m sure, of Dad’s reaction to the atomic bomb when Stimson told him about it at the time of the Potsdam conference. Stimson told Dad about this thing, and Dad was very depressed about this new bomb, although its possibility had been at the back of everybody’s mind. There’d been special efforts to hit heavy-water plants in Trondheim in the bombardment programs. The idea of Hitler developing a bomb that could have turned the tide in this European war was not to be sneezed at completely. So Dad had some idea of it, but he was sorry that it had been developed, and was against its being used. . . .
> 
> Dad said [later that night, after the meeting], “Well, again, it’s none of my business, but I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it.” (John Eisenhower interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, DDEL, in Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _pp. 356-357)​
> Now, Elektra, getting back to your “scum” comment, guess which “scum” said the following:
> 
> 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 was the conclusion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) (USSBS report, p. 26), which was led by such “scum” and “commies” as:
> 
> - Paul Nitze, who went on to serve as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense, and who was chosen by President Ronald Reagan to be his chief negotiator at the SALT talks.
> 
> - Frank A. McNamee, who received the Decorated Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, while in the military, and who served as the deputy director of the Office Civil Defense.
> 
> - Frank Searls, from the Office of War Mobilization.
> 
> - Theodore P. Wright, an expert on American aviation who served in the Civil Aeronautics Administration until 1948.
> 
> - Dr. Louis R. Thompson, director of the National Institutes of Health from 1937 to 1942.
> 
> - Dr. Harry Bowman, Drexel Institute.
> 
> - Dr. Rensis Likert, Columbia University. During the war he worked for the Office of War Information (OWI).
> 
> The Survey's staff included 300 civilians, 350 officers, and 500 enlisted men. The Survey operated from headquarters in Tokyo, with sub-headquarters in Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and with mobile teams operating in other parts of Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the Asiatic mainland. The Survey “secured the principal surviving Japanese records and interrogated top Army and Navy officers, Government officials, industrialists, political leaders, and many hundreds of their subordinates throughout Japan. It was thus possible to reconstruct much of wartime Japanese military planning and execution, engagement by engagement and campaign by campaign, and to secure reasonably accurate data on Japan's economy and war production, plant by plant, and industry by industry.”
Click to expand...

And as I said, the griffter1 would not quote the book that he just recommended!!!!!!! What kind of charalatan would introduce a book into a discussion that they have obviously not read!!! Quote the book with page numbers, how about, you brought the book into this, now discuss the book!!!

No worry, give me a few minutes and I will quote the book with page numbers. You will sadly see that you are wrong again.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can cut right to the chase. The conclusion of the book is Truman was not at fault nor a villian. I look forward to a discussion of the book. Of course, if it us like all the other books referred to in this OP,  mikegriffter1 does not own the book hence.he can only cherry pick google results.
> 
> Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about "cherry picking"!  I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read the article, because therein Hasegawa says the following:
> 
> I argue that Soviet entry into the war against Japan alone, without the atomic bombs, might have led to Japan’s surrender before November 1, but that the atomic bombs alone, without Soviet entry into the war, would not have accomplished this. Finally, I argue that had U.S. President Harry Truman sought Stalin’s signature on the Potsdam Proclamation, and had Truman included the promise of a constitutional monarchy in the Potsdam Proclamation, as Secretary of War Henry Stimson had originally suggested, the war might have ended sooner, possibly without the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan.​
> Anyway, Elektra, a few notes about Eisenhower’s opposition to nuking Japan:
> 
> * In 1955, Eisenhower wrote to friend and businessman William Pawley about his discussion on the bomb with Stimson:
> 
> On the other hand, when I suggested to Secretary of War Stimson, who was then in Europe, that we avoid using the atomic bomb, he stated that it was going to be used because it would save hundreds of thousands of American lives. (Eisenhower papers, Eisenhower to Pawley, April 9, 1955, in Gar Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 354)​
> * Eisenhower’s son, John Eisenhower, confirmed in a 1967 interview that Ike told Stimson he was opposed to nuking Japan when the two spoke at Potsdam:
> 
> The story has been told, I’m sure, of Dad’s reaction to the atomic bomb when Stimson told him about it at the time of the Potsdam conference. Stimson told Dad about this thing, and Dad was very depressed about this new bomb, although its possibility had been at the back of everybody’s mind. There’d been special efforts to hit heavy-water plants in Trondheim in the bombardment programs. The idea of Hitler developing a bomb that could have turned the tide in this European war was not to be sneezed at completely. So Dad had some idea of it, but he was sorry that it had been developed, and was against its being used. . . .
> 
> Dad said [later that night, after the meeting], “Well, again, it’s none of my business, but I’d sure hate to see it used, because Japan’s licked anyway, and they know it.” (John Eisenhower interview with Ed Edwin, February 28, 1967, DDEL, in Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _pp. 356-357)​
> Now, Elektra, getting back to your “scum” comment, guess which “scum” said the following:
> 
> 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 was the conclusion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) (USSBS report, p. 26), which was led by such “scum” and “commies” as:
> 
> - Paul Nitze, who went on to serve as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense, and who was chosen by President Ronald Reagan to be his chief negotiator at the SALT talks.
> 
> - Frank A. McNamee, who received the Decorated Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, while in the military, and who served as the deputy director of the Office Civil Defense.
> 
> - Frank Searls, from the Office of War Mobilization.
> 
> - Theodore P. Wright, an expert on American aviation who served in the Civil Aeronautics Administration until 1948.
> 
> - Dr. Louis R. Thompson, director of the National Institutes of Health from 1937 to 1942.
> 
> - Dr. Harry Bowman, Drexel Institute.
> 
> - Dr. Rensis Likert, Columbia University. During the war he worked for the Office of War Information (OWI).
> 
> The Survey's staff included 300 civilians, 350 officers, and 500 enlisted men. The Survey operated from headquarters in Tokyo, with sub-headquarters in Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and with mobile teams operating in other parts of Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the Asiatic mainland. The Survey “secured the principal surviving Japanese records and interrogated top Army and Navy officers, Government officials, industrialists, political leaders, and many hundreds of their subordinates throughout Japan. It was thus possible to reconstruct much of wartime Japanese military planning and execution, engagement by engagement and campaign by campaign, and to secure reasonably accurate data on Japan's economy and war production, plant by plant, and industry by industry.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as I said, the griffter1 would not quote the book that he just recommended!!!!!!! What kind of charalatan would introduce a book into a discussion that they have obviously not read!!! Quote the book with page numbers, how about, you brought the book into this, now discuss the book!!!
> 
> No worry, give me a few minutes and I will quote the book with page numbers. You will sadly see that you are wrong again.
Click to expand...


Ha! Yeah, okay! I notice you simply ignored the quote from Hasegawa's article. Why is that? Because he says the very opposite of what you claim he believes?

The article presents the same case made in the book regarding the role that the Soviet invasion and the nukes played in Japan's surrender, only in a condensed form.

The pattern with you is this: You make some invalid claim. I refute the claim. You ignore the refutation and pretend you've won the argument.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later.


OMG...shut the fuck _already_. Japan was part of the Axis of Evil that killed many American's *unprovoked*. We should have dropped nukes on the entire fucking island. Literally.

Plus...it was 100 years ago. Let it go already. Stop looking for a reason to be outraged and find a fuck'n hobby, you tool.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ......mikegriffter1 does not own the book ......_. _







If this 'scholar' ever got a hold of a library card, he'd really be proud of himself!!!!!!


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy.............._ Hasegawa's ground-breaking book proves that it was the Soviet invasion, not nukes, that led to Japan's surrender. The article below contains most of the key information found in the book.


The book proves no such thing. The book certainly dictates that. But it is pure speculation that is not proved in the book. 

First and foremost, the Atomic bombs were dropped. One can ask, "would Japan had surrendered had the Atomic bombs not been dropped, only with the Soviets entering the war"? I can than state, Japan would not of surrendered. They would of continued to fortify the mainland, withdrawing all their troops to the final defense of Japan. 

Yes, you have an article, a google link, a google result. How about actually discussing the book, once you get it in your hands.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy.............._ Hasegawa's ground-breaking book proves that it was the Soviet invasion, not nukes, that led to Japan's surrender. The article below contains most of the key information found in the book.
> 
> 
> 
> The book proves no such thing. The book certainly dictates that. But it is pure speculation that is not proved in the book.
> 
> First and foremost, the Atomic bombs were dropped. One can ask, "would Japan had surrendered had the Atomic bombs not been dropped, only with the Soviets entering the war"? I can than state, Japan would not of surrendered. They would of continued to fortify the mainland, withdrawing all their troops to the final defense of Japan.
> 
> Yes, you have an article, a google link, a google result. How about actually discussing the book, once you get it in your hands.
Click to expand...



Information doesn't exist until you take a pic of a book next to your feet in the shitter!


----------



## mikegriffith1

P@triot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG... Japan was part of the Axis of Evil that killed many American's *unprovoked*. We should have dropped nukes on the entire island. Literally.
> 
> Plus...it was 100 years ago. Let it go already. Stop looking for a reason to be outraged and find a hobby, you tool.
Click to expand...


"Unprovoked"? FDR was strangling Japan with increasingly harsh sanctions. Japan made a sincere effort to reach a compromise with FDR, including an offer to withdraw from southern Indochina, which was FDR's pretext for the oil embargo. Every time Japan offered another concession, FDR would add more conditions. The Japanese realized that FDR was determined to force Japan to fight.

Since you claim to be a "patriot," you might be interested to know that Japan was staunchly anti-communist and pro-free enterprise and pro-private property. Japan moved into Manchuria to check Soviet and Chinese Communist influence there and to create a buffer zone between Japan and Communism.

Japan plainly told FDR that it was ready to ditch its pact with Germany in exchange for the lifting of the sanctions, but FDR said no. Also, isn't it interesting that FDR wanted the Japanese to guarantee that they would not attack the Soviet Union?!

Japan had been our ally in WW I. Japan was the most westernized nation in Asia and also had the best economy because it was based on free enterprise and a fierce respect for private property.

Look at the results of FDR's refusal to reach a peace deal with Japan: The Communists took over China and North Korea, and the Soviet Union imposed tyranny on Eastern Europe.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> "Unprovoked"? FDR was strangling Japan with increasingly harsh sanctions.


Wait. Wait. Wait. It is your position that Americans deserve to die and Japan is justified in using deadly force because a U.S. president used....._sanctions_?!? Are you fucking kidding me?!?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Ha! Yeah, okay! I notice you simply ignored the quote from Hasegawa's article. Why is that? Because he says the very opposite of what you claim he believes?
> 
> The article presents the same case made in the book regarding the role that the Soviet invasion and the nukes played in Japan's surrender, only in a condensed form.
> 
> The pattern with you is this: You make some invalid claim. I refute the claim. You ignore the refutation and pretend you've won the argument.


I was waiting for you to quote the book, directly. Do you have the book so you can quote it? Is this all you got google searches?

Yes, the book says, that because the soviet union would not negotiate for peace, the Japanese accepted the potsdam declaration. We all know that history, bombs dropped, soviets refuse to accept an offer of peace from Japan, Japan turns to USA and surrenders to the USA. 

If we had not accepted the offer for surrender, the Soviet Union would of tried to conquer Japan. 

That is what the book states. Are you going to quote from your copy or do you not own the book?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Well, well, I finally found my copy of Ike's book _Mandate for Change, _and, as I knew would be the case, Ike said exactly what so many other scholars have quoted him as saying: that he expressed to Stimson strong opposition to nuking Japan. Here are the front cover and pages 312-313:


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Well, well, I finally found my copy of Ike's book _Mandate for Change, _and, as I knew would be the case, Ike said exactly what so many other scholars have quoted him as saying: that he expressed to Stimson strong opposition to nuking Japan. Here are the front cover and pages 312-313:


Crusade in Europe, 1948, written before your book, hence the events are clear and fresh in Eisenhower's mind. It is clear Eusenhower lied in your book. A very different version than the earlier book.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Yes, the book says, that because the soviet union would not negotiate for peace, the Japanese accepted the potsdam declaration. We all know that history, bombs dropped, soviets refuse to accept an offer of peace from Japan, Japan turns to USA and surrenders to the USA.
> 
> If we had not accepted the offer for surrender, the Soviet Union would of tried to conquer Japan.
> 
> That is what the book states. Are you going to quote from your copy or do you not own the book?



None of those points were at issue. You are once again trying to avoid admitting error by changing the subject. And, I notice that you once again avoided dealing with the quote I provided from Hasegawa's article, not to mention the rest of the article.

Let's put to rest your distortions about Hasegawa's book and his views:


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Well, well, I finally found my copy of Ike's book _Mandate for Change, _and, as I knew would be the case, Ike said exactly what so many other scholars have quoted him as saying: that he expressed to Stimson strong opposition to nuking Japan.


Well. Well. Well. Just as I expected...you have absolutely no point. Who gives a shit what Ike thought? At the end of the day, only an idiot thinks that Japan was justified in killing Americans over something as trivial as "sanctions" while simultaneously believing that Japan was some poor "victim" and America was "evil" for responding.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the book says, that because the soviet union would not negotiate for peace, the Japanese accepted the potsdam declaration. We all know that history, bombs dropped, soviets refuse to accept an offer of peace from Japan, Japan turns to USA and surrenders to the USA.
> 
> If we had not accepted the offer for surrender, the Soviet Union would of tried to conquer Japan.
> 
> That is what the book states. Are you going to quote from your copy or do you not own the book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those points were at issue. You are once again trying to avoid admitting error by changing the subject. And, I notice that you once again avoided dealing with the quote I provided from Hasegawa's article, not to mention the rest of the article.
> 
> Let's put to rest your distortions about Hasegawa's book and his views:
Click to expand...

Ha, ha, ha, ha! A whole book explaining how the Japanese were desperately trying to find peace before the Soviet Union entered the war! Then they end the book forgetting that they already made the case that the Japanese were trying to end the War. So how is it, before the Soviet Union entered the War Japan was trying to enter peace negotiations, or surrender as you previously stated, yet now you want us to believe that it was the Soviet Union entering the war that changed the Japanese mind?

The book can not have it both ways and you can not have it both ways, either. 

The direction of Japanese diplomacy was trying to find a way to peace (surrender as you state it). For months prior to August! Yet that is all forgotten and it is stated they would not of done, what they had been trying to do for months, had it not been for the Soviet Union entering the war? 
This book as well as you, prove you live in a world that requires smoke and mirrors and very short term memory to "BELIEVE".


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Crusade in Europe, 1948, written before your book, hence the events are clear and fresh in Eisenhower's mind. It is clear Eisenhower lied in your book. A very different version than the earlier book.View attachment 280190



Once again you ignore counter-arguments and simply repeat your claims (but at least you're no longer claiming that Ike never said he expressed strong opposition to using nukes when he spoke with Stimson). What about the confirmatory accounts from Ike's son John, which support Ike's claim that he strongly objected to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson? What about Ike's 1955 letter to William Pawley, in which he said he told Stimson that we should "avoid using the atomic bomb"? What about Omar Bradley's account, which confirms that Ike strongly objected to nuking Japan during his Stimson meeting? What about Ike's private comments to his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, in which he insisted to Ambrose that he expressed strong opposition to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson? You simply sweep aside all this evidence and repeat the sophomoric claim that Ike must have "lied" in his 1948 account.

If you had any training in historical research, you would know that just because an earlier account contains less information than a later account does not automatically mean that the later account is invalid. As I've pointed out before, when Ike gave his 1948 account, feelings were still very raw, and Stimson was still alive. So it is perfectly understandable that in 1948 Ike would withhold some of the sharper comments that he made to Stimson and Stimson's angry reaction. Yet, even in his 1948 account, Eisenhower said he told Stimson that he hoped we would not use the atomic bomb against an enemy because he "disliked" the idea of America being the first to use such a "horrible" weapon.

There is no "contradiction" between Ike's 1948 account and his 1963 account. The 1963 account simply provides more information. It does not conflict with the essential thrust of his 1948 account.

It is perfectly understandable that in 1963 Eisenhower felt more at liberty to give the complete account of his meeting with Stimson, and I again repeat that Ike's 1963 account is supported by his son John's accounts, by his 1955 letter to William Pawley, by his emphatic comments to Ambrose, and by General Bradley's account.

Why would Eisenhower have lied about this anyway? Why? What would he have had to gain by fully recounting comments that he knew most Americans would find surprising and troubling?

Finally, there is no doubt about what Eisenhower said in his November 1963 "Ike on Ike" interview with _Newsweek: "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
_
But since you refuse to accept this moral judgment, you resort to trashing a war hero and a beloved president like Dwight Eisenhower, and yet you call yourself a "patriot." It is militarists and Truman defenders like you who are "trashing our wonderful country." Truman spit on every core principle of Americanism when he ignored every Japanese peace feeler, refused to give assurances that would have greatly increased the chances of ending the war earlier, and then nuked two cities filled with hundreds of thousands of women and children. And this same Harry Truman proceeded to hand over China to Mao's Communists and to sentence over 30 million Chinese to death at the hands of Mao's henchmen.


----------



## sparky

P@triot said:


> you have absolutely no point.



Unsubstantiated contrarians _lose_ debates this *^^^^^*way

~S~


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> [
> Once again you ignore counter-arguments and simply repeat your claims (but at least you're no longer claiming that Ike never said he expressed strong opposition to using nukes when he spoke with Stimson). What about the confirmatory accounts from Ike's son John, which support Ike's claim that he strongly objected to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson? What about Ike's 1955 letter to William Pawley, in which he said he told Stimson that we should "avoid using the atomic bomb"? What about Omar Bradley's account, which confirms that Ike strongly objected to nuking Japan during his Stimson meeting? What about Ike's private comments to his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, in which he insisted to Ambrose that he expressed strong opposition to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson? You simply sweep aside all this evidence and repeat the sophomoric claim that Ike must have "lied" in his 1948 account.
> .


Ike never spoke with Stimson in regards to nuclear bombs being used  on Japan. There is no record of that in either man's diaries. The fact that Ike gives to completely different accounts of the same discussion proves Ike lied. Ike had his diary and notes to use, in order to get that event right. It is clear, Ike was never told about the bomb. It does not matter what Ike says 10, 20, or 30 years later. It does not matter what his son believes, 25 years later.

The facts are clear. The atomic bombs were kept top secret. Eisenhower was never told about the bombs.

We have MacArthur that confirms the atomic bombs were kept secret from even the generals. 

Ike did not know.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> The fact that Ike gives to completely different accounts of the same discussion proves Ike lied......




Illogical conclusion.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ...... It does not matter what Ike says 10, 20, or 30 years later. .......




As long as it suits your worship of all things fdr and democrat support for global communism? You can't even be taking yourself seriously anymore at this point.


----------



## Doc7505

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
> 
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​McGeorge Bundy? This is how weak, how pathetic, mikegriffith's opinion is. So weak and flimsy is his ideas of morality that, mikegriffter must begin his OP using McGeorge Bundy as the basis of his opinion.
> 
> McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!
> 
> McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!
> 
> McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!
> 
> I will argue that Gomer Pyle knew more during WW II than Bundy!!!!!
> 
> What does it say about the OP, about it's author, that this is the basis of all they believe? What did Bundy say the day after the bomb was dropped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the War is over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a fool, nothing more.
Click to expand...

We were in a no holds barred war. The invasion of Okinawa showed us that the coming invasion of homeland Japan would cause a half a million GI deaths and million or more wounded not counting the deaths of Japanese. The use of the two bombs to stop the war was the right thing for the time. Your Monday morning quarterbacking 74yrs after the fact shows your lack of knowledge of the war. 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


----------



## Unkotare

Doc7505 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
> 
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."​
> 
> 
> 
> ​McGeorge Bundy? This is how weak, how pathetic, mikegriffith's opinion is. So weak and flimsy is his ideas of morality that, mikegriffter must begin his OP using McGeorge Bundy as the basis of his opinion.
> 
> McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!
> 
> McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!
> 
> McGeorge Bundy was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II !!!!!
> 
> I will argue that Gomer Pyle knew more during WW II than Bundy!!!!!
> 
> What does it say about the OP, about it's author, that this is the basis of all they believe? What did Bundy say the day after the bomb was dropped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the War is over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a fool, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were in a no holds barred war. The invasion of Okinawa showed us that the coming invasion of homeland Japan would cause a half a million GI deaths and million or more wounded not counting the deaths of Japanese. .....lk
Click to expand...




Speculation.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead.



By the way, do you know where the USS Indianapolis was sunk? It was sunk between Tinian and the Philippines, about 1,000 miles from Japan. Do you know why it was sunk? Because it was traveling alone, since the Japanese naval threat was deemed to be so minimal that the U.S. Navy did not bother sending any ships to accompany the USS Indianapolis, even though it was a heavy cruiser. The ship was just incredibly unlucky that one of the few Japanese subs still patrolling in that area happened to come across her and saw that she was alone.

We could spend many pages detailing the evidence of Japan's prostrate condition by May 1945: her growing food shortages, her paucity of fuel, her virtually defenseless condition against air and naval attacks, etc., etc. In addition to the evidence on this point that I've already presented in this thread, I cite General Marshall's memo to Stimson, dated 15 June 1945, in which Marshall said, "_The Japanese know they are licked for this generation_" (p. 2).

So not only were the Japanese "licked" by June 1945, but Marshall and Stimson, and most everyone else in the White House, knew it.

Another item from the mountain of evidence on this point comes from
Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor's memoir. Taylor's comments give us some idea of how commonly it was known among top American officials that Japan was defeated by May 1945, that Japan’s civilian leaders knew it, and that 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. (p. xi)​


----------



## MaryL

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


And given the same hindsight, Japan shouldn't have  invaded China killed an estimated...*10 million innocent Chinese*. Surely nuking japan to stop their evil  was the lesser of two evils. Really, look at all the facts kiddo. I would recommend stop listening to your liberal professors  or us random internet folks and read history, it speaks for itself. I double dog dare you.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> And given the same hindsight, Japan shouldn't have like invaded China killed an estimated...*10 million innocent Chinese*. Surely nuking japan  twice  was the lesser of to evils. Really, look at all the facts kiddo. I would recommend stop listening to your liberal professors  or us random internet folks and read history. I double dog dare you.
Click to expand...



So, we dropped the atomic bombs on civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of China? Is that really what you think?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, do you know where the USS Indianapolis was sunk? It was sunk between Tinian and the Philippines, about 1,000 miles from Japan. Do you know why it was sunk? Because it was traveling alone, since the Japanese naval threat was deemed to be so minimal that the U.S. Navy did not bother sending any ships to accompany the USS Indianapolis, even though it was a heavy cruiser. The ship was just incredibly unlucky that one of the few Japanese subs still patrolling in that area happened to come across her and saw that she was alone.
> 
> We could spend many pages detailing the evidence of Japan's prostrate condition by May 1945: her growing food shortages, her paucity of fuel, her virtually defenseless condition against air and naval attacks, etc., etc. In addition to the evidence on this point that I've already presented in this thread, I cite General Marshall's memo to Stimson, dated 15 June 1945, in which Marshall said, "_The Japanese know they are licked for this generation_" (p. 2).
> 
> So not only were the Japanese "licked" by June 1945, but Marshall and Stimson, and most everyone else in the White House, knew it.
> 
> Another item from the mountain of evidence on this point comes from
> Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor's memoir. Taylor's comments give us some idea of how commonly it was known among top American officials that Japan was defeated by May 1945, that Japan’s civilian leaders knew it, and that 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. (p. xi)​
Click to expand...

Ho hum, ha, ha. That you must use adjectives to revise history says it all.

Defeated, beat, is not the same as, they quit fighting. Defeated was never an argument. They simply refused to stop fighting. Sadly in war, a defeated enemy was still able to kill thousands of americans.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Doc7505 said:


> We were in a no holds barred war. The invasion of Okinawa showed us that the coming invasion of homeland Japan would cause a half a million GI deaths and million or more wounded not counting the deaths of Japanese. The use of the two bombs to stop the war was the right thing for the time. Your Monday morning quarterbacking 74yrs after the fact shows your lack of knowledge of the war.



I take it you didn't bother to read any of the posts herein where I document Japan's prostrate condition? There was no need to invade Japan, nor to nuke Japan, to end the war.

We know from internal memos that even the War Department knew that the "half a million" estimate was a wild exaggeration. Even most of the few scholars who still defend Truman's nuking of Japan have admitted that the half-a-million figure was baseless.

Kyushu, with its open plains and much larger area, would have provided much greater room for maneuver than did Okinawa. On Okinawa, geography forced us to fight in narrow corridors and small areas. Of course, another major reason for our high casualties on Okinawa, as in the Philippines, was that we were foolish enough to attack entrenched positions in those narrow and small areas, instead of just cutting them off, hemming them in, and letting them die on the vine.

No, nuking two cites was not "the right thing to do." It was a war crime of gigantic proportions.

It is not "Monday morning quarterbacking" to point out that Truman did not need to nuke Japan. Dozens of people inside the government and in the Manhattan Project voiced opposition to nuking Japan before Truman did it. And within months of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, voices from both conservative and liberal camps began to raise doubts about the necessity and morality of Truman's action. That's why Conant and other Truman-nuke defenders pressured Stimson into signing his name to the famous (infamous) defense of Truman's decision that they wrote for the February 1947 edition of _Harper's Magazine_.

Finally, many people don't realize that many of the first critics of Truman's nuking of Japan were conservatives:

American Conservatives Are the Forgotten Critics of the Atomic Bombing of Japan | Barton J. Bernstein


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, do you know where the USS Indianapolis was sunk? It was sunk between Tinian and the Philippines, about 1,000 miles from Japan. Do you know why it was sunk? Because it was traveling alone, since the Japanese naval threat was deemed to be so minimal that the U.S. Navy did not bother sending any ships to accompany the USS Indianapolis, even though it was a heavy cruiser. The ship was just incredibly unlucky that one of the few Japanese subs still patrolling in that area happened to come across her and saw that she was alone.
> 
> We could spend many pages detailing the evidence of Japan's prostrate condition by May 1945: her growing food shortages, her paucity of fuel, her virtually defenseless condition against air and naval attacks, etc., etc. In addition to the evidence on this point that I've already presented in this thread, I cite General Marshall's memo to Stimson, dated 15 June 1945, in which Marshall said, "_The Japanese know they are licked for this generation_" (p. 2).
> 
> So not only were the Japanese "licked" by June 1945, but Marshall and Stimson, and most everyone else in the White House, knew it.



But here's what you don't seem to get.  Yes, Japan was defeated by 1945. 

Germany was defeated by 1918, but it didn't stop guys like Hitler from popping up a few years later and saying Germany was "Stabbed in the back" by its leaders.  This is why the allies insisted on UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER this time. 

The last thing they wanted was some Japanese leader coming back in 1945 and saying the guys who negotiated a surrender had stabbed Japan in the back.  

But the point that I keep making to you, which you ignore, is that people really thought of the Atom Bomb as this world changing event in August `1945.  They didn't.  it was just another weapon.  The thing that triggered Japan's surrender was the entry of the USSR opening up a whole new front they were unprepared to fight. 



mikegriffith1 said:


> No, nuking two cites was not "the right thing to do." It was a war crime of gigantic proportions.
> 
> It is not "Monday morning quarterbacking" to point out that Truman did not need to nuke Japan. Dozens of people inside the government and in the Manhattan Project voiced opposition to nuking Japan before Truman did it. And within months of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, voices from both conservative and liberal camps began to raise doubts about the necessity and morality of Truman's action. That's why Conant and other Truman-nuke defenders pressured Stimson into signing his name to the article that they wrote.
> 
> Finally, many people don't realize that many of the first critics of Truman's nuking of Japan were conservatives:



No, that doesn't surprise me a bit. The one thing we've learned about politics is that no matter what you do, the other side will criticize you for it. 

Imagine if Truman hadn't used the nukes, went ahead with Operation Olympic, and America had incurred thousands of casualties, and the public found out we had this new cool weapons that could have leveled Japans cities in one shot. The conservatives would have crucified Truman for that. 

The thing was, it was just another weapon at the time. 

Later, when both the US and USSR had hundreds of even more powerful bombs on missiles and the world could end in 20 minutes, THEN we all started to regret bombing Japan. 

I look at bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an ironic good.  We saw what these things would do to human beings, and it was awful.   Imagine if the USSR and  US had built up huge arsenals and never used them on people... 



mikegriffith1 said:


> I take it you didn't bother to read any of the posts herein where I document Japan's prostrate condition? There was no need to invade Japan, nor to nuke Japan, to end the war.
> 
> We know from internal memos that even the War Department knew that the "half a million" estimate was a wild exaggeration. Even most of the few scholars who still defend Truman's nuking of Japan have admitted that the half-a-million figure was baseless.
> 
> Kyushu, with its open plains and much larger area, would have provided much greater room for maneuver than did Okinawa. On Okinawa, geography forced us to fight in narrow corridors and small areas. Of course, another major reason for our high casualties on Okinawa, as in the Philippines, was that we were foolish enough to attack entrenched positions in those narrow and small areas, instead of just cutting them off, hemming them in, and letting them die on the vine.



I'm guessing you've never served in the armed forces, much less every been in a war.   If anything, an invasion of Japan would have been worse than an invasion of the Philippines, because every last civilian would have been against you.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I take it you didn't bother to read any of the posts herein where I document Japan's prostrate condition? There was no need to invade Japan, nor to nuke Japan, to end the war.


You did not document, "Japan's prostrate condition". You made claims, you asserted, you dictated, but you have not offered one fact that proves your oplnion.

Me, and others have documented the will and ability of Japan to keep fighting. We have documented deaths of Americans, death by the Japanese. Deaths that occured  after the surrender.

You make it clear, you dont give a dam about Americans dying. You brush aside facts and history so that you can take a seat with those that oppose the USA.

Japan was not prostate, you are a liar when you make that claim.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> We know from internal memos that even the War Department knew that the "half a million" estimate was a wild exaggeration. Even most of the few scholars who still defend Truman's nuking of Japan have admitted that the half-a-million figure was baseless.


Baseless is your ridiculous post.

We do know that the fighting on okinawa resulted in 50,000 casualties. 

How many would of died on the mainland? How many wounded. Even a third grader could summarize a lot more. 

500,000? Most likely the total would of been more.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know from internal memos that even the War Department knew that the "half a million" estimate was a wild exaggeration. Even most of the few scholars who still defend Truman's nuking of Japan have admitted that the half-a-million figure was baseless.
> 
> 
> 
> Baseless is your ridiculous post.
> 
> We do know that the fighting on okinawa resulted in 50,000 casualties.
> 
> How many would of died on the mainland? How many wounded. Even a third grader could summarize a lot more.
> 
> 500,000? Most likely the total would of been more.
Click to expand...




More cultural ignorance.  ^^^^^


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> We know from internal memos that even the War Department knew that the "half a million" estimate was a wild exaggeration. Even most of the few scholars who still defend Truman's nuking of Japan have admitted that the half-a-million figure was baseless.





elektra said:


> Baseless is your ridiculous post. We do know that the fighting on okinawa resulted in 50,000 casualties. How many would of died on the mainland? How many wounded. Even a third grader could summarize a lot more. 500,000? Most likely the total would of been more.



Well, this proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. Even most pro-Truman-nuking scholars admit that 500,000 was an invalid, baseless estimate.

And I note that, yet again, you ignored every point I made regarding the 500K estimate and simply repeated your talking point.

Do you have any response to the fact that even internal War Department memos dismissed the 500K estimate as a severe exaggeration? Or do you just not care?

Guide to Decision: Part III

Anyway, here is a petition that Manhattan Project scientist Dr. Leo Szilard wrote on July 3, 1945, and that was signed by 59 fellow scientists who were involved with nuclear research:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and the destruction of Japanese cities by means of atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present circumstances. We believe that the United States ought not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender.​
If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.

Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities. Once they were introduced as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.

The last few years show a marked tendency toward increasing ruthlessness. At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England. Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness.​


----------



## HenryBHough

Until recently it would be unthinkable that so many "Americans" (AINOS) are sad that Japan lost.


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> Until recently it would be unthinkable that so many "Americans" (AINOS) are sad that Japan lost.




Where have you seen anyone on this thread say that?


----------



## sealybobo

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.


My friend has a saying about anyone who fucks with him.

Don’t fuck with him and then be applauded horrified or shocked at how he reacts.

Look at how a mother bear over reacts when she feels her cubs might be threatened.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know from internal memos that even the War Department knew that the "half a million" estimate was a wild exaggeration. Even most of the few scholars who still defend Truman's nuking of Japan have admitted that the half-a-million figure was baseless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baseless is your ridiculous post. We do know that the fighting on okinawa resulted in 50,000 casualties. How many would of died on the mainland? How many wounded. Even a third grader could summarize a lot more. 500,000? Most likely the total would of been more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. Even most pro-Truman-nuking scholars admit that 500,000 was an invalid, baseless estimate.
> 
> And I note that, yet again, you ignored every point I made regarding the 500K estimate and simply repeated your talking point.
> 
> Do you have any response to the fact that even internal War Department memos dismissed the 500K estimate as a severe exaggeration? Or do you just not care?
> 
> Guide to Decision: Part III
> 
> Anyway, here is a petition that Manhattan Project scientist Dr. Leo Szilard wrote on July 3, 1945, and that was signed by 59 fellow scientists who were involved with nuclear research:
> 
> The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and the destruction of Japanese cities by means of atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present circumstances. We believe that the United States ought not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender.​
> If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.
> 
> Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities. Once they were introduced as an instrument of war it would be difficult to resist for long the temptation of putting them to such use.
> 
> The last few years show a marked tendency toward increasing ruthlessness. At present our Air Forces, striking at the Japanese cities, are using the same methods of warfare which were condemned by American public opinion only a few years ago when applied by the Germans to the cities of England. Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness.​
Click to expand...

Over 900 died in three days, at the end of july/beginning of august. That is simply one attack by the Japanese. It is easy to extrapolate that many more than 500,000 would be casualties during an attack of mainland Japan. One attack, 900!  

A talking point? Again, all you have is adjectives to attempt to validate your opinion.


----------



## elektra

150,000 causalities on okinawa, over 50,000 americans.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender, our nation would then be faced with a situation which might require a re-examination of her position with respect to the use of atomic bombs in the war.​


​Thank you again, your quote shows that these scientists thought we should use the atomic bombs if Japan refused to surrender.


----------



## HenryBHough

Unkotare said:


> Where have you seen anyone on this thread say that?



Are there no mirrors in your dwelling?


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you seen anyone on this thread say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are there no mirrors in your dwelling?
Click to expand...



Quote someone saying what you have claimed they did.


----------



## elektra

HenryBHough said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you seen anyone on this thread say that?
> 
> 
> 
> Are there no mirrors in your dwelling?
Click to expand...

Yes, they lament the fact that Japan had to surrender to the USA under our terms. They call it a moral outrage, that we forced the surrender. They make a tired argument as to why and how and what could of been. They ridicule anybody that points out Americans were killed. They do everything they can to support a Japan that no longer exists. 

It is very unpatriotic of them to wish so badly that Japan won the war.


----------



## elektra

Disgusting, they have made the argument that the USA should of surrendered to Japan!!!!!


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you seen anyone on this thread say that?
> 
> 
> 
> Are there no mirrors in your dwelling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they lament the fact that Japan had to surrender to the USA under our terms. They call it a moral outrage, that we forced the surrender. They make a tired argument as to why and how and what could of been. They ridicule anybody that points out Americans were killed. They do everything they can to support a Japan that no longer exists.
> 
> It is very unpatriotic of them to wish so badly that Japan won the war.
Click to expand...




 The fact that you feel compelled to resort to such blatant childish and transparent dishonesty and misrepresentation indicates your realization that you cannot support your position in this discussion. At the very least you should have more self-respect than to act like this.


----------



## mikegriffith1

I stumbled across this fascinating article on how American and Japanese textbooks discuss Hiroshima. The article is titled “Re-visiting Hiroshima: The Role of US and Japanese History Textbooks in the Construction of National Memory,” and it was written by Dr. Keith Crawford, the head of educational research at Edge Hill College in England, and was published in the _Asia Pacific Education Review_ in 2003 (Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 108-117). Here is a telling excerpt from it:

There is evidence that voices in the US were raised against the decision to drop the bomb but none of this appears in the US texts.​
[Manhattan Project scientist] Szilard claims that the US Government was aware that “Japan was essentially defeated and that we could win the war in another six months” (Szilard, 1949, p. 14). Admiral Strauss (1962), special assistant to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, has argued that Japan was on the brink of defeat and that this was known in the USA and Japan. Shigenori Togo, Japan’s Foreign Minister, claimed that by June 1945 war production was fragmenting, food shortages were acute and that government ministers were telling him that Japan was defeated, he concludes that “It is certain that we would have surrendered ... even without the bomb” (Togo, 1956, p. 217).​
A number of high-profile military leaders were against dropping the bomb. Dwight Eisenhower said “...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing” (Newsweek, November 11, 1963). Norman Cousins, a consultant to General Douglas MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan, writes:​
“When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb” (Cousins, 1947, p. 65).​
In July 1945, Paul Nitze, Vice Chairman of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, given the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan, wrote “While I was working on the new plan of air attack... _ concluded that even without the atomic bomb… Japan would capitulate by November 1945” (Nitze, 1945, pp. 36-37). . . ._​
Joseph Grew, a US State Department expert on Japanese affairs at the time, has since claimed that “...it is quite clear that the civilian advisers to the Emperor were working towards surrender long before the Potsdam Proclamation ... for they knew that Japan as a defeated nation”(Grew, 1952, p. 1425). The US were able to intercept Japan’s communications system and among messages intercepted was one from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow urging him to inform the Russians that Japan wanted the war to end. However, at that time the USA knew two things that the Japanese government did not; first, that the bomb existed and had been successfully tested; second that the Soviet Union was about to enter the war against Japan.

Grew acknowledges that the Japanese military were fundamentally against unconditional surrender, but argues that had Truman said that this would not mean the removal of the Emperor “... the atomic bomb might never have had to be used...” (Grew, 1952, p. 1427). Ellis Zacharias, Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote “What prevented them [the Japanese] from suing for peace … was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender” (Ellis, 1945, p. 17). Japan’s Prime Minister Suzuki announced on 9th June 1945, “Should the Emperor system be abolished, they [the Japanese people] would lose all reason for existence. ‘Unconditional surrender’, therefore, leaves us no choice but to go on fighting to the last man” (Pacific War Research Society 1949, p. 69). Togo, noted, in July 12th 1945 that as long as America insisted on unconditional surrender, “.. our country has no alternative but to see it [the war] through in an all-out effort” (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, p. 873, pp. 875-876).

The U.S. government knew of the Emperor’s importance. Grew explained this to Truman on 28th May 1945. (pp. 112-113)​


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> A number of high-profile military leaders were against dropping the bomb. Dwight Eisenhower said “...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing” (Newsweek, November 11, 1963).​


You just stumbled across this. You are a, lousy liar. You have been searching high and low cause you have not the education to confirm your opinion. 

Eisenhower, as pointed out, and confirmed by general Bradley and general MacArthur never knew about the bomb. You have ignored those posts. No comment at all from you. Which shows you have no understanding er standing of what happened and why. 

Ready to surrender? But they did not until the bomb was dropped. Ready to surrender yet they kept killing Americans.

Ready to surrender? That is a lie. They were preparing for total war on the mainland of japan. 500,000 causalities, guaranteed.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A number of high-profile military leaders were against dropping the bomb. Dwight Eisenhower said “...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing” (Newsweek, November 11, 1963).​
> 
> 
> 
> You just stumbled across this. You are a, lousy liar. You have been searching high and low cause you have not the education to confirm your opinion.
> 
> Eisenhower, as pointed out, and confirmed by general Bradley and general MacArthur never knew about the bomb. You have ignored those posts. No comment at all from you. Which shows you have no understanding er standing of what happened and why.
> 
> Ready to surrender? But they did not until the bomb was dropped. Ready to surrender yet they kept killing Americans.
> 
> Ready to surrender? That is a lie. They were preparing for total war on the mainland of japan. 500,000 causalities, guaranteed.
Click to expand...



The use of the word "guaranteed" shows your ignorance, illogic, and general weakness of mind. You seem to be getting more and more frustrated that you cannot support your position morally or historically.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> [Manhattan Project scientist] Szilard claims that the US Government was aware that “Japan was essentially defeated and that we could win the war in another six months” (Szilard, 1949, p. 14). Admiral Strauss (1962),



Szilard claims? Inform us how one of the leading scientists of the Manhattan project found time to be part of the pacific war strategy? Where and how was szilard able to take time away from Los alamos to engulf himself in pacific strategy?

Again you lie and won't be able to show how one of the leading scientists of the Manhattan project could be in two separate places pursuing two very time consuming tasks at the same time.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> We can cut right to the chase. The conclusion of the book is Truman was not at fault nor a villian. I look forward to a discussion of the book. Of course, if it us like all the other books referred to in this OP,  mikegriffter1 does not own the book hence.he can only cherry pick google results.
> 
> Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy. _



I trust you regret that comment now, hey? What made you think I didn't own the book? Because I first cited a detailed article that Hasegawa wrote after he wrote his book?!

Your interpretation of what Hasegawa says is another example of your specious interpretations, and also your shifting of your position and moving the goal posts. So you say that Hasegawa says that Truman was "not at fault"?! Really?! Uh, then who ordered the nuke attacks?!  I don't attack Hasegawa for not viewing Truman as a villain. I have said several times that Truman might have ordered the atomic attacks because of severe incompetence and ignorance.

Let's quote Hasegawa again:

I argue that Soviet entry into the war against Japan alone, without the atomic bombs, might have led to Japan’s surrender before November 1, but that the atomic bombs alone, without Soviet entry into the war, would not have accomplished this. Finally, I argue that had U.S. President Harry Truman sought Stalin’s signature on the Potsdam Proclamation, and had Truman included the promise of a constitutional monarchy in the Potsdam Proclamation, as Secretary of War Henry Stimson had originally suggested, the war might have ended sooner, possibly without the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan.​
Whether one believes Truman acted out of malice and vengeance or out of ignorance and incompetence, the fact remains that he should not have nuked Japan.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I trust you regret that comment now, hey? What made you think I didn't own the book? Because I first cited a detailed article that Hasegawa wrote after he wrote his book?.



Ha, ha, ha, ha. What makes me think you dont own the book. Your pure ignorance, of course.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Let's quote Hasegawa again:
> I argue that Soviet entry into the war againstJapan alone, without the atomic bombs, might have led to Japan’s surrender before November 1,​



Oh, the book says the Soviet entry in the war, "might have led"? What does "might of" mean? That it was certain? That it was without a doubt? Might of means just that. The soviet entry alone, without th he bombs, might of ended the war 3 months later!

We do know what did happen, it is a simple fact of history. The bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered. They surrendered not three month later, but shortly after the 2nd bomb was dropped.

Thank you again, for confirming the Soviet Union was a side show at best, extending the war in the pacific, not hastening its end.​


----------



## HenryBHough

Unkotare said:


> The fact that you feel compelled to resort to such blatant childish and transparent dishonesty and misrepresentation indicates your realization that you cannot support your position in this discussion. At the very least you should have more self-respect than to act like this.



Crowd-funding to buy Unk a mirror is now open!


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you feel compelled to resort to such blatant childish and transparent dishonesty and misrepresentation indicates your realization that you cannot support your position in this discussion. At the very least you should have more self-respect than to act like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crowd-funding to buy Unk a mirror is now open!
Click to expand...



Whatever you’re paying for these jokes, you’re getting ripped off.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Oh, the book says the Soviet entry in the war, "might have led"? What does "might of" mean? That it was certain? That it was without a doubt? Might of means just that. The soviet entry alone, without the bombs, might of ended the war 3 months later!
> 
> We do know what did happen, it is a simple fact of history. The bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered. They surrendered not three month later, but shortly after the 2nd bomb was dropped.
> 
> Thank you again, for confirming the Soviet Union was a side show at best, extending the war in the pacific, not hastening its end.



Now I know you have not read Hasegawa's book. You might have the book, but you clearly have not read it. No rational person could read his book and conclude that the Soviet Union "was a side show at best." The main purpose of his book is to show the opposite, and to show that most historians have missed or obscured the critical role that the Soviets played in Japan's surrender.

Let me just repeat a few facts that you keep ignoring or failing to explain:

* The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council) did not even think that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was a sufficient reason to call a meeting of the Big Six, which was crucial since nothing could be decided unless the council met. But, when they heard about the Soviet invasion, they immediately agreed to convene a meeting of the Big Six.

* During the crucial August 9 meeting of the Big Six with the emperor, when the emperor broke the deadlock and supported surrender, he did not say one word about the nuking of Hiroshima--not one word ((Kawamura, _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, _Kindle Edition, locs. 3287-3314; see also Robert Butow, _Japan's Decision to Surrender, _p. 175).

* Foreign Minister Togo said after the war that Japan would have surrendered in a few months even without Soviet intervention and without the nuking of two cities. 

* The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered in three to four months even without nukes or Soviet intervention. 

* Time and time again, Truman aided the Japanese hardliners and hindered the efforts of the peace advocates by refusing to assure them about the emperor's fate and by refusing to advise them that the Soviets would enter the war if they didn't surrender. He could have done these things privately, through diplomatic channels, not to mention publicly. He did neither.

* Truman refused to explore any of Japan's peace feelers or to act on the information about Japan's peace feelers that he obtained from intercepts, even though he knew that the only real holdup was the status of the emperor. 

* Even a pro-nuke hack like McGeorge Bundy agreed that nuking Nagasaki just three days after Hiroshima was wrong.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * Even a pro-nuke hack like McGeorge Bundy agreed that nuking Nagasaki just three days after Hiroshima was wrong.



Dam, you are going to run from every post you make, and simply continue with an arm's length list of bullshit points that don't make a hill of beans?

Well, let us start from the begining, from the opening of your OP, to show how very weak your position has always been.

McGeorge Bundy was a 25 year old lieutenant in the army that knew nothing of the Atomic bombs. It is kind of impossible for Bundy to be against something that did not exist as well as something he did not know about. Bundy's opinion is irrelevant.

But you did begin this OP on Bundy's opinion. That shows you have a very weak grasp of your side of the argument.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Let me just repeat a few facts that you keep ignoring or failing to explain:


Now you are just a piece of shit liar. You are the one that ignores posts. You can not simply ignore every point made, every fact established, and reply with your lousy cut/paste from the internet. 

You are a lousy liar. Go back and do what you just claim I did not do. Show us that you can man up and not be a hypocrite and do what you demand of others. Go answer the unanswered posts. Go answer everything you ignored. 

Hell, you ignored my response to your last post and just moved on with, literal, "talking points".

You made a claim you have a book, well, if you are going to provide quotes from that book, quoted the book not some charlatan "scholar". 

Include the page numbers, if you can get them right! For many of your posts were made with the wrong page numbers.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council) did not even think that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was a sufficient reason to call a meeting of the Big Six, which was crucial since nothing could be decided unless the council met.....
> 
> * Truman refused to explore any of Japan's peace feelers or to act on the information about Japan's peace feelers that he obtained from intercepts, even though he knew that the only real holdup was the status of the emperor.


While I wait for you response on all those other posts of mine, I will point out the obvious. I will use your comments and quotes, so you can not argue or ignore (right?).

When did the "aka Big Six and the Supreme War Council" meet and authorize the surrender of Japan that Truman was suppose to "explore".

When was  that meeting, for as you just stated, nothing is decided unless the Big Six and the Supreme War Council meet and agree. So when was that meeting and could you post the transcript.


----------



## mikegriffith1

In August 1945, Japan was like a man who had been provoked into throwing the first punch, who had been thoroughly beaten in the ensuing fight, who was ready to surrender, and who was only asking for one reasonable condition as his terms for surrender. For every 1 punch Japan was landing, we were landing 20. For every one of our soldiers the Japanese were managing to kill, we were killing at least five or six of their soldiers, plus thousands of Japanese civilians with our aerial bombing and naval bombardment.

At that point, basic decency and humanity should have kicked in and we should have explored every peaceful option to achieve a negotiated surrender. We know from old and newly discovered Imperial Japanese internal records and other materials that by late June the Japanese peace faction, which included the emperor and his staff, was willing to accept any condition except the deposing of the emperor.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> In August 1945, Japan was like a man who had been provoked into throwing the first punch.


Pathetic, once again you ignore the discussion you begin. Once again you can not reply to simple questions. This time, the book you have introduced to us, shows how another one of your points is wrong. Instead of answering, you ignore your glaring error. Why is it that you accuse me of not answering your posts when it is actually you that runs from every response to your posts. Is it because we have shown you to wrong or an outright liar?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> In August 1945, Japan was like a man who had been provoked into throwing the first punch,


In August of 1945 Japan was nothing like a man, provoked or not. In August of 1945 Japan was what they were in 1941, a Nation that started a war. 

What a stupid argument you try to make. Japan was a nation with an Army of millions of men in August of 1945. Your stupid analogy is, extremely stupid and not relevant in any way to the Nation of Japan.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> While I wait for you response on all those other posts of mine, I will point out the obvious. I will use your comments and quotes, so you can not argue or ignore (right?).
> 
> When did the "aka Big Six and the Supreme War Council" meet and authorize the surrender of Japan that Truman was suppose to "explore".
> 
> When was  that meeting, for as you just stated, nothing is decided unless the Big Six and the Supreme War Council meet and agree. So when was that meeting and could you post the transcript.



I am seriously wondering if you are a high school student.

First off, the Big Six and the Supreme War Council were the same group. "Big Six" is just a common nickname for the Supreme War Council, which in turn is a shortened version of the council's full name: Supreme Council for the Direction of the War. Do you understand what "aka" means?

Second, your question about the "authorized" peace offer that Truman was "supposed to explore" is disingenuous and avoids the point that most of Japan's high-ranking government officials favored surrender weeks before Hiroshima but could not yet overcome the hardliners' opposition and thus could not bring about a situation where the emperor could break a surrender-decision deadlock.

The Big Six could not even meet unless *all* the members agreed to meet. Do you understand this point? So no surrender debate could come before the emperor unless the Big Six first met to discuss the matter. Is this clear now? I've explained this several times, and Hasegawa discusses it too, but you seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp/acknowledge this fact.

And why were the peace advocates unable to overcome the hardliners? Because the hardliners kept falling back on their main argument: that surrender would lead to the emperor's removal. Truman could have broken the hardliners' backs if he had just given Japan assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, but he repeatedly refused to do so, even after Grew briefed him on May on the critical importance of doing this.

Only after the Soviets invaded did the hardliners agree to convene the Big Six, and only then could the peace advocates arrange for a meeting where the emperor could break a surrender-debate deadlock. The transcripts are in several books. The best is in Kawamura's book.

By the way, the only time I have cited the wrong page numbers was when I used Doug Long's quote from Eisenhower's 1963 book, which gave the same page number for the quote as that given by the Congressional Record, which turned out to be incorrect.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Pathetic, once again you ignore the discussion you begin. Once again you can not reply to simple questions. This time, the book you have introduced to us, shows how another one of your points is wrong.



If you're talking about Hasegawa's book, Hasegawa agrees with about 85% of my position, whereas he agrees with maybe 10% of your position. You can't seriously have read Hasegawa's book and believe that it supports your position more than mine.

And you know that Hasegawa's book has been superseded by Kawamura's book right? You know this, right?  Kawamura uncovered previously unavailable Japanese documents bearing on the surrender. In _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, _she gives an almost hour-by-hour account of the events leading up to the first crucial meeting between the emperor and the Big Six on August 9, a meeting that only occurred because the hardliners agreed to first convene the Big Six after they were shocked by the news of the Soviet invasion (whereas they had refused to agree to a meeting after they heard about Hiroshima). Kawamura then continues by detailing, with the aid of new material, the August 9 imperial conference, the events that led to the second and final imperial conference, and its aftermath (the coup attempt).



> Instead of answering, you ignore your glaring error. Why is it that you accuse me of not answering your posts when it is actually you that runs from every response to your posts. Is it because we have shown you to wrong or an outright liar?



You misread and misrepresent evidence, and then you declare that you've proven me wrong. Your arguments about Eisenhower's comments on nuking Japan are a good case in point. I have caught you in numerous basic errors that show you have done little serious research on Japan's surrender.

You show yourself to be far out of the scholarly mainstream when you argue that at least 500,000 soldiers would have died in an invasion of Japan. As has been documented in dozens of books, and as can be seen in declassified internal government memos, even the War Department knew that the 500K estimate was ridiculous and baseless.

Anyone who reads our exchanges will see that you have ducked and dodged on nearly every piece of evidence I have presented. In many cases, you've simply dismissed evidence with uninformed sarcastic remarks.


----------



## Synthaholic

*The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*



Trying to slime Truman isn’t going to help Trump.


----------



## Unkotare

Synthaholic said:


> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to slime Truman isn’t going to help Trump.




Do you think that you playing the apologist to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians will hurt trump?


----------



## Synthaholic

Unkotare said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to slime Truman isn’t going to help Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that you playing the apologist to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians will hurt trump?
Click to expand...

Where did I do that, Short Bus?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> You misread and misrepresent evidence, and then you declare that you've proven me wrong. Your arguments about Eisenhower's comments on nuking Japan are a good case in point. I have caught you in numerous basic errors that show you have done little serious research on Japan's surrender.
> 
> Anyone who reads our exchanges will see that you have ducked and dodged on nearly every piece of evidence I have presented. In many cases, you've simply dismissed evidence with uninformed sarcastic remarks.


Eisenhower? My arguments? I only quoted what Eisenhower wrote. Eisenhower changed his story to fit the political times. You are the one who chooses a book that states what you want to believe. You can't even get the page numbers right! Now that in itself shows you as a charalatan. Eisenhower was not even a general of the pacific. That is how weak your argument is. 

I have replied to every single comment you have made, even though you still refuse to respond in kind. 

What I do not respond to is your ridiculous cut/pastes from Google that are a mile long, that you put no work or without into.

I try and tackle one topic but before you respond you reply with a laundry list inrelated as if that wins your argument.

You lost your OP a long time ago, at the least when you said Bundy was a hack, even though you thought he was credible enough to base your OP on his comment.

You lost all your points. You still have not said when the war council met to have that meeting about, "peace feelers". They make the decisions as you quoted, from your book, now show the meeting that had to occur.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> The Big Six could not even meet unless *all* the members agreed to meet. Do you understand this point? So no surrender debate could come before the emperor unless the Big Six first met to discuss the matter. Is this clear now? I've explained this several times, and Hasegawa discusses it too, but you seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp/acknowledge this fact.


The fact that gets lost is you stated nothing is decided without the big 6. You have established that as fact.

Hence, there was never any agreement on surrender or peace. 

You make the claim that the japanese were actively seeking to surrender. The big six never met to discuss peace or surrender. The big six never once tried to open negotiations with the USA. Yet you make the false claim that Truman misread the intentions of the Japanese?

Sorry, but you and your revisionist books fail to make your fiction into fact. 

Truman ended the war as fast as possible, saving American lives. That simply pisses you off.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, the only time I have cited the wrong page numbers was when I used Doug Long's quote from Eisenhower's 1963 book, which gave the same page number for the quote as that given by the Congressional Record, which turned out to be incorrect.


Wrong is wrong you did not have the education or knowledge to find and correct glaring errors.

I followed the Long's links. Long uses the diaries of Stimson. Derailed notes. The Eisenhower meeting is not in Stimson's diary? The Eisenhower meeting is not mentioned in Eisenhower's diary. There are two very different versions of the same meeting in 2 books. Why does Long pick the 2nd version? Why  does Long not use the diary or first book. And why must Long use a quote from someone that was a 2nd in command in Europe, not associated with the pacific war or the bomb?

Your use of people far removed from the Pacific war shows you are without facts.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> You show yourself to be far out of the scholarly mainstream when you argue that at least 500,000 soldiers would have died in an invasion of Japan. As has been documented in dozens of books, and as can be seen in declassified internal government memos, even the War Department knew that the 500K estimate was ridiculous and baseless.
> 
> Anyone who reads our exchanges will see that you have ducked and dodged on nearly every piece of evidence I have presented. In many cases, you've simply dismissed evidence with uninformed sarcastic remarks.


Ducked? Ha, ha, you are such a quack!. I will answer that in detail with examples of how you must ignore 99% of what is in this thread.

500,000 or more would be causalities. What have you offered as proof that I am wrong, or my source is wrong? Nothing, you have not referenced or quoted anything. If you think you can quote and reference, try to include a date, with page numbers. Some of the bombing surveys/estimates are thousands of pages. So go ahead, quote, just cause you dictate your opinion is right does not make it so.

You think you already quoted and linked, feel free to give us the link to your previous post.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Only after the Soviets invaded did the hardliners agree to convene the Big Six, and only then could the peace advocates arrange for a meeting where the emperor could break a surrender-debate deadlock. The transcripts are in several books. The best is in Kawamura's book.
> .


You leave out, After the 1st Atomic Bomb was dropped the Big Six met. 

Again you make the point that Truman had no actionable offer of peace from the Japanese. The Big Six never met and agreed to peace let alone surrender.

You have made that point which proves your idea that Truman did anything wrong is a false premise.

And speaking of cherry picking books, when will you quote the conclusion of Hasegawa's book. 

I am far from even beginning to show how much you hide that is in the books you claim to have read.

I bet you are going to hate that you made the claim, that I have not read Hasegawa's. 

That is another fact you will swallow while eating your big plate of crow.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Mikegriffith1: Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy._
> 
> Elektra: We can cut right to the chase. The conclusion of the book is Truman was not at fault nor a villian. I look forward to a discussion of the book . Of course, if it us like all the other books referred to in this OP,  mikegriffter1 does not own the book hence.he can only cherry pick google results.



It is revealing that you would pretend as though Hasegawa differs markedly from my position, and/or that I have cherry-picked my quotes from him, and/or that he somehow supports your position to any substantial degree. Let us see what one of the scholars who reviewed Hasegawa’s book says about Hasegawa’s arguments. This comes from Dr. John McNay, a professor of history at the University of Cincinnati, who reviewed the book on the academic website H-Net:

_Racing the Enemy_ is a new look at an old question and, as Hasegawa intends, it should cause many historians to reconsider their views on why the Japanese surrendered when they did and how they did to end the Pacific War. . . .​
More importantly, Hasegawa argues that the Soviet Union's entry into the war had a much greater impact on Japan's surrender than many historians have previously assumed. No longer, Hasegawa argues, should historians believe that it was primarily the shock of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that brought the end of the war. Instead, the Soviet attack played an essential role in bringing the Japanese leadership to that decision.​
As Hasegawa explains, the central issue almost obsessively occupying Japanese diplomacy in the final months of the war was the effort to keep the Soviet Union neutral in accordance with the 1941 Neutrality Pact and to bring about a negotiated peace through its approaches to the Allies via Moscow. . . . "Soviet entry into the war shocked the Japanese even more than the atomic bombs because it meant the end of any hope of achieving a settlement short of unconditional surrender," Hasegawa writes (p. 3).​
Another area where Hasegawa's argument is intriguing is in regard to the concept of _kokuta_i, which is the mythical notion that the Japanese emperor, as a living God united with the creator of the imperial system, is the eternal essence of his subjects and imperial land. Hasegawa traces the evolution of this thought to its rather late culmination in a Japanese Ministry of Education publication called _The Essence of Kokutai_ in 1937, which had appeared after a controversial debate over the matter. Central to this notion was the emperor's monopolistic power over the military command. All of this emphasized the centrality of the emperor to Japanese national identity. Part of the peace party's work in the final days of the war was to redefine _kokutai_ much more narrowly to include just the preservation of the imperial house. . . .​
This threat to the imperial house, Hasegawa reveals, was made more severe in the emperor's eyes because of the Soviet invasion. With Japan's whole diplomatic framework geared in the final weeks and months toward maintaining Soviet neutrality so that Japan could arrange a negotiated peace, the Soviet declaration of war had a devastating impact. The Soviet attack emboldened the peace party in Tokyo, whose members had been diligently, but with inadequate force, working toward a negotiated peace. Still, despite the shock, Japanese army officers insisted on the need to fight on. Elsewhere reality began dawning.​
The Hiroshima bombing did inspire greater urgency on the part of officials and the emperor to seek the negotiated peace, Hasegawa shows, but did not produce a rush to embrace the Potsdam terms of unconditional surrender. The author maintains that "[a]s long as they still felt they might preserve the _kokutai_ or negotiate with the Allies with Moscow's help, they would press on" (p. 185).​
In an interview on the morning of August 9 (before the emperor had heard or digested news of the bombing), Hirohito had a meeting with Koichi Kido, keeper of the privy seal. During the meeting the emperor said, "The Soviet Union declared war against us, and entered into a state of war as of today. Because of this it is necessary to study and decide on the termination of the war" (p. 198). Similarly Ambassador Sato received the Soviet declaration of war from Vladimir Molotov and, while en route back to the embassy, glumly told an aide, "The inevitable has now arrived" (p. 191). With Japan's diplomatic strategy in ruins as Soviet troops attacked, word came of yet another atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Again, Hasegawa contends, the bombing seems to have had little impact on the negotiations between the peace and war parties.​
There is an explanation, this reader believes, for the apparent lack of impact the atomic bombings may have had on Japanese leaders, especially the military. We should keep in mind that American forces had been bombing Japanese cities with impunity for months. On both the American and Japanese sides, the fact that American bombers were incinerating Japanese cities before Hiroshima lessened the impact of destroying that city. Just as the mounting destruction of Japanese cities reduced American reluctance to destroy civilian targets, it also reduced the shock value to the Japanese. Surely, there were significant differences with the Hiroshima bombing but the line had long been crossed on the destruction of cities. The tens of thousands of civilians killed in the conventional bombings were no less dead because the instruments of their deaths were high-explosive bombs and incendiaries rather than atomic weapons. While there is some mention of the scale of the conventional bombings, Hasegawa could have sharpened his argument by incorporating this destruction and its inevitable affect on both the Japanese and the American decision-making processes.​
This brings us to a further important contribution of Hasegawa's study, because his argument adds to the debate over the effectiveness (and justness) of the atomic bombings. _If_ the Hiroshima bombing did not induce surrender, and _if_ the Soviet action was so central, and _if_ the decision to surrender was reached before the Nagasaki bombing, as Hasegawa argues, then the case for the usefulness of the bombs is seriously undermined.​
Hasegawa is critical of the American decision-making process but he goes beyond previous criticisms of Truman's decision, such as Martin Sherwin's faulting Truman for making a single decision to drop both bombs rather than two separate decisions. Hasegawa cites a cryptic response by Truman to Secretary of War Stimson, "Suggestion approved. Release when ready but not sooner than Aug. 2" (p. 175). Hasegawa argues that this document has been misidentified. For example, in _Truman_ (1992) historian David McCullough contends that this is the presidential order to drop the bomb. Instead, Hasegawa argues, this document is really a response to Stimson's inquiry whether a statement about the bomb should be prepared and released when necessary. Hasegawa goes on to argue that despite Truman's later claims "that he issued the order to drop the bomb on his voyage back to the United States somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic, the president never issued such an order. The fact is that the atomic bomb was dropped without Truman's explicit order" (p. 176). Instead, the only explicit order to drop the bomb was almost entirely within military channels. According to Hasegawa, General Lesley Groves drafted the order, George Marshall and Henry Stimson approved it, and General Thomas Handy delivered it to General Carl Spaatz, commander of the Army Strategic Air Forces. Truman "was not involved in this decision but merely let the military proceed without his interference" (p. 152). . . .​
Acknowledging that Truman's objectives were twofold (to impose unconditional surrender and to save American lives), Hasegawa argues that the Soviet entry played an important part in speeding up the use of the weapons. "Truman was in a hurry. He was aware that the race was on between the atomic bomb and Soviet entry into the war" (p. 183). Part of this rush resulted in what Hasegawa calls the "concocted" story that Japan had promptly "rejected" the Potsdam Proclamation. Instead, Hasegawa cites Magic decrypts and Swiss sources that the Japanese government believed the Potsdam documents could be used as a basis for surrender. Hasegawa admits that the Japanese appear to have publicly ignored the proclamation but maintains that that is quite different from rejecting the surrender conditions. Hasegawa's conclusion is that "even in the face of what was known, and should have been known to Truman, Byrnes, and Stimson, one cannot escape the conclusion that the United States rushed to drop the bomb without any attempt to explore the readiness of some Japanese policymakers to seek peace through the ultimatum" (p. 173). (McNay on Hasegawa, 'Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan' | H-War | H-Net)​
You seem unaware of the fact that the tiny band of historians who defend Truman’s atomic-bomb decision vigorously attacked Hasegawa’s book when it was published. Here is one of Hasegawa’s replies to their criticisms:

Response to Critics of My Book  |  History News         Network

It is also revealing, and rather curious, that you assumed that I didn't have Hasegawa's book because I first quoted from his 2007 article in _The Asia-Pacific Journal_, which he wrote years after his book was published. I quoted from his article first because most people do not have his book and because his article is available online.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Let us see what one of the scholars who reviewed Hasegawa’s book says about Hasegawa’s arguments. This comes from Dr. John McNay, a professor of history at the University of Cincinnati, who reviewed the book on the academic website H-Net:


the griffifter1 jumps from one idea to the next, to the next, burying all sorts of posts. What happened, did I once again post something you can not refute? 

How about you quote from the book you claim you have, with nice page numbers and stuff? Is that too hard for you? 

Chasing the dog, that would of been a better title to your OP, for like a dog, you are off running, never addressing one topic to conclusion, just offering other's opinions as if a google search makes you and everyone else right. 

If one finds in on google, it musts be true.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> More importantly, Hasegawa argues that the Soviet Union's entry into the war had a much greater impact on Japan's surrender than many historians have previously assumed.​


​And, may I thank you again for again, providing us with a quote that directly contradicts everything you have stated! 

Racing the Enemy, simply states that Historians had not given the Soviet entry into the war, proper credit. Not that it was the Soviet entry into the war that caused Japan to surrender. 

When you are right, you are right, right? A greater impact than assumed, not as you stated, the reason why Japan surrendered. Thank you much for destroying your  argument.


----------



## the other mike

We did not have to nuke Japan. Debate over.


----------



## elektra

Angelo said:


> We did not have to nuke Japan. Debate over.


You are right, we did not have to, Nuke Japan. We did not even have to retaliate after Pearl Harbor. We did not have to fight Hitler. 

We could of just, died. 

But, we did fight the war, and at that it had to end, and in ending the war as fast as possible, we saved our lives, American lives. Maybe even your life, unless of course you come from a family that would of not fought had the need came. 

But either way, there are people who are alive today only because we nuked the Japan and hence saved their Fathers, Grandfathers, or Great Grandfathers. From those who would of had to fought on the mainland to those who were in prisoner of war camps. Nuking the Japs saved American lives. That is hard for some people to accept.


----------



## the other mike

elektra said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We did not have to nuke Japan. Debate over.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, we did not have to, Nuke Japan. We did not even have to retaliate after Pearl Harbor. We did not have to fight Hitler.
> 
> We could of just, died.
> 
> But, we did fight the war, and at that it had to end, and in ending the war as fast as possible, we saved our lives, American lives. Maybe even your life, unless of course you come from a family that would of not fought had the need came.
> 
> But either way, there are people who are alive today only because we nuked the Japan and hence saved their Fathers, Grandfathers, or Great Grandfathers. From those who would of had to fought on the mainland to those who were in prisoner of war camps. Nuking the Japs saved American lives. That is hard for some people to accept.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## the other mike

Visitors to the National Air and Space Museum—America’s shrine to the technological leading edge of the military industrial complex—hear a familiar narrative from the tour guides in front of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped an atomic weapon on the civilians of Hiroshima 70 years ago today. 

The bomb was dropped, they say, to save the lives of thousands of Americans who would otherwise have been killed in an invasion of the Home Islands. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely destroyed and the lives of between 135,000 and 300,000 mostly Japanese women, children, and old people were sacrificed—most young men were away at war—as the result of a terrible but morally just calculus aimed at bringing an intractable war to a close.
*The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It*


----------



## elektra

Angelo said:


> Wrong.


Right


----------



## the other mike

elektra said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Right
Click to expand...

By your logic, who should we nuke next ?


----------



## elektra

Angelo said:


> most young men were away at war—as the result of a terrible but morally just calculus aimed at bringing an intractable war to a close.
> *The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It*


most men? Yet, Hiroshima was the headquarters for many military units?

Headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. NO MEN?

Headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division. NO MEN?

The city was defended by five batteries of 7-cm and 8-cm (2.8 and 3.1 inch) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. NO MEN?

Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. NO MEN? 

The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops. NO MEN?

It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns. NO MEN?

40,000 Japanese military personnel were stationed in the city. NO MEN?

It is estimated that as many as 20,000 Japanese military personnel were killed, of the 70,000 total deaths in Hiroshima. Close to 34% of the people killed Japanese military? But NO MEN?


----------



## mikegriffith1

P@triot said:


> Well. Well. Well. Just as I expected...you have absolutely no point. Who gives a crap what Ike thought?



Uh, well, he was one of our top generals and later became one of our most beloved presidents. He commanded all American and Allied forces in Europe. So one would think that his opinion on nuking Japan would carry considerable weight. 

How about Douglas MacArthur? Do you care what he thought about nuking Japan? He opposed it too. 



> At the end of the day, only an idiot thinks that Japan was justified in killing Americans over something as trivial as "sanctions" while simultaneously believing that Japan was some poor "victim" and America was "evil" for responding.



You are missing the point that FDR turned a former anti-Communist ally into an enemy because he was rabidly pro-Soviet, and that in so doing he laid the groundwork for the loss of Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, and North Vietnam to Communism. 

FDR's sanctions were "trivial"?! Really? You must be kidding, or else you don't know how drastic and damaging they were. Any nation facing that kind of economic strangulation would fight to break it. 

And the sanctions weren't the only provocation. FDR was sending massive amounts of aid to the Soviets, and the Soviets were funneling some of that aid to the Chinese Nationalists and Communists (yes, both). FDR was also sending direct aid to the Chinese Nationalists at the same time they were getting aid from the Soviets. 

If FDR had adopted an anti-Communist stance, he would have cut off aid to the Nationalists and would have told them to accept the very reasonable peace deal that the Japanese repeatedly offered. There is every indication that if FDR had not intervened, the Nationalists would have done just that, which would have given them nearly all of China (except for a small area in the north) in exchange for tacitly recognizing Japan's satellite state of Manchukuo in Manchuria. This would have spared the Chinese, the North Koreans, and the North Vietnamese the horrors of Communist rule, which would have meant that over 30 million Chinese would not have later died at the hands of the Communists.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR's sanctions were "trivial"?! Really? You must be kidding, or else you don't know how drastic and damaging they were. Any nation facing that kind of economic strangulation would fight to break it.


You sound like the biggest fucking idiot ever claiming that “sanctions” justify bombing a nation - resulting in thousands of death.

So if you walked into a bank and they denied you service, you would be justified in blowing their head off with a shotgun, in your mind? You’re a fuck’n lunatic. You must be a Paid Russian Troll. No rational person in the world would believe refusing trade and/or economic interaction, justices an attack on a nation.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR's sanctions were "trivial"?! Really? You must be kidding, or else you don't know how drastic and damaging they were.


I’m not kidding, fragile little snowflake. All economic sanctions are trivial. And none of them justifies murder.


----------



## Camp

mikegriffith1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well. Well. Well. Just as I expected...you have absolutely no point. Who gives a crap what Ike thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, he was one of our top generals and later became one of our most beloved presidents. He commanded all American and Allied forces in Europe. So one would think that his opinion on nuking Japan would carry considerable weight.
> 
> How about Douglas MacArthur? Do you care what he thought about nuking Japan? He opposed it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, only an idiot thinks that Japan was justified in killing Americans over something as trivial as "sanctions" while simultaneously believing that Japan was some poor "victim" and America was "evil" for responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are missing the point that FDR turned a former anti-Communist ally into an enemy because he was rabidly pro-Soviet, and that in so doing he laid the groundwork for the loss of Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, and North Vietnam to Communism.
> 
> FDR's sanctions were "trivial"?! Really? You must be kidding, or else you don't know how drastic and damaging they were. Any nation facing that kind of economic strangulation would fight to break it.
> 
> And the sanctions weren't the only provocation. FDR was sending massive amounts of aid to the Soviets, and the Soviets were funneling some of that aid to the Chinese Nationalists and Communists (yes, both). FDR was also sending direct aid to the Chinese Nationalists at the same time they were getting aid from the Soviets.
> 
> If FDR had adopted an anti-Communist stance, he would have cut off aid to the Nationalists and would have told them to accept the very reasonable peace deal that the Japanese repeatedly offered. There is every indication that if FDR had not intervened, the Nationalists would have done just that, which would have given them nearly all of China (except for a small area in the north) in exchange for tacitly recognizing Japan's satellite state of Manchukuo in Manchuria. This would have spared the Chinese, the North Koreans, and the North Vietnamese the horrors of Communist rule, which would have meant that over 30 million Chinese would not have later died at the hands of the Communists.
Click to expand...

I may disagree with much of your analysis and conclusions on this topic, however, I deeply appreciate your scholarly way of presenting your theories and ideas and you have certainly earned my respect for your knowledge and method of sharing it with readers of this thread. Thank you.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, well, he was one of our top generals


So was Norman Schwarzkopf - who believed we should have dropped more nuclear warheads on Japan. So what is your point? Nobody gives a shit about Eisenhower’s view on that. Generals aren’t tasked with the power to decide when to use nuclear weapons.


mikegriffith1 said:


> and later became one of our most beloved presidents.


Well Reagan was our most beloved President and he supported the use of nuclear weapons. So again, what is your point?


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> You are missing the point that FDR turned a former anti-Communist ally into an enemy because he was rabidly pro-Soviet, and that in so doing he laid the groundwork for the loss of Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, and North Vietnam to Communism.


Actually *you* are missing the point. This thread was about you crying about the U.S. use of nuclear weapons against Japan.

It wasn’t a thread about how FDR was one of the three worst presidents in U.S. history. If that’s what you want to discuss, start a thread on that and I will agree with you on that.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> And the sanctions weren't the only provocation.


Sanctions *aren’t* a “provocation”. The U.S. is a sovereign nation and is not bound in _any_ capacity to enter into trade agreements or economic interactions. We can choose who we want to work with and who we don’t.


mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR was sending massive amounts of aid to the Soviets, and the Soviets were funneling some of that aid to the Chinese Nationalists and Communists (yes, both). FDR was also sending direct aid to the Chinese Nationalists at the same time they were getting aid from the Soviets.


So? If they didn’t like it, they should have found a better solution than *BOMBING* us. They not only still had the “Soviet/China/wa-wa-wa” issues, but then they also had 2 nuclear bombs to deal with. So clearly that only created more problems for them, not less. You’re as dumb as they were.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well. Well. Well. Just as I expected...you have absolutely no point. Who gives a crap what Ike thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, he was one of our top generals and later became one of our most beloved presidents. He commanded all American and Allied forces in Europe. So one would think that his opinion on nuking Japan would carry considerable weight.
> 
> How about Douglas MacArthur? Do you care what he thought about nuking Japan? He opposed it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, only an idiot thinks that Japan was justified in killing Americans over something as trivial as "sanctions" while simultaneously believing that Japan was some poor "victim" and America was "evil" for responding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are missing the point that FDR turned a former anti-Communist ally into an enemy because he was rabidly pro-Soviet, and that in so doing he laid the groundwork for the loss of Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, and North Vietnam to Communism.
> 
> FDR's sanctions were "trivial"?! Really? You must be kidding, or else you don't know how drastic and damaging they were. Any nation facing that kind of economic strangulation would fight to break it.
> 
> And the sanctions weren't the only provocation. FDR was sending massive amounts of aid to the Soviets, and the Soviets were funneling some of that aid to the Chinese Nationalists and Communists (yes, both). FDR was also sending direct aid to the Chinese Nationalists at the same time they were getting aid from the Soviets.
> 
> If FDR had adopted an anti-Communist stance, he would have cut off aid to the Nationalists and would have told them to accept the very reasonable peace deal that the Japanese repeatedly offered. There is every indication that if FDR had not intervened, the Nationalists would have done just that, which would have given them nearly all of China (except for a small area in the north) in exchange for tacitly recognizing Japan's satellite state of Manchukuo in Manchuria. This would have spared the Chinese, the North Koreans, and the North Vietnamese the horrors of Communist rule, which would have meant that over 30 million Chinese would not have later died at the hands of the Communists.
Click to expand...

more fantasy, the world would of been rainbows and skittles if only FDR hid in a hole

it is amazing, people who hate our history, believing that somehow it could of been different with one little action of one person

it is a shame, if only the usa had allowed Japan to bomb our ships in china, if only we allowed Japan to rape those we promised to protect, if only the USA turned a blinds eye to the torture of the chinese.


----------



## elektra

Angelo said:


> By your logic, who should we nuke next ?


by your logic, we should be speaking german under hitler's heirs.


----------



## mikegriffith1

P@triot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's sanctions were "trivial"?! Really? You must be kidding, or else you don't know how drastic and damaging they were.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not kidding, fragile little snowflake. All economic sanctions are trivial. And none of them justifies murder.
Click to expand...


This is fairy tale material. Throughout history, nations have taken sanctions very seriously. When you freeze another nation's assets, cut off most of their oil supply, and deny them access to other vital raw materials, that nation will view those actions as hostile and dangerous, and, if they can, will most likely resort to force if diplomacy fails to undo them.

If Russia, China, and Mexico teamed up and imposed sanctions on us that cut off 85-90% of our oil supply, cut off our access to numerous vital raw materials, and, to top it off, froze all of our assets in their banks, what do you think we would do if they refused to undo these actions even after we offered the very concessions they said they wanted before they imposed the sanctions? Hey? What do you think we would do? Let our economy grind to a halt and suffer severe economic depression?

You do realize that we didn't just impose draconian sanctions on Japan but that we, along with the British and the Dutch, also froze all of their assets, totaling billions of dollars, right?

The fact that FDR took these actions to provoke Japan to war is obvious from the fact that when the Japanese offered to withdraw from southern Indochina, FDR refused to lift the sanctions, even though Japan's move into southern Indochina was the excuse Roosevelt gave for freezing Japan's assets. So, when Japan offered to withdraw from southern Indochina, and then from northern Indochina, why didn't FDR accept the offer and lift the sanctions?

When FDR kept imposing more conditions every time Japan offered concessions, the Japanese realized that FDR was determined to provoke Japan to war. Of course, we now know, and have known for decades, that FDR wanted to provoke Japan to war. Stimson's diary even documents that FDR wanted to maneuver Japan into "firing the first shot."

When the Soviets carried out all kinds of brutal deeds, occupied countries, etc., why didn't FDR do to them what he did to the Japanese? And what was the big deal with Japan occupying parts of southern Indochina? France had occupied and taken over all of Indochina, and had killed far more Indochinese than the Japanese did when they came in, yet no Western nation imposed sanctions on France. So why did FDR freeze Japan's assets when Japan moved into southern Indochina?


----------



## eagle1462010

Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............

We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS..............

Whatever................go buy some cheese............to have with your whine.


----------



## mikegriffith1

eagle1462010 said:


> Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............



Read: pointing out facts that indict FDR and Truman and their gang of leftists.



> We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS..............



HUH??? When have I ever said "America sucks"?! What on earth are you talking about? Pointing out the immoral actions of FDR and Truman is not the same thing as saying "America sucks."

If you want to ignore or minimize FDR and Truman's pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese Communist policies, you go right ahead. If you wanna ignore or minimize Truman's handing over China to the Communists and his needless and cruel vaporizing of over 200,000 civilians, most of them women and children, you go right ahead.

America did not "suck": FDR and Truman "sucked." FDR turned a long-time anti-Communist ally--Japan--into an enemy, gave billions of dollars to one of the two most murderous regimes in modern history (the Soviet Union), and saved that regime from destruction by needlessly picking a fight with Japan.

Truman, who was not the sharpest knife in the rack, sheepishly agreed to honor FDR's treasonous and disastrous Yalta promises to Stalin, ignored clear peace openings with the Japanese, did everything he could to help Japan's hardliners block surrender, and then nuked two Japanese cities and killed over 200,000 people, most of them women and children. As one of our best generals and most-beloved presidents, Dwight Eisenhower, said, "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Was Ike a "whiner" too?


----------



## eagle1462010

mikegriffith1 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read: pointing out facts that indict FDR and Truman and their gang of leftists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH??? When have I ever said "America sucks"?! What on earth are you talking about? Pointing out the immoral actions of FDR and Truman is not the same thing as saying "America sucks."
> 
> If you want to ignore or minimize FDR and Truman's pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese Communist policies, you go right ahead. If you wanna ignore or minimize Truman's handing over China to the Communists and his needless and cruel vaporizing of over 200,000 civilians, most of them women and children, you go right ahead.
> 
> America did not "suck": FDR and Truman "sucked." FDR turned a long-time anti-Communist ally--Japan--into an enemy, gave billions of dollars to one of the two most murderous regimes in modern history (the Soviet Union), and saved that regime from destruction by needlessly picking a fight with Japan.
> 
> Truman, who was not the sharpest knife in the rack, sheepishly agreed to honor FDR's treasonous and disastrous Yalta promises to Stalin, ignored clear peace openings with the Japanese, did everything he could to help Japan's hardliners block surrender, and then nuked two Japanese cities and killed over 200,000 people, most of them women and children. As one of our best generals and most-beloved presidents, Dwight Eisenhower, said, "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Was Ike a "whiner" too?
Click to expand...

Was aimed at Uki guy after reading more of his usual posts.............

Not at you.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> When you freeze another nation's assets, cut off most of their oil supply


Japan can drill for their own oil...including _offshore_. 


mikegriffith1 said:


> and deny them access to other vital raw materials, that nation will view those actions as hostile and dangerous, and, if they can, will most likely resort to force if diplomacy fails to undo them.


So again, if a restaurant denies you service, you're justified in taking a shotgun and blowing the head off the manager and staff? Moron


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> You do realize that we didn't just impose draconian sanctions on Japan but that we, along with the British and the Dutch, also froze all of their assets, totaling billions of dollars, right?


You do realize that you're swallowing ignorant propaganda like a mindless minion, right?


> On July 24, *Tokyo* decided to strengthen its position in terms of its *invasion* of China by moving through Southeast Asia. Given that France had long occupied parts of the region, *and Germany, a Japanese ally*, now controlled most of France through Petain’s puppet government, France “agreed” to the occupation of its Indo-China colonies.


They were part of the "Axis of Evil", dumb ass. You can try as hard as you want to make them the victim, but educated people will just point and laugh at you (as we're all doing right now).

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is fairy tale material. Throughout history, nations have taken sanctions very seriously. When you freeze another nation's assets, cut off most of their oil supply, and deny them access to other vital raw materials, that nation will view those actions as hostile and dangerous, and, *if they can, will most likely resort to force if diplomacy fails to undo them*.


And a nuclear power will most likely resort to nuclear war if an idiot nation resorts to *force* against them. And they would be 100% justified in doing so.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> The fact that FDR took these actions to provoke Japan to war is obvious from the fact that when the Japanese offered to withdraw from southern Indochina, FDR refused to lift the sanctions, even though Japan's move into southern Indochina was the excuse Roosevelt gave for freezing Japan's assets. So, when Japan offered to withdraw from southern Indochina, and then from northern Indochina, why didn't FDR accept the offer and lift the sanctions?


Because they were part of the "Axis of Evil", you dumb ass. They were an ally of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, etc.

Furthermore, we don't need a reason. We can choose to freeze assets and not engage in trade or economic interactions any time we want. Period. We don't owe any other nation anything. We are a sovereign nation who has every right to close our borders and refuse to work with the rest of the world. Deal with it.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> If you want to ignore or minimize FDR and Truman's pro-Soviet and *pro-Chinese Communist policies*,


Uh...the Communist Party did not take over China until 1949 (or 8 years after the sanctions of Japan and 8 years after the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan). So your position doesn't hold up.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> If you want to ignore or minimize FDR and Truman's pro-Soviet and pro-*Chinese Communist *policies,





mikegriffith1 said:


> America did not "suck": FDR and Truman "sucked." FDR turned a long-time anti-Communist *ally--Japan*--into an enemy


Dude...your revisionist is just bizarre. China *wasn't* communist in 1941. Japan *wasn't* our ally in 1941. And we didn't really care that much about communism because Adolf Hitler was running roughshod across Europe. We had to defeat Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. even if it meant working with the U.S.S.R.

You're like the fuck'n idiot who claims Reagan was wrong for working with Osama Bin Laden even though they were our allies at the time and they were helping to defeat the U.S.S.R. - which was the biggest threat at that time.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............
> 
> We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS...................




The ONLY ones to say such offensive words - and you have been saying them over and over - on this thread are the communist-loving, fdr-worshipping apologists who cannot seem to discuss history without fabricating some misplace personal offense. Some of you "Don't talk about it!" "There was no choice!" "You can't question any conclusion I'm already comfortable with!" apologists sound suspiciously like the "It's settled science!" hens on the climate change forum. Makes sense considering your militant defense of any democrat administration, policy, plan, or position. If discussing History is too emotionally taxing for you, stop trying. At least stop parroting your fellow democrats' reaction to every topic they insist on declaring closed. 

"You're against abortion, but you hate babies after they're born!" NO...

"You question 'climate change,' so you want the earth to die!" NO...

"You don't want higher taxes, so you hate the poor!" NO...

"You ridicule some radical whacko-leftist college professors, so you hate education!" NO...

"You question the decision to incinerate hundreds of thousands of helpless civilians, so support a murderous communist regime, and to throw innocent Americans into concentration camps, so  you hate America!" NO, NO, NO.....

Stop being so fucking stupid, or go find something else to talk about.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to ignore or minimize FDR and Truman's pro-Soviet and pro-*Chinese Communist *policies,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> America did not "suck": FDR and Truman "sucked." FDR turned a long-time anti-Communist *ally--Japan*--into an enemy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude...your revisionist is just bizarre. China *wasn't* communist in 1941.......
Click to expand...



The Nationalists and the Communists were in the midst of a Civil War at the time. I wonder which side fdr wanted to win...


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............
> 
> We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY ones to say such offensive words - and you have been saying them over and over - on this thread are the communist-loving, fdr-worshipping apologists who cannot seem to discuss history without fabricating some misplace personal offense. Some of you "Don't talk about it!" "There was no choice!" "You can't question any conclusion I'm already comfortable with!" apologists sound suspiciously like the "It's settled science!" hens on the climate change forum. Makes sense considering your militant defense of any democrat administration, policy, plan, or position. If discussing History is too emotionally taxing for you, stop trying. At least stop parroting your fellow democrats' reaction to every topic they insist on declaring closed.
> 
> "You're against abortion, but you hate babies after they're born!" NO...
> 
> "You question 'climate change,' so you want the earth to die!" NO...
> 
> "You don't want higher taxes, so you hate the poor!" NO...
> 
> "You ridicule some radical whacko-leftist college professors, so you hate education!" NO...
> 
> "You question the decision to incinerate hundreds of thousands of helpless civilians, so support a murderous communist regime, and to throw innocent Americans into concentration camps, so  you hate America!" NO, NO, NO.....
> 
> Stop being so fucking stupid, or go find something else to talk about.
Click to expand...

I'll take find something else to talk about ............You are boring me with your WHINING.............You have been on this subject for years................Get over it..................most of us don't care you are offended today at what our country did back then to END THE WAR..........

Japan got what it had coming because it refused to surrender ..............Oh well.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............
> 
> We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY ones to say such offensive words - and you have been saying them over and over - on this thread are the communist-loving, fdr-worshipping apologists who cannot seem to discuss history without fabricating some misplace personal offense. Some of you "Don't talk about it!" "There was no choice!" "You can't question any conclusion I'm already comfortable with!" apologists sound suspiciously like the "It's settled science!" hens on the climate change forum. Makes sense considering your militant defense of any democrat administration, policy, plan, or position. If discussing History is too emotionally taxing for you, stop trying. At least stop parroting your fellow democrats' reaction to every topic they insist on declaring closed.
> 
> "You're against abortion, but you hate babies after they're born!" NO...
> 
> "You question 'climate change,' so you want the earth to die!" NO...
> 
> "You don't want higher taxes, so you hate the poor!" NO...
> 
> "You ridicule some radical whacko-leftist college professors, so you hate education!" NO...
> 
> "You question the decision to incinerate hundreds of thousands of helpless civilians, so support a murderous communist regime, and to throw innocent Americans into concentration camps, so  you hate America!" NO, NO, NO.....
> 
> Stop being so fucking stupid, or go find something else to talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll take find something else to talk about ................
Click to expand...



Of course you will.


----------



## GreenBean

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.


True but Irrelevant -


----------



## gipper

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.


So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?


----------



## candycorn

gipper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?
Click to expand...


Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.


----------



## gipper

candycorn said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.
Click to expand...

Good lord no way. 

Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.


----------



## elektra

Such a failed OP, how many days should we have waited? Between Atomic bombs? Never answered? Why, because this is an OP that is all about lies and denigrating the history of the United States of America.

mikegrifter1 begins the OP with a credible quote of Bundy's, then the grifter1 later, says Bundy is a lying dog? How can someone so cherry pick a source, calling them credible when they say what they want to hear but then calling them a lying dog when they do not like what they had said?

That answer is simple, this thread was nothing but a poorly thought out opinion not based on any fact other than there was a war that their beloved Japanese, lost.



> Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:



The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima


> Bundy was a lying dog. He was the main ghost writer of "Stimson's" infamous article in defense of Truman's decision. Bundy twisted and lied all over the place in that article.


So very weak and pathetic, mikegrifter1 proves his own OP as being based on lies. Just let him post enough, and that foot goes in mouth.


----------



## candycorn

gipper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good lord no way.
> 
> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.
Click to expand...


Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.


----------



## Cellblock2429

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


/—-/ We nuked Nagasaki to get the attention of both the Emperor and Uncle Joe Stalin.


----------



## gipper

candycorn said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good lord no way.
> 
> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
Click to expand...

LOL. 

By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.


----------



## mikegriffith1

> MIKEGRIFFITH1: More importantly, Hasegawa argues that the Soviet Union's entry into the war had a much greater impact on Japan's surrender than many historians have previously assumed.





> ELEKTRA: And, may I thank you again for again, providing us with a quote that directly contradicts everything you have stated! Racing the Enemy, simply states that Historians had not given the Soviet entry into the war, proper credit. Not that it was the Soviet entry into the war that caused Japan to surrender. When you are right, you are right, right? A greater impact than assumed, not as you stated, the reason why Japan surrendered. Thank you much for destroying your  argument.



So now we're back to your refusal to admit when you're wrong. Isn't it odd that everyone else who has read Hasegawa's book has been able to easily see that his main point is that without the Soviet invasion the hardliners would not have agreed to surrender for at least several months? You're the only one who has read and commented on the book who can't grasp, or who won't admit, that this is his central argument. I think Hasegawa makes this point as clear as language can make something--I quote from his book:

Without the Soviet entry into the war, the Japanese would have continued to fight until numerous atomic bombs, a successful allied invasion of the home islands, or continued aerial bombardment, combined with a naval blockade, rendered them incapable of doing so. (p. 298)​
How much more plainly do you need him to state this point before you will admit it?  Everyone else who reads that statement will conclude that he is saying that if the Soviets had not invaded, the Japanese would have kept fighting until we dropped "numerous" more nukes, or until we invaded the home islands, or until our conventional bombing and our naval blockade made further resistance impossible.

My point all along has been that the nukes did not cause the hardliners to agree to surrender but that the Soviet invasion did. You are a master at missing, or more likely pretending to miss, clear points.



> ELEKTRA: Eisenhower? My arguments? I only quoted what Eisenhower wrote. Eisenhower changed his story to fit the political times. You are the one who chooses a book that states what you want to believe. You can't even get the page numbers right! Now that in itself shows you as a charalatan. Eisenhower was not even a general of the pacific. That is how weak your argument is.



The problem is that you simply will not admit when you're caught in error. Any honest, rational person who reads Eisenhower's 1948 account and his 1963 account will readily see that in both accounts he clearly expressed opposition to nuking Japan, and that the only difference between the accounts is that the later one, understandably enough, reveals more information about his statements to Stimson and Stimson's reaction to them. And I would again point out that Ike's 1963 account is supported by his son, by his biographer, by his 1955 letter to William Pawley, and by Gen. Bradley's account of the Stimson meeting.



> ELEKTRA: I have replied to every single comment you have made, even though you still refuse to respond in kind.



Oh, yes, you reply, but in many cases you seem unable--or unwilling--to grasp the meaning of plain English. Your ducking and dodging over Hasegawa's book is a prime example of this. Yes, you reply, but most of the time you fail to address the evidence I present. You dismiss evidence but fail to address the evidence--dismissing evidence you don't like is not the same as refuting it.

For example, are you ever going to address the mountain of evidence that nobody in the War Department believed that we would lose 500,000 men if we invaded Japan and that this estimate was recognized as erroneous and baseless? Even the War Department's experts on the subject, the S&P staff officers, stated in an official memorandum that the estimate was "entirely too high" (Waldo Heinrichs and Marc Gallicchio, _Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945_, pp. 567-568).

I'm guessing you don't know that the 500K estimate originated with Herbert Hoover. Ironically, Hoover gave that wild estimate in the hope that it would discourage an invasion and would cause Truman to give the Japanese milder surrender terms. Hoover rightly believed that FDR had needlessly and treasonously provoked Japan to attack us in order to protect the Soviet Union and to enable him to drag America into the war. Hoover opposed the demand for unconditional surrender and argued that the Japanese would surrender if we would modify our surrender terms. So he tried to dissuade Truman from approving an invasion of Japan by telling him that we would lose 500,000 to 1 million soldiers if we invaded.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, yes, you reply, but in many cases you seem unable--or unwilling--to grasp the meaning of plain English. Your ducking and dodging over book is a prime example of this. Yes, you reply, but most of the time you fail to address the evidence I presented. You dismiss evidence but fail to address the evidence--dismissing evidence you don't like is not the same as refuting it.


Ha, ha, ha,the charalatan is back, ignoring all my replies, with a new long rant. Hasegawa's book. I see you ignored my posts in which I used the portions of the book you quoted from the internet. 

When will you reply to those posts. One post you make it clear, that the japanese would have not surrendered simply because the soviet union declared war! 

I have not forgotten. My last post addressed your OP's opening comment. I used quotes from you to show how sloppy and I'll conceived your opinion is. 

Using Bundy as credible, then destroying the credibility of the man we were suppose to believe? 

Yes, we all see that you ignored your incompetence.

I am far from done with your subpar work on this topic.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> For example, are you ever going to address the mountain of evidence that nobody in the War Department believed that we would lose 500,000 men if we invaded Japan and that this estimate was recognized as erroneous and baseless?


I addressed that a long time ago and you ignored the post. If course, we see how inept your research is hence it is more than likely you humble through this thread in the same manner you research your opinion hence there is much you fail to see even though it is right in front of your eyes.

You made the claim the estimates were wrong without quoting and linking or referencing any of the estimates. It is up to you to provide evidence that you are not a filthy liar. 

A mountain of evidence. Well, start with a quote/reference. Here is your chance to shine. Offer your opinion on a named study or estimate you believe is wrong. 

A long list of revisionist charalatan writers is hardly evidence when the studies themselves are easily found.

So go ahead and quote and quit with the endless heresy.


----------



## Cellblock2429

gipper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good lord no way.
> 
> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
Click to expand...

/——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?


----------



## gipper

Cellblock2429 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good lord no way.
> 
> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
Click to expand...

LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.


----------



## candycorn

gipper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good lord no way.
> 
> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
Click to expand...


It stopped the japs so thanks.  It was a good job


----------



## candycorn

gipper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord no way.
> 
> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
Click to expand...


All they had to do was surrender.  Which they didn’t do until we rightfully forced their hand


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord no way.
> 
> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All they had to do was surrender.  Which they didn’t do until we rightfully forced their hand
Click to expand...




You haven’t read the thread.


----------



## Cellblock2429

gipper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord no way.
> 
> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
Click to expand...

/——/ Read The Rape of Nanking and get back to us with your snowflake solution to stop brutal regimes. The library will have a copy if you don’t have the coin to buy it. https://www.amazon.com/Rape-Nanking...f+nanking&qid=1569764042&sr=8-1&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## sparky

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All they had to do was surrender.  Which they didn’t do until we rightfully forced their hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven’t read the thread.
Click to expand...



a shame...... it's probably been one of the most _eye opening_ threads i've read on this soul suckin' device

butcha know...._some _folks.....






~S~


----------



## gipper

Cellblock2429 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord no way.
> 
> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Read The Rape of Nanking and get back to us with your snowflake solution to stop brutal regimes. The library will have a copy if you don’t have the coin to buy it. https://www.amazon.com/Rape-Nanking...f+nanking&qid=1569764042&sr=8-1&tag=ff0d01-20
Click to expand...

So you think the USA should kill exactly like our enemies.  I don't.  How is mass murdering defenseless women and children from the air, different from the mass murder at Nanking?


----------



## gipper

candycorn said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord no way.
> 
> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All they had to do was surrender.  Which they didn’t do until we rightfully forced their hand
Click to expand...

You are not informed.  They tried several times to surrender.  All they asked is don't murder our emperor.  Dirty Harry Truman said fuck you and die you yellow slanty eyed MFers.  Then after he mass murdered 200,000 defenseless women and children, he said okay you can keep your emperor.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> So you think the USA should kill exactly like our enemies.  I don't.  How is mass murdering defenseless women and children from the air, different from the mass murder at Nanking?


Defenseless? They had air defences. The had guns to shoot down planes. They also had Japanese aces and zeros to use in the defense of all the cities in Japan. Further the Japanese were warned. Total destruction if the do not surrender. So yes, air defences from ground batteries. Pilots still able to attack. Did you know much of the population of Hiroshima was evacuated prior to Hiroshima? All facts that I am teaching you. And that is women and children, left in the city because they worked in the industry that built guns bombs war supplies. Yes, that is right, the city was largely evacuated and left behind, those needed to keep the japanese war machine running.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> You are not informed.  They tried several times to surrender.  All they asked is don't murder our emperor.  Dirty Harry Truman said fuck you and die you yellow slanty eyed MFers.  Then after he mass murdered 200,000 defenseless women and children, he said okay you can keep your emperor.


In your dreams, they tried to surrender. Even mikegriffter1 has proved they never tried to surrender let alone,  send out, "peace feelers".

You can say what you like but you can never ever come close to proving it. You can try, but everyone else who tried had thier comments nuked!


----------



## Cellblock2429

gipper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All they had to do was surrender.  Which they didn’t do until we rightfully forced their hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not informed.  They tried several times to surrender.  All they asked is don't murder our emperor.  Dirty Harry Truman said fuck you and die you yellow slanty eyed MFers.  Then after he mass murdered 200,000 defenseless women and children, he said okay you can keep your emperor.
Click to expand...

/——/ Even if they sent out feelers for a cease fire ( not surrender) these were the same ones who bombed Pearl Harbor while their  Diplomats were negotiating for peace. No one trusted the dirty Japs.


----------



## Cellblock2429

gipper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Read The Rape of Nanking and get back to us with your snowflake solution to stop brutal regimes. The library will have a copy if you don’t have the coin to buy it. https://www.amazon.com/Rape-Nanking...f+nanking&qid=1569764042&sr=8-1&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the USA should kill exactly like our enemies.  I don't.  How is mass murdering defenseless women and children from the air, different from the mass murder at Nanking?
Click to expand...

/—-/ The Japs his their military bases throughout crowded cities. It was the only way to hit them and break their military. Remember the Jap houses were made of wood and paper. One bomb would light up an entire neighborhood.


----------



## Cellblock2429

gipper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese.  We stopped it.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Read The Rape of Nanking and get back to us with your snowflake solution to stop brutal regimes. The library will have a copy if you don’t have the coin to buy it. https://www.amazon.com/Rape-Nanking...f+nanking&qid=1569764042&sr=8-1&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the USA should kill exactly like our enemies.  I don't.  How is mass murdering defenseless women and children from the air, different from the mass murder at Nanking?
Click to expand...

/—-/ Maybe you think we should humanly capture the enemy and release them in a preserve like when you trap a squirrel in your attic.


----------



## gipper

Cellblock2429 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> By mass murdering many more civilians. Good job to the duped American statist.
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Read The Rape of Nanking and get back to us with your snowflake solution to stop brutal regimes. The library will have a copy if you don’t have the coin to buy it. https://www.amazon.com/Rape-Nanking...f+nanking&qid=1569764042&sr=8-1&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the USA should kill exactly like our enemies.  I don't.  How is mass murdering defenseless women and children from the air, different from the mass murder at Nanking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /—-/ Maybe you think we should humanly capture the enemy and release them in a preserve like when you trap a squirrel in your attic.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe murdering thousands of innocent women and children is ever justified, but you do.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not informed.  They tried several times to surrender.  All they asked is don't murder our emperor.  Dirty Harry Truman said fuck you and die you yellow slanty eyed MFers.  Then after he mass murdered 200,000 defenseless women and children, he said okay you can keep your emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams, they tried to surrender. Even mikegriffter1 has proved they never tried to surrender let alone,  send out, "peace feelers".
> 
> You can say what you like but you can never ever come close to proving it. You can try, but everyone else who tried had thier comments nuked!
Click to expand...

They sent out multiple peace feelers. This is well known. Yes the military didn’t, but Japanese government officials did. 

At any rate, mass murdering defenseless women and children can never be justified, except by stupid brainwashed statist Americans.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the USA should kill exactly like our enemies.  I don't.  How is mass murdering defenseless women and children from the air, different from the mass murder at Nanking?
> 
> 
> 
> Defenseless? They had air defences. The had guns to shoot down planes. They also had Japanese aces and zeros to use in the defense of all the cities in Japan. Further the Japanese were warned. Total destruction if the do not surrender. So yes, air defences from ground batteries. Pilots still able to attack. Did you know much of the population of Hiroshima was evacuated prior to Hiroshima? All facts that I am teaching you. And that is women and children, left in the city because they worked in the industry that built guns bombs war supplies. Yes, that is right, the city was largely evacuated and left behind, those needed to keep the japanese war machine running.
Click to expand...

Their air defenses were so formidable, the US started daylight bombing.


----------



## mikegriffith1

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the USA should kill exactly like our enemies.  I don't.  How is mass murdering defenseless women and children from the air, different from the mass murder at Nanking?
> 
> 
> 
> Defenseless? They had air defences. The had guns to shoot down planes. They also had Japanese aces and zeros to use in the defense of all the cities in Japan. Further the Japanese were warned. Total destruction if the do not surrender. So yes, air defences from ground batteries. Pilots still able to attack. Did you know much of the population of Hiroshima was evacuated prior to Hiroshima? All facts that I am teaching you. And that is women and children, left in the city because they worked in the industry that built guns bombs war supplies. Yes, that is right, the city was largely evacuated and left behind, those needed to keep the japanese war machine running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their air defenses were so formidable, the US started daylight bombing.
Click to expand...


I've already pointed out to Elektra, three times now, that by spring 1945, Japan's air defenses were so pitiful that our bombing raids were losing only 0.003 of their bombers—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers were being shot down. To put it another way, if you were flying a bomber in one of those raids, you had a 99.997 chance of surviving the raid.

In order to obscure/mask the inhumanity and cruelty of what Truman was doing to Japan, his apologists must outright lie about Japan's defensive capabilities and portray Japan as some formidable, powerful opponent, when in reality Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack. As for the 2.5 million soldiers in Japan, they were neutralized and posed no threat to us, since they were stranded because the Imperial Navy could not transport them off the home islands, not to mention the fact that they were running low on food. By June 1945, the only ground fighting between U.S. and Japanese soldiers was occurring hundreds of miles from Japan, i.e., in the Philippines, where the Japanese were losing at least 4-5 soldiers to every 1 of our soldiers they were managing to kill, in addition to the fact that they were cut off and surrounded.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the USA should kill exactly like our enemies.  I don't.  How is mass murdering defenseless women and children from the air, different from the mass murder at Nanking?
> 
> 
> 
> Defenseless? They had air defences. The had guns to shoot down planes. They also had Japanese aces and zeros to use in the defense of all the cities in Japan. Further the Japanese were warned. Total destruction if the do not surrender. So yes, air defences from ground batteries. Pilots still able to attack. Did you know much of the population of Hiroshima was evacuated prior to Hiroshima? All facts that I am teaching you. And that is women and children, left in the city because they worked in the industry that built guns bombs war supplies. Yes, that is right, the city was largely evacuated and left behind, those needed to keep the japanese war machine running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their air defenses were so formidable, the US started daylight bombing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out to Elektra, three times now, that by spring 1945, Japan's air defenses were so pitiful that our bombing raids were losing only 0.003 of their bombers—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers were being shot down. To put it another way, if you were flying a bomber in one of those raids, you had a 99.997% chance of surviving the raid.
> 
> In order to obscure or mask the inhumanity and cruelty of what Truman was doing to Japan, his apologists must outright lie about Japan's defensive capabilities and portray Japan as some formidable, powerful opponent, when in reality Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack, and the soldiers on the home islands were harmless to us, since they were stranded because the Imperial Navy could not transport them off the home islands, not to mention the fact that they were running low on food. Moreover, Japan was losing at least 4-5 soldiers to every 1 of our soldiers they were managing to kill in ground engagements far from Japan, i.e., in the Philippines.
Click to expand...



Exactly, but the American statist only believes what they learned in government school's third grade history class.  They have not progressed from there.  Sadly. 

The truth is Japan was essentially defenseless, by summer 1945.  This of course means Truman's act was one of barbaric proportions, unparalleled in all of human history.  The typical duped American can't bring themselves to accept this fact, even though it is evident. So they resort to lies and idiotic equivalences, to justify it.

The sad consequence of this historical ignorance, is our leaders continue to commit horrendous acts of violence.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Their air defenses were so formidable, the US started daylight bombing.


Their air defenses shot down one of our airplanes killing an airman on august 18th of 1945. That is after the Japanese surrendered. But that is an American dead, which obviously, you could care less about.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses were so formidable, the US started daylight bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses shot down one of our airplanes killing an airman on august 18th of 1945. That is after the Japanese surrendered. But that is an American dead, which obviously, you could care less about.
Click to expand...

Good God that's dumb.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses were so formidable, the US started daylight bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses shot down one of our airplanes killing an airman on august 18th of 1945. That is after the Japanese surrendered. But that is an American dead, which obviously, you could care less about.
Click to expand...

Good God that's dumb.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses were so formidable, the US started daylight bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses shot down one of our airplanes killing an airman on august 18th of 1945. That is after the Japanese surrendered. But that is an American dead, which obviously, you could care less about.
Click to expand...

Good God that's dumb.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers were being shot down. To put it another way, if you were flying a bomber in one of those raids, you had a 99.997 chance of surviving the raid.


You are such an idiot you do not even know enough to google your percentages. You have no idea what you are talking about, and now that is apparent while you do simple math!


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Their air defenses shot down one of our airplanes killing an airman on august 18th of 1945. That is after the Japanese surrendered. But that is an American dead, which obviously, you could care less about.


Good God that's dumb.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is very dumb, the japanese were defenseless yet they still were killing Americans, even after the surrender. But you really do not care about our deaths, do you. If you did, you would not exaggerate and lie when you post your unsubstantiated opinion.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Hiroshima
"Going to stop killing us yet?"
"Nope"

Nagasaki
"Going to stop killing us yet?"
"YEP."

There ya go...


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses shot down one of our airplanes killing an airman on august 18th of 1945. That is after the Japanese surrendered. But that is an American dead, which obviously, you could care less about.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God that's dumb.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is very dumb, the japanese were defenseless yet they still were killing Americans, even after the surrender. But you really do not care about our deaths, do you. If you did, you would not exaggerate and lie when you post your unsubstantiated opinion.[/QUOTE]
There’s the old dumb equivalence game dumb statists like to play.

1 dead American warrior justifies 200,000 murdered Japanese civilians.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses were so formidable, the US started daylight bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses shot down one of our airplanes killing an airman on august 18th of 1945. That is after the Japanese surrendered. But that is an American dead, which obviously, you could care less about.
Click to expand...


What?! You're using this absurd argument again, after I pointed out to you that this shootdown occurred because we flew bombers and other planes over Tokyo on the 18th without first informing the Japanese that we were going to do so?!  What in the devil were we thinking to do this when we knew tensions were still incredibly high and when we knew that the last time a bomber formation had appeared over Tokyo, a huge chunk of the city had been obliterated and some 80,000 people killed?

As for this obscene line of yours that anyone who disagrees with your barbarism "could care less" about American deaths, you and your fellow Truman worshipers are the ones who seemingly "could care less" about all the needless American deaths that occurred because of Truman's refusal to pursue a reasonable negotiated peace, i.e., after Truman ignored several Japanese peace feelers (we know he was briefed on them), after he ignored the repeated warnings from his own Japan experts that the Japanese would fight to the death if they thought we were going to depose the emperor (Grew personally explained this to him in May), and after he refused to privately negotiate once he learned from Japanese intercepts that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only obstacle was Truman's insistence on unconditional surrender (we know he was informed of this fact). _You and your fellow denialists/Truman defenders are the ones who are showing disdain for the deaths of our soldiers_ when their deaths would have been avoided if Truman had not refused to budge from FDR's "unconditional surrender" policy.

For that matter, we would have had no war with Japan if FDR had not treasonously sided with the Soviet Union, had not imposed draconian sanctions on Japan for doing the same thing that Western powers had done a few decades earlier, had not rejected Japan's entirely reasonable peace offers to get him to lift the sanctions, and had not moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii and stationed B-17 bombers in the Philippines. 

Moving the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii made no sense--no logistical sense, no tactical sense, and no training sense, as Admiral Richardson emphatically pointed out to FDR at the time. When Richardson would not keep quiet about this unsound and misguided move, FDR fired him. Read Richardson's book _Pearl Harbor Countdown._


----------



## The Purge

Next time. Just for giggles and laughs let's  make it Mecca and Medina......


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses were so formidable, the US started daylight bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses shot down one of our airplanes killing an airman on august 18th of 1945. That is after the Japanese surrendered. But that is an American dead, which obviously, you could care less about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?! You're using this absurd argument again, after I pointed out to you that this shootdown occurred because we flew bombers and other planes over Tokyo on the 18th without first informing the Japanese that we were going to do so?!  What in the devil were we thinking to do this when we knew tensions were still incredibly high and when we knew that the last time a bomber formation had appeared over Tokyo, a huge chunk of the city had been obliterated and some 80,000 people killed?
> 
> As for this obscene line of yours that anyone who disagrees with your barbarism "could care less" about American deaths, you and your fellow Truman worshipers are the ones who seemingly "could care less" about all the needless American deaths that occurred because of Truman's refusal to pursue a reasonable negotiated peace, i.e., after Truman ignored several Japanese peace feelers (we know he was briefed on them), after he ignored the repeated warnings from his own Japan experts that the Japanese would fight to the death if they thought we were going to depose the emperor (Grew personally explained this to him in May), and after he refused to privately negotiate once he learned from Japanese intercepts that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only obstacle was Truman's insistence on unconditional surrender (we know he was informed of this fact). _You and your fellow denialists/Truman defenders are the ones who are showing disdain for the deaths of our soldiers_ when their deaths would have been avoided if Truman had not refused to budge from FDR's "unconditional surrender" policy.
> 
> For that matter, we would have had no war with Japan if FDR had not treasonously sided with the Soviet Union, had not imposed draconian sanctions on Japan for doing the same thing that Western powers had done a few decades earlier, had not rejected Japan's entirely reasonable peace offers to get him to lift the sanctions, and had not moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii and stationed B-17 bombers in the Philippines.
> 
> Moving the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii made no sense--no logistical sense, no tactical sense, and no training sense, as Admiral Richardson emphatically pointed out to FDR at the time. When Richardson would not keep quiet about this unsound and misguided move, FDR fired him. Read Richardson's book _Pearl Harbor Countdown._
Click to expand...

As has been done in nearly all our wars, the potus lied us into it. WWII was no exception.  When will the people wake up?  

 FDR set up Japan with his draconian demands, sanctions, and refusal to even talk to the a Japanese. He then knew the Japanese fleet was steaming to Pearl, because their code was broken.  He refused to warn Pearl commanders, got the carriers out of harms way, and sacrificed those sailors at Pearl. Then he scapegoated the commanders for failing to do their duty. 

This after he had tried desperately to get Hitler to attack US shipping in the N Atlantic, which would have killed more innocent Americans. 

Nice guy that FDR. Too bad Truman was even worse.


----------



## candycorn

gipper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ And you think simply asking the Japs pretty please with sprinkles on top would have stopped them?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Read The Rape of Nanking and get back to us with your snowflake solution to stop brutal regimes. The library will have a copy if you don’t have the coin to buy it. https://www.amazon.com/Rape-Nanking...f+nanking&qid=1569764042&sr=8-1&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the USA should kill exactly like our enemies.  I don't.  How is mass murdering defenseless women and children from the air, different from the mass murder at Nanking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /—-/ Maybe you think we should humanly capture the enemy and release them in a preserve like when you trap a squirrel in your attic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe murdering thousands of innocent women and children is ever justified, but you do.
Click to expand...


The japs did it.  We stopped it.


----------



## P@triot

GreenBean said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> True but Irrelevant -
Click to expand...

How is that "irrelevant"?!?


----------



## Cellblock2429

gipper said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses were so formidable, the US started daylight bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> Their air defenses shot down one of our airplanes killing an airman on august 18th of 1945. That is after the Japanese surrendered. But that is an American dead, which obviously, you could care less about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?! You're using this absurd argument again, after I pointed out to you that this shootdown occurred because we flew bombers and other planes over Tokyo on the 18th without first informing the Japanese that we were going to do so?!  What in the devil were we thinking to do this when we knew tensions were still incredibly high and when we knew that the last time a bomber formation had appeared over Tokyo, a huge chunk of the city had been obliterated and some 80,000 people killed?
> 
> As for this obscene line of yours that anyone who disagrees with your barbarism "could care less" about American deaths, you and your fellow Truman worshipers are the ones who seemingly "could care less" about all the needless American deaths that occurred because of Truman's refusal to pursue a reasonable negotiated peace, i.e., after Truman ignored several Japanese peace feelers (we know he was briefed on them), after he ignored the repeated warnings from his own Japan experts that the Japanese would fight to the death if they thought we were going to depose the emperor (Grew personally explained this to him in May), and after he refused to privately negotiate once he learned from Japanese intercepts that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only obstacle was Truman's insistence on unconditional surrender (we know he was informed of this fact). _You and your fellow denialists/Truman defenders are the ones who are showing disdain for the deaths of our soldiers_ when their deaths would have been avoided if Truman had not refused to budge from FDR's "unconditional surrender" policy.
> 
> For that matter, we would have had no war with Japan if FDR had not treasonously sided with the Soviet Union, had not imposed draconian sanctions on Japan for doing the same thing that Western powers had done a few decades earlier, had not rejected Japan's entirely reasonable peace offers to get him to lift the sanctions, and had not moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii and stationed B-17 bombers in the Philippines.
> 
> Moving the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii made no sense--no logistical sense, no tactical sense, and no training sense, as Admiral Richardson emphatically pointed out to FDR at the time. When Richardson would not keep quiet about this unsound and misguided move, FDR fired him. Read Richardson's book _Pearl Harbor Countdown._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As has been done in nearly all our wars, the potus lied us into it. WWII was no exception.  When will the people wake up?
> 
> FDR set up Japan with his draconian demands, sanctions, and refusal to even talk to the a Japanese. He then knew the Japanese fleet was steaming to Pearl, because their code was broken.  He refused to warn Pearl commanders, got the carriers out of harms way, and sacrificed those sailors at Pearl. Then he scapegoated the commanders for failing to do their duty.
> 
> This after he had tried desperately to get Hitler to attack US shipping in the N Atlantic, which would have killed more innocent Americans.
> 
> Nice guy that FDR. Too bad Truman was even worse.
Click to expand...

/——/ I knew PH Vets and all agree with you.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> There’s the old dumb equivalence game dumb statists like to play.
> 1 dead American warrior justifies 200,000 murdered Japanese civilians.


Was it just 1? Or was it over 900 on the Indianapolis, another 18 on a submarine, 1,000's in prisoner of war camps? 

And yes, if the Atomic bombs saved just one american, it would of been worth it. In this case it saved untold thousands. 

Murder? Not is a war, not in a war the Japanese started, not of those who actively participated in the war. Murder? Murder was what was happening to our Americans being tortured to death by the Japanese.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was  that meeting, for as you just stated, nothing is decided unless the Big Six and the Supreme War Council meet and agree. So when was that meeting and could you post the transcript.
> 
> 
> 
> I am seriously wondering if you are a high school student.
> First off, the Big Six and the Supreme War Council were the same group. "Big Six" is just a common nickname for the Supreme War Council, which in turn is a shortened version of the council's full name: Supreme Council for the Direction of the War. Do you understand what "aka" means?
Click to expand...

Let us digress a bit, and address your blatant errors. You call me a "high school" student for not realizing the Big Six and the Supreme War Council are the same thing. Yet, you made that error before me? By your "rules", you are not even a grade school student. 
The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima


> Let me just repeat a few facts that you keep ignoring or failing to explain:
> 
> * The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council)


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I've already pointed out to Elektra, three times now, that by spring 1945, Japan's air defenses were so pitiful that our bombing raids were losing only 0.003 of their bombers—in other words, only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers were being shot down. To put it another way, if you were flying a bomber in one of those raids, you had a 99.997 chance of surviving the raid.


99.997 ha, ha, ha, even if your opinion is right, your math is still wrong, don't you think you were suppose to move the decimal point at one step in your calculations! Did you finish grade school. You make errors without realizing your mistake. From page numbers to confusing the Supreme War council, aka the Big Six! You can't even do a simple percentage correctly. Then you call into question my education?


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Let us digress a bit, and address your blatant errors. You call me a "high school" student for not realizing the Big Six and the Supreme War Council are the same thing. Yet, you made that error before me?



Uh, nope, I never made that error. I have always said that the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War was also called the Big Six and the Supreme War Council.



> By your "rules", you are not even a grade school student:
> 
> MIKEGRIFFITH1: * The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council)



SMH. Do you know what "aka" means? Explain to me how what I said was in error. What is it that you don't understand about the statement that Big Six and Supreme War Council were and are two common nicknames for the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War? What don't you grasp about this simple fact? I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this to you.



> GIPPER: There’s the old dumb equivalence game dumb statists like to play. 1 dead American warrior justifies 200,000 murdered Japanese civilians.





> ELEKTRA: Was it just 1? Or was it over 900 on the Indianapolis, another 18 on a submarine, 1,000's in prisoner of war camps?



I already answered every one of these misleading examples. When are you going to deal with the point that the war could have ended in June if Truman had not refused to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender?



> And yes, if the Atomic bombs saved just one american, it would of been worth it. In this case it saved untold thousands.



So killing over 200,000 civilians would have been an acceptable price to save one American soldier? Wow, that's just evil and vicious.

Your boy Truman was the one who refused to help the peace faction in the Japanese government and who therefore delayed surrender by weeks. We've already covered this ground several times, and you simply refuse to deal with the fact that an invasion was not necessary, that by no later than June most of Japan's leaders wanted to end the war on terms acceptable to us, that Truman played right into the hardliners' hands by refusing to clarify the emperor's status, and that Japan would have surrendered without nukes.

You somehow misread McNay's review, not to mention Hasegawa's book. If you had read McNay's review with any care, you would have seen that he explained that Hasegawa's point is that the only impact the nukes had was that it caused the peace advocates to push harder to try to get the hardliners to agree to surrender. The peace advocates needed no convincing. They had been trying to bring about a surrender for weeks. Hiroshima simply gave them another excuse to make another push for surrender. The point you keep ducking is that Hiroshima had zero impact on the hardliners. That's why Hasegawa said that if the Soviets had not invaded, the Japanese would have kept fighting for several more months until "numerous" more nukings, or until conventional bombing or an invasion, rendered them unable to fight any longer. It is just amazing that you keep acting like you missed this central point of the entire book.



> ELEKTRA: Murder? Not in a war, not in a war the Japanese started, not of those who actively participated in the war. Murder? Murder was what was happening to our Americans being tortured to death by the Japanese.



What a barbaric, un-American standard. Leaving aside the fact that FDR provoked Japan to war, that was no excuse for FDR and Truman to order bombing that deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and children. That's like saying that if you provoke a smaller and weaker person to hit you first, that gives you the right to seriously injure him in ways that he can't prevent. That's just sick. And you call yourself an American? Good grief, what godless leftist classroom taught you such a warped, twisted, evil version of American values?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I already answered every one of these misleading examples. When are you going to deal with the point that the war could have ended in June if Truman had not refused to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender?


Okay, we will ignore your blatant errors, cause they dont count, cause technically someone else made the errors, you just cut/pasted the errors without having the educational skills to find them and correct them. I get it, not your fault, you just copied them.

Now I will address your silly idea that Truman could of ending the war in june, even though you have made the false claim that the sovuets ended the war by simply declaring war on Japan after the atomic bomb was dropped.

The Supreme War council met on what date and agreed to surrender, obviously before or during June, is that your claim. For there can be no serious surrender unless they met and agreed. Kindly share when that meeting occured. For as you stated nothing happens without the supreme war council's approval. And if you know this, truman knows it, so go ahead and explain when this meeting and agreement occurred.

The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima


> * The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council) did not even think that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was a sufficient reason to call a meeting of the Big Six, which was crucial since nothing could be decided unless the council met


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I already answered every one of these misleading examples. When are you going to deal with the point that the war could have ended in June if Truman had not refused to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender?


You just stated, that Truman should of opened a line of communication to the japanese and try to get them to surrender during the battle of Okinawa? Of all the stupid ideas that have spewed from your mouth, this has to be the dumbest yet.

Truman, during a horrific battle, should of asked the Japanese to please stop and surrender. Truman and all those smarter than you with responsibility of the lives of the men fighting decided that was strategically stupid. It could cause the Japanese to think they may be winning, renewing thier will to fight harder, turning the win into a lost.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us digress a bit, and address your blatant errors. You call me a "high school" student for not realizing the Big Six and the Supreme War Council are the same thing. Yet, you made that error before me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, nope, I never made that error. I have always said that the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War was also called the Big Six and the Supreme War Council.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your "rules", you are not even a grade school student:
> 
> MIKEGRIFFITH1: * The hardliners on the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Big Six and the Supreme War Council)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SMH. Do you know what "aka" means? Explain to me how what I said was in error. What is it that you don't understand about the statement that Big Six and Supreme War Council were and are two common nicknames for the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War? What don't you grasp about this simple fact? I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GIPPER: There’s the old dumb equivalence game dumb statists like to play. 1 dead American warrior justifies 200,000 murdered Japanese civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ELEKTRA: Was it just 1? Or was it over 900 on the Indianapolis, another 18 on a submarine, 1,000's in prisoner of war camps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered every one of these misleading examples. When are you going to deal with the point that the war could have ended in June if Truman had not refused to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, if the Atomic bombs saved just one american, it would of been worth it. In this case it saved untold thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So killing over 200,000 civilians would have been an acceptable price to save one American soldier? Wow, that's just evil and vicious.
> 
> Your boy Truman was the one who refused to help the peace faction in the Japanese government and who therefore delayed surrender by weeks. We've already covered this ground several times, and you simply refuse to deal with the fact that an invasion was not necessary, that by no later than June most of Japan's leaders wanted to end the war on terms acceptable to us, that Truman played right into the hardliners' hands by refusing to clarify the emperor's status, and that Japan would have surrendered without nukes.
> 
> You somehow misread McNay's review, not to mention Hasegawa's book. If you had read McNay's review with any care, you would have seen that he explained that Hasegawa's point is that the only impact the nukes had was that it caused the peace advocates to push harder to try to get the hardliners to agree to surrender. The peace advocates needed no convincing. They had been trying to bring about a surrender for weeks. Hiroshima simply gave them another excuse to make another push for surrender. The point you keep ducking is that Hiroshima had zero impact on the hardliners. That's why Hasegawa said that if the Soviets had not invaded, the Japanese would have kept fighting for several more months until "numerous" more nukings, or until conventional bombing or an invasion, rendered them unable to fight any longer. It is just amazing that you keep acting like you missed this central point of the entire book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ELEKTRA: Murder? Not in a war, not in a war the Japanese started, not of those who actively participated in the war. Murder? Murder was what was happening to our Americans being tortured to death by the Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a barbaric, un-American standard. Leaving aside the fact that FDR provoked Japan to war, that was no excuse for FDR and Truman to order bombing that deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and children. That's like saying that if you provoke a smaller and weaker person to hit you first, that gives you the right to seriously injure him in ways that he can't prevent. That's just sick. And you call yourself an American? Good grief, what godless leftist classroom taught you such a warped, twisted, evil version of American values?
Click to expand...

It’s not leftism. Many on the right think the same way. They have been taught by the state to accept the state’s lies. They can’t overcome the brainwashing from the state, no matter how much evidence proves them wrong. 

I thought as they do until I did the research.  So I know how they are. Many Americans just can’t accept their government is evil.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> What a barbaric, un-American standard. Leaving aside the fact that FDR provoked Japan to war, that was no excuse for FDR and Truman to order bombing that deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and children. That's like saying that if you provoke a smaller and weaker person to hit you first, that gives you the right to seriously injure him in ways that he can't prevent. That's just sick. And you call yourself an American? Good grief, what godless leftist classroom taught you such a warped, twisted, evil version of American values?


Replying to you is the same as chasing a french poodle across a yard, you go everywhere at random, never stopping long enough to discuss one topic within this giant rant of yours.

I presume that you had no answer to your other errors and misconceptions hence you moved to another tirade.

Fighting the war with japan is no different than provoking a smaller, weaker person to hit me? Uh, you really are this dumb! 

First and foremost, comparing Japan the nation to a small weak person shows you have no facts to back up your crazy opinion. And crazy you are, when you can look at all the books written about the history of japan and open a comment with hard facts you choose an emotional appeal, an analogy, meant to influence ones emotions. Why must you first manipulate people into feeling sorry for the japanese by using such a far fetched, disconnected analogy? 

The answer is simple, you wish for people to hate and the hard facts do not help.

You still.have not answered, how many days should we have waited before dropping the 2nd atomic bomb. It was the basis for your OP?

But, again, you have argued nothing but emotions and feelings with a few distorted facts thrown in to make it seem you wished to talk of history.

Immature you are at best, your understanding of history, narrow, ignorant, and full of hate.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> FDR set up Japan with his draconian demands, sanctions, and refusal to even talk to the a Japanese. He then knew the Japanese fleet was steaming to Pearl, because their code was broken.  He refused to warn Pearl commanders, got the carriers out of harms way, and sacrificed those sailors at Pearl. Then he scapegoated the commanders for failing to do their duty.
> 
> This after he had tried desperately to get Hitler to attack US shipping in the N Atlantic, which would have killed more innocent Americans.
> 
> Nice guy that FDR. Too bad Truman was even worse.


Says the anarchist who wears a pink tutu.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR set up Japan with his draconian demands, sanctions, and refusal to even talk to the a Japanese. He then knew the Japanese fleet was steaming to Pearl, because their code was broken.  He refused to warn Pearl commanders, got the carriers out of harms way, and sacrificed those sailors at Pearl. Then he scapegoated the commanders for failing to do their duty.
> 
> This after he had tried desperately to get Hitler to attack US shipping in the N Atlantic, which would have killed more innocent Americans.
> 
> Nice guy that FDR. Too bad Truman was even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the anarchist who wears a pink tutu.
Click to expand...




hypocrite post.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR set up Japan with his draconian demands, sanctions, and refusal to even talk to the a Japanese. He then knew the Japanese fleet was steaming to Pearl, because their code was broken.  He refused to warn Pearl commanders, got the carriers out of harms way, and sacrificed those sailors at Pearl. Then he scapegoated the commanders for failing to do their duty.
> 
> This after he had tried desperately to get Hitler to attack US shipping in the N Atlantic, which would have killed more innocent Americans.
> 
> Nice guy that FDR. Too bad Truman was even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the anarchist who wears a pink tutu.
Click to expand...

I win!  You have accepted defeat with that silly post. 

Thank you.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> I win!  You have accepted defeat with that silly post.
> Thank you.


You are welcome, just saying, people who wear pink tutus are far from being an anarchist. I guess, on the internet, you can say you are whatever makes you feel the biggest.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> The Supreme War council met on what date and agreed to surrender, obviously before or during June, is that your claim. For there can be no serious surrender unless they met and agreed. Kindly share when that meeting occurred. For as you stated nothing happens without the supreme war council's approval. And if you know this, truman knows it, so go ahead and explain when this meeting and agreement occurred.



What in the world are you talking about?  Are you really unable to grasp the point, or are you just being incredibly disingenuous?  Let me try to break this down in simple terms, step by step:

* Months before Hiroshima, members of the peace faction began sending peace feelers through third parties to the U.S., such as the approach via a third party to Allen Dulles, such as the approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal with us.

* It was made clear in these approaches that the only real obstacle to obtaining a surrender was fear about the emperor's status in unconditional surrender. I documented this in a previous post where I reviewed some of the peace feelers.

* The peace advocates needed Truman to simply give assurance that the emperor would not be deposed in order for them, the peace supporters, to be able to overcome the hardliners' opposition, since the hardliners' trump card was that the Americans had given no assurance about the emperor's status.

* The hardliners on the Big Six could block any meeting of the council and could also block the convening of an imperial conference, since Japan was not a dictatorship. The emperor could not just snap his fingers and order the Supreme War Council to meet, much less to attend an imperial conference. There were checks and balances--that's how Tojo was forced to resign after the loss of Saipan, and that's how the next two prime ministers were both pro-surrender.

* If Truman had given assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, the Big Six hardliners would have lost their number one argument against surrender and would have then been under tremendous pressure to agree to convene the Big Six and to attend an imperial conference. If they had refused, this would have given the peace faction a powerful justification to force an extra-constitutional showdown over surrender. 

* If Truman had also advised the Japanese, even privately, that the Soviets would soon attack Manchuria and Korea if Japan did not surrender, this would have been a devastating blow to the hardliners because it would have demolished their second and final argument against surrender, which was that the Soviets would not attack until the non-aggression pact expired in April 1946 and that therefore Japan should keep trying to get the Soviets to broker a peace deal with the U.S. This was not a compelling argument anyway because Japanese intelligence was reporting a significant Soviet buildup near the Manchurian border, and the hardliners' only answer was the questionable argument that the Soviets were getting the troops into position but would not move until the non-aggression pact expired, and that therefore there was still time to make concessions to the Soviets and to get them to broker a peace deal.

* When Hiroshima was nuked, the hardliners refused to agree to convene the Big Six.

* But, when the news of the Soviets invasion reached Tokyo, the hardliners quickly agreed to convene the Big Six, and then to attend an imperial conference.

* When the full cabinet voted on surrender following the receipt of the Byrnes Note, the vote was 12 to 3 in favor of surrender. The three negative votes were the hardliners, but the hardliners, given the overwhelming support for surrender in the cabinet, chose not to block the convening of an imperial council meeting, and this enabled the emperor to order a surrender.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> What in the world are you talking about?  Are you really unable to grasp the point, or are you just being incredibly disingenuous?  Let me try to break this down in simple terms, step by step:
> .


You should re-word that statement of yours, to this; "you will believe what I dictate to be truth regardless of history and facts"


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * Months before Hiroshima......


Months before Hiroshima, Truman was not president!


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme War council met on what date and agreed to surrender, obviously before or during June, is that your claim. For there can be no serious surrender unless they met and agreed. Kindly share when that meeting occurred. For as you stated nothing happens without the supreme war council's approval. And if you know this, truman knows it, so go ahead and explain when this meeting and agreement occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about?  Are you really unable to grasp the point, or are you just being incredibly disingenuous?  Let me try to break this down in simple terms, step by step:
> 
> * Months before Hiroshima, members of the peace faction began sending peace feelers through third parties to the U.S., such as the approach via a third party to Allen Dulles, such as the approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal with us.
> 
> * It was made clear in these approaches that the only real obstacle to obtaining a surrender was fear about the emperor's status in unconditional surrender. I documented this in a previous post where I reviewed some of the peace feelers.
> 
> * The peace advocates needed Truman to simply give assurance that the emperor would not be deposed in order for them, the peace supporters, to be able to overcome the hardliners' opposition, since the hardliners' trump card was that the Americans had given no assurance about the emperor's status.
> 
> * The hardliners on the Big Six could block any meeting of the council and could also block the convening of an imperial conference, since Japan was not a dictatorship. The emperor could not just snap his fingers and order the Supreme War Council to meet, much less to attend an imperial conference. There were checks and balances--that's how Tojo was forced to resign after the loss of Saipan, and that's how the next two prime ministers were both pro-surrender.
> 
> * If Truman had given assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, the Big Six hardliners would have lost their number one argument against surrender and would have then been under tremendous pressure to agree to convene the Big Six and to attend an imperial conference. If they had refused, this would have given the peace faction a powerful justification to force an extra-constitutional showdown over surrender.
> 
> * If Truman had also advised the Japanese, even privately, that the Soviets would soon attack Manchuria and Korea if Japan did not surrender, this would have been a devastating blow to the hardliners because it would have demolished their second and final argument against surrender, which was that the Soviets would not attack until the non-aggression pact expired in April 1946 and that therefore Japan should keep trying to get the Soviets to broker a peace deal with the U.S. This was not a compelling argument anyway because Japanese intelligence was reporting a significant Soviet buildup near the Manchurian border, and the hardliners' only answer was the questionable argument that the Soviets were getting the troops into position but would not move until the non-aggression pact expired, and that therefore there was still time to make concessions to the Soviets and to get them to broker a peace deal.
> 
> * When Hiroshima was nuked, the hardliners refused to agree to convene the Big Six.
> 
> * But, when the news of the Soviets invasion reached Tokyo, the hardliners quickly agreed to convene the Big Six, and then to attend an imperial conference.
> 
> * When the full cabinet voted on surrender following the receipt of the Byrnes Note, the vote was 12 to 3 in favor of surrender. The three negative votes were the hardliners, but the hardliners, given the overwhelming support for surrender in the cabinet, chose not to block the convening of an imperial council meeting, and this enabled the emperor to order a surrender.
Click to expand...

He’s incredibly disingenuous. The statist warmonger can’t be anything else, since the truth is evident and it destroys his entire position.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Months before Hiroshima......
> 
> 
> 
> Months before Hiroshima, Truman was not president!
Click to expand...

Yep. Totally disingenuous.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> What in the world are you talking about?
> * Months before Hiroshima, members of the peace faction began sending peace feelers through third parties to the U.S., such as the approach via a third party to Allen Dulles, such as the approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal with us.


What in the world are you talking about? And when? Give me a break already! Do you not know nothing of what you post? Seriously. A peace faction? As if the Japanese united and created a peace faction! How about using names, dates, and places! 

Of course a little detail will blow up your distortion of the facts. Detail would be facts and if you began to introduce facts into your posts everyone would see you for the charlatan that you are. 

Is it the Fujimura group that Allen W. Dulles received authorization from the U.S. State dept, to begin peace negotiations with, you wish to discuss? They were self appointed peace makers. There was never a meeting of the Big Six, aka the Supreme Council, therefore everything they did was unauthorized and ultimately rejected by the Japanese. They used a Navy Type 94 code machine to communicate with...........

Your vagueness shows your ignorance, which is a result from your over use of google searches. How about replying with concise facts, I can certainly reply with facts, as I just proved. 

Will this be another of a long list of posts you ignore, I do have a tendency to use facts which you hide from.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about?
> * Months before Hiroshima, members of the peace faction began sending peace feelers through third parties to the U.S., such as the approach via a third party to Allen Dulles, such as the approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal with us.
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about? And when? Give me a break already! Do you not know nothing of what you post? Seriously. A peace faction? As if the Japanese united and created a peace faction! How about using names, dates, and places!
> 
> Of course a little detail will blow up your distortion of the facts. Detail would be facts and if you began to introduce facts into your posts everyone would see you for the charlatan that you are.
> 
> Is it the Fujimura group that Allen W. Dulles received authorization from the U.S. State dept, to begin peace negotiations with, you wish to discuss? They were self appointed peace makers. There was never a meeting of the Big Six, aka the Supreme Council, therefore everything they did was unauthorized and ultimately rejected by the Japanese. They used a Navy Type 94 code machine to communicate with...........
> 
> Your vagueness shows your ignorance, which is a result from your over use of google searches. How about replying with concise facts, I can certainly reply with facts, as I just proved.
> 
> Will this be another of a long list of posts you ignore, I do have a tendency to use facts which you hide from.
Click to expand...

So let’s put your position stated another way. Since the Big Six wouldn’t surrender unconditionally, Truman had every right to mass murder 200,000 defenseless Japanese women and children. 

Why don't you find this abhorrent?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * It was made clear in these approaches that the only real obstacle to obtaining a surrender was fear about the emperor's status in unconditional surrender. I documented this in a previous post where I reviewed some of the peace feelers.
> 
> * The peace advocates needed Truman to simply give assurance that the emperor would not be deposed in order for them, the peace supporters, to be able to overcome the hardliners' opposition, since the hardliners' trump card was that the Americans had given no assurance about the emperor's status.


It was made clear? What is clear, without the Supreme Council authorizing surrender, it was not going to happen. Even you stated nothing happens without the Supreme Council making or approving the decision. 

so, how about it, sources, dates, names, otherwise you are simply bullshitting


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> So let’s put your position stated another way. Since the Big Six wouldn’t surrender unconditionally, Truman had every right to mass murder 200,000 defenseless Japanese women and children.
> 
> Why don't you find this abhorrent?


How is that pink tutu, an anarchist? Do you even know what that means? You post like a guy who wears a pink tutu, honestly. 

How about asking a question based on reality, on the facts of history, then I would gladly answer, until then you could answer how you can be an anarchist yet wear a pink tutu.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let’s put your position stated another way. Since the Big Six wouldn’t surrender unconditionally, Truman had every right to mass murder 200,000 defenseless Japanese women and children.
> 
> Why don't you find this abhorrent?
> 
> 
> 
> How is that pink tutu, an anarchist? Do you even know what that means? You post like a guy who wears a pink tutu, honestly.
> 
> How about asking a question based on reality, on the facts of history, then I would gladly answer, until then you could answer how you can be an anarchist yet wear a pink tutu.
Click to expand...

Yes it is most certainly difficult to justify mass murder. Just stop trying.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Yes it is most certainly difficult to justify mass murder. Just stop trying.


. You should stop calling yourself an anarchist when it is obvious you are a nut in a pink tutu


----------



## fncceo

Nearly 1300 posts on revisionist history.  

Impressive.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is most certainly difficult to justify mass murder. Just stop trying.
> 
> 
> 
> . You should stop calling yourself an anarchist when it is obvious you are a nut in a pink tutu
Click to expand...

I win again. Yippee.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is most certainly difficult to justify mass murder. Just stop trying.
> 
> 
> 
> . You should stop calling yourself an anarchist when it is obvious you are a nut in a pink tutu
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I win again. Yippee.
Click to expand...

You win what? An award for failing to understand what war is? What I find ironic is that you call yourself an anarchist yet you have not the stomach, the courage, to do what an anarchist would have to do, to begin anarchy. If you think that is winning, being called out on your hypocrisy. So be it. You are an anarchist? Only on the internet.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


War, how obscene. How long would of been adequate to wait? How many days between bombing?


----------



## fncceo

elektra said:


> You are an anarchist? Only on the internet.



An anarchist is anyone deluded enough to believe they won't be the first ones to be eaten when societal rules are no longer enforced.


----------



## elektra

It is pitiful that so many do not understand nor have the courage to win a war.

How hard should we have fought Japan? That is the question that has been expressed in this thread. 

In so many words, it has been said the USA should of surrendered to Japan. It has been stated we should not of destroyed any Japanese cities, anywhere you can find a woman or child.

So much it is claimed we should of done. In the heat of the battle of okinawa the revisionists state implicetedly that we should of given anything to the japanese. 

During a battle, we should of changed our policy and tried to negotiate peace. To do that, they would have our fighting forces carry the white flag onto the battlefield and beg the japanese to stop shooting.

War strategy, to stop fighting and seek peace on Japanese terms. That is the USA surrendering to Japan.

Pathetic are the fools who have argued that we did not wave the white flag furst.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> War, how obscene. How long would of been adequate to wait? How many days between bombing?
Click to expand...

So once again you post opinion in an effort to justify a war crime. 

You must be an advocate for total war. Apparently you believe mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children is entirely acceptable in war. Please explain why this is acceptable?  

Secondly, is it your belief that Truman’s use of the nukes was entirely acceptable, because waiting a few months for Japan’s leadership surrender was unacceptable?  Please explain.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> You must be an advocate for total war.



Anything worth doing ... is worth doing right.


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be an advocate for total war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything worth doing ... is worth doing right.
Click to expand...

Total war is not right. Only dummies believe that.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be an advocate for total war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything worth doing ... is worth doing right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total war is not right. Only dummies believe that.
Click to expand...


As long as your opinion is reasoned, well though out, and adequately supported by historical fact.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> War, how obscene. How long would of been adequate to wait? How many days between bombing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So once again you post opinion in an effort to justify a war crime.
> 
> You must be an advocate for total war. Apparently you believe mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children is entirely acceptable in war. Please explain why this is acceptable?
> 
> Secondly, is it your belief that Truman’s use of the nukes was entirely acceptable, because waiting a few months for Japan’s leadership surrender was unacceptable?  Please explain.
Click to expand...


I win, under your rules of war, the japanes are criminals, we were the police. How long do you wait to stop a mass muderer? You dont. You do everything in your power to stop a mass muderer.

Thank you for proving yourself wrong.

The mass murderer must be stopped, you do not negotiate. You stop the crime from continuing.


----------



## fncceo

elektra said:


> japanes ear criminals



Japanese Ear Criminal?


----------



## Taz

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


We should have nuked Tokyo as well. Never forget Pearl Harbour.


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be an advocate for total war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything worth doing ... is worth doing right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total war is not right. Only dummies believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as your opinion is reasoned, well though out, and adequately supported by historical fact.
Click to expand...




elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> War, how obscene. How long would of been adequate to wait? How many days between bombing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So once again you post opinion in an effort to justify a war crime.
> 
> You must be an advocate for total war. Apparently you believe mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children is entirely acceptable in war. Please explain why this is acceptable?
> 
> Secondly, is it your belief that Truman’s use of the nukes was entirely acceptable, because waiting a few months for Japan’s leadership surrender was unacceptable?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I win, under your rules of war, the japanes ear criminals, we were the police. How long do you wait to stop a mass muderer? You dont. You do everything in your power to stop a mass muderer.
> 
> Thank you for proving yourself wrong.
> 
> The mass murderer must be stopped, you do not negotiate. You stop the crime from continuing.
Click to expand...


Why can’t you admit Truman’s actions were undeniably a war crime, for which he should have hung?  

Man up boys!


----------



## Taz

gipper said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be an advocate for total war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything worth doing ... is worth doing right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Total war is not right. Only dummies believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as your opinion is reasoned, well though out, and adequately supported by historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> War, how obscene. How long would of been adequate to wait? How many days between bombing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So once again you post opinion in an effort to justify a war crime.
> 
> You must be an advocate for total war. Apparently you believe mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children is entirely acceptable in war. Please explain why this is acceptable?
> 
> Secondly, is it your belief that Truman’s use of the nukes was entirely acceptable, because waiting a few months for Japan’s leadership surrender was unacceptable?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I win, under your rules of war, the japanes ear criminals, we were the police. How long do you wait to stop a mass muderer? You dont. You do everything in your power to stop a mass muderer.
> 
> Thank you for proving yourself wrong.
> 
> The mass murderer must be stopped, you do not negotiate. You stop the crime from continuing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can’t you admit Truman’s actions were undeniably a war crime, for which he should have hung?
> 
> Man up boys!
Click to expand...

We should have nuked Tokyo as well.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> Why can’t you admit Truman’s actions were undeniably a war crime, for which he should have hung?



If it's so undeniable, why was he never tried?

Obviously, no one agreed with you.


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t you admit Truman’s actions were undeniably a war crime, for which he should have hung?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's so undeniable, why was he never tried?
> 
> Obviously, no one agreed with you.
Click to expand...

LOL. Really?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> War, how obscene. How long would of been adequate to wait? How many days between bombing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So once again you post opinion in an effort to justify a war crime.
> 
> You must be an advocate for total war. Apparently you believe mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children is entirely acceptable in war. Please explain why this is acceptable?
> 
> Secondly, is it your belief that Truman’s use of the nukes was entirely acceptable, because waiting a few months for Japan’s leadership surrender was unacceptable?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I win, under your rules of war, the japanes ear criminals, we were the police. How long do you wait to stop a mass muderer? You dont. You do everything in your power to stop a mass muderer.
> 
> Thank you for proving yourself wrong.
> 
> The mass murderer must be stopped, you do not negotiate. You stop the crime from continuing.
Click to expand...


So again, you are claiming the atomic bombs were dropped on civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of other countries?


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> japanes ear criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese Ear Criminal?
Click to expand...




Freudian slip?


----------



## Taz

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> War, how obscene. How long would of been adequate to wait? How many days between bombing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So once again you post opinion in an effort to justify a war crime.
> 
> You must be an advocate for total war. Apparently you believe mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children is entirely acceptable in war. Please explain why this is acceptable?
> 
> Secondly, is it your belief that Truman’s use of the nukes was entirely acceptable, because waiting a few months for Japan’s leadership surrender was unacceptable?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I win, under your rules of war, the japanes ear criminals, we were the police. How long do you wait to stop a mass muderer? You dont. You do everything in your power to stop a mass muderer.
> 
> Thank you for proving yourself wrong.
> 
> The mass murderer must be stopped, you do not negotiate. You stop the crime from continuing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again, you are claiming the atomic bombs were dropped on civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of other countries?
Click to expand...

Did you lose a lot of family members when we dropped the nukes?


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Why can’t you admit Truman’s actions were undeniably a war crime, for which he should have hung?
> Man up boys!


I win, under your rules of war, the Japanese are criminals, we were the police. How long do you wait to stop a mass muderer? You dont. You do everything in your power to stop a mass muderer.

Thank you for proving yourself wrong.

The mass murderer must be stopped, you do not negotiate. You stop the crime from continuing.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t you admit Truman’s actions were undeniably a war crime, for which he should have hung?
> Man up boys!
> 
> 
> 
> I win, under your rules of war, the Japanese are criminals, we were the police. How long do you wait to stop a mass muderer? You dont. You do everything in your power to stop a mass muderer.
> 
> Thank you for proving yourself wrong.
> 
> The mass murderer must be stopped, you do not negotiate. You stop the crime from continuing.
Click to expand...

Stop the mass murder by committing mass murder. 

This is the thinking of the American statist dupe.


----------



## mikegriffith1

What follows are three relatively short extracts from Dr. Peter Kuznick’s article “The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative,” published in _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _July 3, 2007. Dr. Kuznick is a professor of history at American University.

Inflated Casualty Estimates for U.S. Invasion of Japan:

This victor’s narrative privileges possible American deaths over actual Japanese ones. As critics of the bombing have become more vocal in recent years, projected American casualty estimates have grown apace--from the War Department’s 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead to Truman’s 1955 insistence that General George Marshall feared losing a half million American lives to Stimson’s 1947 claim of over 1,000,000 casualties to George H.W. Bush’s 1991 defense of Truman’s “tough calculating decision, [which] spared millions of American lives,” to the 1995 estimate of a crew member on Bock’s Car, the plane that bombed Nagasaki, who asserted that the bombing saved six million lives--one million Americans and five million Japanese. (p. 2)​
Innumerable scholars have debunked the “half a million” myth, and we know from internal War Department memos that senior military planners knew this estimate was baseless and implausible. But, as we can see, this hasn’t stopped the myth from not only being spread but from being padded. There were several reasonable versions of surrender terms that would have ended the war without an invasion, but Truman rejected every one of them, even after he learned, several weeks before Hiroshima, that the emperor wanted to end the war and that he hoped the Soviets would broker a peace deal.

The Nuking of Hiroshima Produced Limited Military Casualties Because the Bomb Was Aimed at the Civilian Part of the City:

American strategic planners targeted the civilian part of the city, maximizing the bomb’s destructive power and civilian deaths. It produced limited military casualties. Admiral William Leahy angrily told an interviewer in 1949 that although Truman told him they would “only … hit military objectives …. they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was just what they wanted all the time.” (p. 2)​
Of course, when Truman announced the nuking of Hiroshima, he not only said that Hiroshima was “a military base” but that it had been chosen “because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” It is possible that Truman did not know this was an obscene lie; he may have been merely repeating what he had been told by his military advisers and/or by Byrnes. Over 100,000 civilians were killed at Hiroshima, most of them women and children.

The Air Force Association and the American Legion Demanded that All Photos of Hiroshima Victims Be Removed from the 1995 _Enola Gay_ Exhibit:

The Smithsonian’s ill-fated 1995 _Enola Gay_ exhibit was doomed when Air Force Association and American Legion critics demanded the elimination of photos of Japanese bombing victims, particularly women and children, and insisted on removal of the charred lunch box containing carbonized rice and peas that belonged to a seventh-grade schoolgirl who disappeared in the bombing. Resisting efforts to humanize or personalize the Japanese, they objected strenuously to inclusion of photos or artifacts that would place human faces on the bombs’ victims and recall their individual suffering. (p. 3)​


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> What follows are three relatively short extracts from Dr. Peter Kuznick’s article “The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative,” published in _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _July 3, 2007. Dr. Kuznick is a professor of history at American University.
> 
> Inflated Casualty Estimates for U.S. Invasion of Japan:
> 
> This victor’s narrative privileges possible American deaths over actual Japanese ones. As critics of the bombing have become more vocal in recent years, projected American casualty estimates have grown apace--from the War Department’s 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead to Truman’s 1955 insistence that General George Marshall feared losing a half million American lives to Stimson’s 1947 claim of over 1,000,000 casualties to George H.W. Bush’s 1991 defense of Truman’s “tough calculating decision, [which] spared millions of American lives,” to the 1995 estimate of a crew member on Bock’s Car, the plane that bombed Nagasaki, who asserted that the bombing saved six million lives--one million Americans and five million Japanese. (p. 2)​
> Innumerable scholars have debunked the “half a million” myth, and we know from internal War Department memos that senior military planners knew this estimate was baseless and implausible. But, as we can see, this hasn’t stopped the myth from not only being spread but from being padded. There were several reasonable versions of surrender terms that would have ended the war without an invasion, but Truman rejected every one of them, even after he learned, several weeks before Hiroshima, that the emperor wanted to end the war and that he hoped the Soviets would broker a peace deal.
> 
> The Nuking of Hiroshima Produced Limited Military Casualties Because the Bomb Was Aimed at the Civilian Part of the City:
> 
> American strategic planners targeted the civilian part of the city, maximizing the bomb’s destructive power and civilian deaths. It produced limited military casualties. Admiral William Leahy angrily told an interviewer in 1949 that although Truman told him they would “only … hit military objectives …. they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was just what they wanted all the time.” (p. 2)​
> Of course, when Truman announced the nuking of Hiroshima, he not only said that Hiroshima was “a military base” but that it had been chosen “because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” It is possible that Truman did not know this was an obscene lie; he may have been merely repeating what he had been told by his military advisers and/or by Byrnes. Over 100,000 civilians were killed at Hiroshima, most of them women and children.
> 
> The Air Force Association and the American Legion Demanded that All Photos of Hiroshima Victims Be Removed from the 1995 _Enola Gay_ Exhibit:
> 
> The Smithsonian’s ill-fated 1995 _Enola Gay_ exhibit was doomed when Air Force Association and American Legion critics demanded the elimination of photos of Japanese bombing victims, particularly women and children, and insisted on removal of the charred lunch box containing carbonized rice and peas that belonged to a seventh-grade schoolgirl who disappeared in the bombing. Resisting efforts to humanize or personalize the Japanese, they objected strenuously to inclusion of photos or artifacts that would place human faces on the bombs’ victims and recall their individual suffering. (p. 3)​


Myths die hard to the American statist. They just can’t wrap their heads around the senseless killing committed by our government. They think condemning the killing of defenseless Japanese women and children is somehow anti American. 

Truman should have been tried and hung, just as the Nazis were at Nuremberg. FDR should have been hung in absentia.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> What follows are three relatively short extracts from Dr. Peter Kuznick’s article “The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative,” published in _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _July 3, 2007. Dr. Kuznick is a professor of history at American University.
> 
> Inflated Casualty Estimates for U.S. Invasion of Japan:
> 
> This victor’s narrative privileges possible American deaths over actual Japanese ones. As critics of the bombing have become more vocal in recent years, projected American casualty estimates have grown apace--from the War Department’s 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead to Truman’s 1955 insistence that General George Marshall feared losing a half million American lives to Stimson’s 1947 claim of over 1,000,000 casualties to George H.W. Bush’s 1991 defense of Truman’s “tough calculating decision, [which] spared millions of American lives,” to the 1995 estimate of a crew member on Bock’s Car, the plane that bombed Nagasaki, who asserted that the bombing saved six million lives--one million Americans and five million Japanese. (p. 2)​
> Innumerable scholars have debunked the “half a million” myth, and we know from internal War Department memos that senior military planners knew this estimate was baseless and implausible. But, as we can see, this hasn’t stopped the myth from not only being spread but from being padded. There were several reasonable versions of surrender terms that would have ended the war without an invasion, but Truman rejected every one of them, even after he learned, several weeks before Hiroshima, that the emperor wanted to end the war and that he hoped the Soviets would broker a peace deal.
> 
> The Nuking of Hiroshima Produced Limited Military Casualties Because the Bomb Was Aimed at the Civilian Part of the City:
> 
> American strategic planners targeted the civilian part of the city, maximizing the bomb’s destructive power and civilian deaths. It produced limited military casualties. Admiral William Leahy angrily told an interviewer in 1949 that although Truman told him they would “only … hit military objectives …. they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was just what they wanted all the time.” (p. 2)​
> Of course, when Truman announced the nuking of Hiroshima, he not only said that Hiroshima was “a military base” but that it had been chosen “because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” It is possible that Truman did not know this was an obscene lie; he may have been merely repeating what he had been told by his military advisers and/or by Byrnes. Over 100,000 civilians were killed at Hiroshima, most of them women and children.
> 
> The Air Force Association and the American Legion Demanded that All Photos of Hiroshima Victims Be Removed from the 1995 _Enola Gay_ Exhibit:
> 
> The Smithsonian’s ill-fated 1995 _Enola Gay_ exhibit was doomed when Air Force Association and American Legion critics demanded the elimination of photos of Japanese bombing victims, particularly women and children, and insisted on removal of the charred lunch box containing carbonized rice and peas that belonged to a seventh-grade schoolgirl who disappeared in the bombing. Resisting efforts to humanize or personalize the Japanese, they objected strenuously to inclusion of photos or artifacts that would place human faces on the bombs’ victims and recall their individual suffering. (p. 3)​


You are such a hack. Ignoring so many posts. No problem, I am glad to see you run and hide from every false narrative you have started.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> What follows are three relatively short extracts from Dr. Peter Kuznick’s article “The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative,” published in _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _July 3, 2007. Dr. Kuznick is a professor of history at American University.
> 
> Inflated Casualty Estimates for U.S. Invasion of Japan:
> 
> This victor’s narrative privileges possible American deaths over actual Japanese ones. As critics of the bombing have become more vocal in recent years, projected American casualty estimates have grown apace--from the War Department’s 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead to Truman’s 1955 insistence that General George Marshall feared losing a half million American lives to Stimson’s 1947 claim of over 1,000,000 casualties to George H.W. Bush’s 1991 defense of Truman’s “tough calculating decision, [which] spared millions of American lives,” to the 1995 estimate of a crew member on Bock’s Car, the plane that bombed Nagasaki, who asserted that the bombing saved six million lives--one million Americans and five million Japanese. (p. 2)​
> Innumerable scholars have debunked the “half a million” myth, and we know from internal War Department memos that senior military planners knew this estimate was baseless and implausible. But, as we can see, this hasn’t stopped the myth from not only being spread but from being padded. There were several reasonable versions of surrender terms that would have ended the war without an invasion, but Truman rejected every one of them, even after he learned, several weeks before Hiroshima, that the emperor wanted to end the war and that he hoped the Soviets would broker a peace deal.
> 
> The Nuking of Hiroshima Produced Limited Military Casualties Because the Bomb Was Aimed at the Civilian Part of the City:
> 
> American strategic planners targeted the civilian part of the city, maximizing the bomb’s destructive power and civilian deaths. It produced limited military casualties. Admiral William Leahy angrily told an interviewer in 1949 that although Truman told him they would “only … hit military objectives …. they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was just what they wanted all the time.” (p. 2)​
> Of course, when Truman announced the nuking of Hiroshima, he not only said that Hiroshima was “a military base” but that it had been chosen “because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” It is possible that Truman did not know this was an obscene lie; he may have been merely repeating what he had been told by his military advisers and/or by Byrnes. Over 100,000 civilians were killed at Hiroshima, most of them women and children.
> 
> The Air Force Association and the American Legion Demanded that All Photos of Hiroshima Victims Be Removed from the 1995 _Enola Gay_ Exhibit:
> 
> The Smithsonian’s ill-fated 1995 _Enola Gay_ exhibit was doomed when Air Force Association and American Legion critics demanded the elimination of photos of Japanese bombing victims, particularly women and children, and insisted on removal of the charred lunch box containing carbonized rice and peas that belonged to a seventh-grade schoolgirl who disappeared in the bombing. Resisting efforts to humanize or personalize the Japanese, they objected strenuously to inclusion of photos or artifacts that would place human faces on the bombs’ victims and recall their individual suffering. (p. 3)​


Uh, you do realize that once again you have offered zero proof that you are right, you simply posted something that dictates it is so?

You have zero proof that the causalties estimates were inaccurate.

Yes, you posted something that dictates what we are to believe.

And, then you can not concentrate on one topic, you ramble off into other directions.

Truly, you are an idiot.


----------



## elektra

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[113] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated.[114] Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[115] The city was defended by five batteries of 7-cm and 8-cm (2.8 and 3.1 inch) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. In total, an estimated 40,000 Japanese military personnel were stationed in the city.[116]

Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military.[117] The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops.[79] It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.[118] The center of the city contained several reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small timber workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were constructed of timber with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings were also built around timber frames. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.[119] It was the second largest city in Japan after Kyoto that was still undamaged by air raids,[120]primarily because it lacked the aircraft manufacturing industry that was the XXI Bomber Command's priority target. On July 3, the Joint Chiefs of Staff placed it off limits to bombers, along with Kokura, Niigata and Kyoto.[121]


----------



## HenryBHough

That Japan remains afloat is testimony to Democrat Truman's weakness.


----------



## elektra

Most elements of the Japanese Second General Army headquarters were undergoing physical training on the grounds of Hiroshima Castle, barely 900 yards (820 m) from the hypocenter. The attack killed 3,243 troops on the parade ground.


----------



## elektra

Sad, would you rather die due to medical experiments by the murderous japanese or a nuclear blast that ends the torture?

Eight U.S. prisoners of war killed as part of the medical experiments program at Kyushu University were falsely reported by Japanese authorities as having been killed in the atomic blast as part of an attempted cover up.[172]


----------



## elektra

20,000 koreans, conscripted, slaves, forced to work for the japanese, died in the blast. How many died before, who knows, nobody has cared about the Korean victims of the japanese.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> Most elements of the Japanese Second General Army headquarters were undergoing physical training on the grounds of Hiroshima Castle, barely 900 yards (820 m) from the hypocenter. The attack killed 3,243 troops on the parade ground.


Are you really trying to justify the bombing that killed 100,000 civilians, mostly women and children, because the Japanese had a small number of troops there?  

You can’t be serious right?  You’re joking right?


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> 20,000 koreans, conscripted, slaves, forced to work for the japanese, died in the blast. How many died before, who knows, nobody has cared about the Korean victims of the japanese.


You care about Koreans, but not Japanese. WTF!

Are you Dirty Harry Truman’s love grandchild?


----------



## elektra

Horrific Japanese Crimes in WWII That History Forgot

The atrocities committed by the Japanese military during World War Two are so brutal that it is almost impossible to comprehend them. In some ways, it may be better to forget this terrible history, yet to do so would dishonor those who suffered and died. A look at the worst of Japan's crimes in WW2 also helps us understand today's world a little better, especially the animosity Korea and China still have for Japan. Moreover, it is important that we learn and remember the horrible crimes in our recent history so that we can make sure they never happen again.

WARNING: This list contains extremely disturbing content.


----------



## elektra




----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> Horrific Japanese Crimes in WWII That History Forgot
> 
> The atrocities committed by the Japanese military during World War Two are so brutal that it is almost impossible to comprehend them. In some ways, it may be better to forget this terrible history, yet to do so would dishonor those who suffered and died. A look at the worst of Japan's crimes in WW2 also helps us understand today's world a little better, especially the animosity Korea and China still have for Japan. Moreover, it is important that we learn and remember the horrible crimes in our recent history so that we can make sure they never happen again.
> 
> WARNING: This list contains extremely disturbing content.


Okay. That’s awful. So, you think THAT justifies Truman’s incinerating 200,000 defenseless Japanese women and children?  

I keep asking you this question, but you refuse to answer.


----------



## elektra

10.2 million Chinese
According to Rummel, in *China* alone, during 1937–45, approximately 3.9 million *Chinese* were *killed*, mostly civilians, as a direct result of the *Japanese* operations and a total of 10.2 million *Chinese* were *killed* in the course of the war.


----------



## elektra




----------



## elektra

American prisoners, starved by the Japanese, beaten, tortured, many did not live after being liberated from the Japanese


----------



## elektra

https://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-louis-zamperini



> Zamperini was shipped to the Japanese mainland and eventually confined to three different interrogation centers and POW camps. Over the next two years, he suffered from disease, exposure, starvation, and near-daily beatings from guards. Japanese corporal Mutsuhiro Watanabe, nicknamed “the Bird” by the POWs, took particular glee in torturing the runner. During stints at the Omori and Naoetsu prison camps, Mutsuhiro pummeled Zamperini with clubs, belts and fists and regularly threatened to kill him. On one occasion, he had Zamperini hold a heavy wooden beam above his head and threatened to shoot him if he dropped it; on another, he forced Zamperini and other American prisoners to punch each other until they were nearly all knocked unconscious. Speaking of Mutsuhiro, Zamperini would later say he kept a watch out for him “like I was looking for a lion loose in the jungle.”


----------



## elektra

Report on American Prisoners of War in the Philippines, OPGM 1945


> *CAMP O'DONNELL*
> 
> [NOTE: See here for clarification on this next section.]
> 
> Many of the Americans who surrendered at Bataan died enroute to their final destination at Camp O'Donnell, and the health of those who survived was so undermined that they perished at the rate of fifty a day on a starvation diet in that unsavory place of internment. More than 2,000 Americans in all died there of disease and undernourishment before the others were finally moved to Cabantauan in July 1942.
> 
> Corporal Arthur A. Chenowith, an American prisoner of war at Camp O'Donnell, describes the conditions there as follows:
> From 10 Apr 1942 to 5 May 1942, (6 weeks) nearly 1600 Americans and 26,768 Filipinos died from lack of quinine and food, [although] the Japanese Army had plenty of food and medicine on hand.
> Captain Mark M. Wohfeld had this to say about the maltreatment of American prisoners of war at Camp O'Donnell:
> Lacked water. Cooking water taken from a murky creek two miles away in empty oil drums carried on bamboo poles. For drinking water the prisoners had to stand in long lines in front of 3 spigots in the center of the camp for the greater part of the day.
> 
> 3rd week: Salt, sweet potatoes and squash added to rice diet. Plenty to eat as most of the sick could not force the rice down due to malaria and dysentery. So-called hospital had patients lying in two rows on the floor which was saturated with feces, blood, and vomit: all of which was covered with flies.
> The G.H.Q. Weekly summary No. 104 of 29 October 1943


----------



## elektra

When the American invasion forces arrived on 4 February 1945 the prisoners of war had reached such a point of starvation that none of them could have survived much longer. Many of them had fallen victim to tuberculosis, dysentery, beriberi and other tropical diseases, and practically all of them were suffering from malnutrition or acute starvation. What the coming of their rescuers meant to the prisoners at this camp can scarcely be imagined by one who has never himself been in a similar situation.


----------



## gipper

^^^^^Does all this justify Truman’s actions?


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> ^^^^^Does all this justify Truman’s actions?


Yes


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^Does all this justify Truman’s actions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...

Okay. That merely proves you’re ignorant or duped. Please let me to educate you.

Committing greater atrocities to stop lesser atrocities is illogical, immoral, and abhorrent. Make no mistake, Truman’s action was a far greater atrocity than what the Japanese did. Plus, as you now know, it was entirely unnecessary since Japan was incapable of offensive action, entirely defenseless, and seeking surrender.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Okay. That merely proves you’re ignorant or duped. Please let me to educate you.
> 
> Committing greater atrocities to stop lesser atrocities is illogical, immoral, and abhorrent. Make no mistake, Truman’s action was a far greater atrocity than what the Japanese did. Plus, as you now know, it was entirely unnecessary since Japan was incapable of offensive action, entirely defenseless, and seeking surrender.


Incapable of offensive action? That is not a measure of defeat during war or even a fist fight. You are the ignorant espousing those views.

Atrocity? War by definition is an atrocity. Of course I bet you the 10 year old virgin chinese girl raped to death by a platoon of Japanese soldiers would disagree with you, as far as what is an atrocity.

Truman, sworn to protect American lives. Protect Americans from certain death. You are on the wrong side of the battle arguing we should of allowed the Japanese to continue killong.

If we were to stop fighting as you have advocated, that is surrender.

You and those who support this OP have been stating, the usa should of surrendered.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. That merely proves you’re ignorant or duped. Please let me to educate you.
> 
> Committing greater atrocities to stop lesser atrocities is illogical, immoral, and abhorrent. Make no mistake, Truman’s action was a far greater atrocity than what the Japanese did. Plus, as you now know, it was entirely unnecessary since Japan was incapable of offensive action, entirely defenseless, and seeking surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Incapable of offensive action? That is not a measure of defeat during war or even a fist fight. You are the ignorant espousing those views.
> 
> Atrocity? War by definition is an atrocity. Of course I bet you the 10 year old virgin chinese girl raped to death by a platoon of Japanese soldiers would disagree with you, as far as what is an atrocity.
> 
> Truman, sworn to protect American lives. Protect Americans from certain death. You are on the wrong side of the battle arguing we should of allowed the Japanese to continue killong.
> 
> If we were to stop fighting as you have advocated, that is surrender.
> 
> You and those who support this OP have been stating, the usa should of surrendered.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts. You are an advocate for total war. You think nothing of massacring defenseless women and children, because anything is acceptable in total war. You condemn the Japanese for atrocities, then you illogically believe it is okay for the US to commit even greater atrocities. 

This is the thinking of a totalitarian fool. Sadly, too many Americans think as you do.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> [.[
> Wrong on all counts. You are an advocate for total war. You think nothing of massacring defenseless women and children, because anything is acceptable in total war. You condemn the Japanese for atrocities, then you illogically believe it is okay for the US to commit even greater atrocities.
> 
> This is the thinking of a totalitarian fool. Sadly, too many Americans think as you do.


As I said, you are stating, the president should of surrendered.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [.[
> Wrong on all counts. You are an advocate for total war. You think nothing of massacring defenseless women and children, because anything is acceptable in total war. You condemn the Japanese for atrocities, then you illogically believe it is okay for the US to commit even greater atrocities.
> 
> This is the thinking of a totalitarian fool. Sadly, too many Americans think as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you are stating, the president should of surrendered.
Click to expand...

Please don’t be a dumbass again.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Please don’t be a dumbass again.


As I stated, you have said you would of surrendered.

You would not of bombed nor attacked Japan.

You would not of attacked Okinawa.

It is hard too see that you would of fought any part of the war.

When you stop fighting, give up, that is surrender. 

Feel free to correct me, simply calling me a dumbass does not change a valid point.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Here are a few points in reply to various responses:

* So far I’ve only cited a relatively small part of the important information in Hasegawa’s landmark book _Racing the Enemy. _For example, Hasegawa reveals that Soviet intelligence in Tokyo informed Stalin in April 1945 that the Suzuki cabinet (which began in April 1945) was looking for ways to end the war and that they (the cabinet members and others in the government) believed that Japan could, at best, only continue the war for eight more months (i.e., not past December 1945):

Stalin did not rely on Malik’s information alone to gauge Japan’s reaction. He also had the military intelligence network, which operated separately from diplomatic channels. On April 11, the Tokyo rezidentura—the headquarters of intelligence—reported that “the new cabinet, in view of the extremely unfavorable military situation and constantly worsening difficulties in the country, is pursuing an objective to create conditions for extricating Japan from the war.” More important, the rezidentura informed Moscow that the Japanese believed they could not continue the war for more than eight months, and that this period might be even shorter if the Americans intensified military actions. (pp. 56-57)​
This agrees with the conclusion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey and with numerous accounts that it was common knowledge in the War Department in spring 1945 that Japan was beaten and could not last much longer.  

* Hasegawa also points out that Stalin urged Truman to continue to insist on unconditional surrender and not to give Japan any reason to hope for conditions (pp. 85-86). Stalin feared that if Truman softened his surrender demand, the Japanese would surrender before the Soviets could enter the war (p. 86). Truman followed Stalin's advice. Just great. 

* Regarding Truman’s falsehood that Hiroshima was “a military base” and that it was bombed to “avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians,” Dr. Robert Jacobs says the following in his review of the National Geographic documentary _24 Hours After Hiroshima:_

The film reiterates the misleading claim that wartime Hiroshima was “a city of considerable military importance: it houses a communications center and an assembly area for troops.” Paradoxically the narrator then states that Hiroshima was “far from just a military target,” and that its population is 80% civilian. A communications center and assembly area hardly vest a city with “considerable military importance,” a claim that echoes the introduction of Hiroshima to the American public by Harry Truman on August 6, 1945, who referred to it as “an important military base.” Three days later Truman reinforced this, stating, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in the first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.”​
There are many points to consider here. First of all, as the film itself mentions, virtually every major city in Japan had been burned to the ground in the spring of 1945 by the firebombing squadrons of Curtis LeMay. Can it be that the US Army attacked and burned 67 cities, but preserved several targets of “considerable military importance” as showcases for future weapons? The fire-bombings crippled Japan’s war making ability and only stopped because of the lack of critical targets. The cities that were taken off the firebombing list (to preserve virgin targets so that assessments of the effects of atomic bombs could be made) were clearly of secondary importance to Japan’s ability to continue to prosecute the war.​
Consider the map below, printed in the _New York Times_ on Friday August 10, 1945 (the day after Nagasaki was bombed). This map purports to show up to 30 important targets in Hiroshima and their scale of damage after the nuclear attack. The map shows conclusively that the two or three most important military targets (the Army transport base, Army ordnance depot, food depot and clothing depot) are all located in the Ujina port area, and are outside of the area of destruction. Almost all of the “targets” that are inside the area of destruction are bridges, hardly targets that were primarily of military importance. The map vividly reveals that the bomb did not target the military assets clustered at Ujina, but rather the city center: it targeted specifically civilian Hiroshima. (p. 3) (https://apjjf.org/-Robert-Jacobs/3446/article.pdf)​
* One person has repeatedly made a big deal over the fact that the Japanese managed to shoot down one bomber among a formation of bombers and other aircraft that flew over Tokyo on August 18, four days after Japan had surrendered. In addition to the point that it was reckless for us to fly bombers over Tokyo at that time without first informing the Japanese, there is also the fact that the Japanese were understandably alarmed when the bombers appeared because we had carried out large bombing raids on Japan on August 10 and 13, and even on August 14, _after Japan had sent its acceptance of surrender in reply to the Byrnes Note._

* The cruel and unnecessary August 14 bombing included a bombing raid by 150 B-29s that dropped 700 one-ton bombs on Osaka. Again, this raid occurred _after _Japan had sent its surrender message to us through the Swiss.

Surely, surely Truman had to have some understanding that Japan’s leaders were rather busy trying to formulate a reply to the Byrnes Note, which they received on August 11. Yet, he bombed them two days later, on August 13, and then again on August 14. No one thought to make any plans to recall the bombers if Japan sent a surrender message before the bombers took off or while they were en route.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * One person has repeatedly made a big deal over the fact that the Japanese managed to shoot down one bomber among a formation of bombers and other aircraft that flew over Tokyo on August 18, four days after Japan had surrendered. In addition to the point that it was reckless for us to fly bombers over Tokyo at that time without first informing the Japanese, there is also the fact that the Japanese were understandably alarmed when the bombers appeared because we had carried out large bombing raids on Japan on August 10 and 13, and even on August 14, _after Japan had sent its acceptance of surrender in reply to the Byrnes Note._
> .


Pontificating again about a topic you know nothing about.

Why not just stick to the facts you know? Oh, that is right, you have no facts so you must lie and hope nobody takes the time to research the fable you tell.

This is a pretty big lie;


> it was reckless for us to fly bombers over Tokyo at that time without first informing the Japanese,


We did inform them, it was a condition of the cease fire agreement and written into the surrender.

We had flown over Japan the 2 days prior as well. The japanese knew we were flying photo recon missions.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here are a few points in reply to various responses:
> 
> * One person has repeatedly made a big deal over the fact that the Japanese managed to shoot down one bomber among a formation of bombers and other aircraft that flew over Tokyo on August 18, four days after Japan had surrendered. I.......
> there is also the fact that the Japanese were understandably alarmed when the bombers appeared because we had carried out large bombing raids on Japan on August 10 and 13, and even on August 14, _after Japan had sent its acceptance of surrender in reply to the Byrnes Note._
> .


Yet, interviews with the Japanese aces who shot down the recon flight tell a different story then you. They said they were angry and not about to allow our planes to fly in thier sky. They did not fear a bombing attack. There were no orders to defend,  it was simply what we fought against the entire war. THE JAPANESE WOULD NEVER SURRENDER! 

How many times can you lie in one paragraph!  The count is coming.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> He
> * One person has repeatedly made a big deal over the fact that the Japanese managed to shoot down one bomber among a formation of bombers and other aircraft that flew over Tokyo on August 18, four days after Japan had surrendered. In addition to the point that it was reckless for us to fly bombers over Tokyo at that time without first informing the Japanese, ......



It was two b-32s, flying a recon flight, the 3rd day in a row. NOT A FORMATION OF BOMBERS.

That is 3 lies in one paragraph. Why do you lie so much. If I can find 3 lies in one paragraph then everything you post must be riddled with lies.

I do thank you again, every time you post you destroy yourself. The best was when you discredited the person you based your OP on. 

You are certainly not a scholar.


----------



## elektra

The japanese, beaten, but still capable of killing, and still killing. 

A nation is a huge thing not to be compared to a boxer fighting in the ring. A nation is big enough with so many ways to kill, it is not until after they surrender and disarmed that they can be considered, not dangerous.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here are a few points in reply to various responses:
> * So far I’ve only cited a relatively small part of the important information in Hasegawa’s landmark book _Racing the Enemy. _


And it is best you only cite a small part, for the small part you have cited has proven you wrong on the Japanese willing to surrender and the impact of the Soviet Union declaring war against Japan.

You have shown that the Supreme Council never authorized any talks of peace nor surrender to anyone at anytime. Hence, there was nothing for the USA to respond to.

You have also shown that the Soviet Union declaring war on china, without the Atomic bombs, would of guaranteed war to at least November and likely longer.

You also showed that you will ignore the posts that you have no answers to, hence you conceded, you have shown, you are wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What follows are three relatively short extracts from Dr. Peter Kuznick’s article “The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative,” published in _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _July 3, 2007. Dr. Kuznick is a professor of history at American University.
> 
> Inflated Casualty Estimates for U.S. Invasion of Japan:
> 
> This victor’s narrative privileges possible American deaths over actual Japanese ones. As critics of the bombing have become more vocal in recent years, projected American casualty estimates have grown apace--from the War Department’s 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead to Truman’s 1955 insistence that General George Marshall feared losing a half million American lives to Stimson’s 1947 claim of over 1,000,000 casualties to George H.W. Bush’s 1991 defense of Truman’s “tough calculating decision, [which] spared millions of American lives,” to the 1995 estimate of a crew member on Bock’s Car, the plane that bombed Nagasaki, who asserted that the bombing saved six million lives--one million Americans and five million Japanese. (p. 2)​
> Innumerable scholars have debunked the “half a million” myth, and we know from internal War Department memos that senior military planners knew this estimate was baseless and implausible. But, as we can see, this hasn’t stopped the myth from not only being spread but from being padded. There were several reasonable versions of surrender terms that would have ended the war without an invasion, but Truman rejected every one of them, even after he learned, several weeks before Hiroshima, that the emperor wanted to end the war and that he hoped the Soviets would broker a peace deal.
> 
> The Nuking of Hiroshima Produced Limited Military Casualties Because the Bomb Was Aimed at the Civilian Part of the City:
> 
> American strategic planners targeted the civilian part of the city, maximizing the bomb’s destructive power and civilian deaths. It produced limited military casualties. Admiral William Leahy angrily told an interviewer in 1949 that although Truman told him they would “only … hit military objectives …. they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was just what they wanted all the time.” (p. 2)​
> Of course, when Truman announced the nuking of Hiroshima, he not only said that Hiroshima was “a military base” but that it had been chosen “because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” It is possible that Truman did not know this was an obscene lie; he may have been merely repeating what he had been told by his military advisers and/or by Byrnes. Over 100,000 civilians were killed at Hiroshima, most of them women and children.
> 
> The Air Force Association and the American Legion Demanded that All Photos of Hiroshima Victims Be Removed from the 1995 _Enola Gay_ Exhibit:
> 
> The Smithsonian’s ill-fated 1995 _Enola Gay_ exhibit was doomed when Air Force Association and American Legion critics demanded the elimination of photos of Japanese bombing victims, particularly women and children, and insisted on removal of the charred lunch box containing carbonized rice and peas that belonged to a seventh-grade schoolgirl who disappeared in the bombing. Resisting efforts to humanize or personalize the Japanese, they objected strenuously to inclusion of photos or artifacts that would place human faces on the bombs’ victims and recall their individual suffering. (p. 3)​
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, you do realize that once again you have offered zero proof that you are right, you simply posted something that dictates it is so?
> 
> You have zero proof that the causalties estimates were inaccurate.
> 
> Yes, you posted something that dictates what we are to believe.
> 
> And, then you can not concentrate on one topic, you ramble off into other directions.
> 
> Truly, you are an idiot.
Click to expand...



Truly, you are a hypocrite. You have been BURIED all through this thread in facts and sources that dispel the decades-old falsehoods about this terrible event, and all you do is take pictures of your bathroom, promote illogical conclusions, and insist _you_ are correct.


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> That Japan remains afloat is testimony to Democrat Truman's weakness.




_Psssst.....Islands don't really "float."


_
Are you Congressman Johnson?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * So far I’ve only cited a relatively small part of the important information in Hasegawa’s landmark book _Racing the Enemy. _.



Why did you not start, with the conclusion, that shows you are wrong? Let me quote the book for you. Here, from the book you are referencing, the blame for the atomic bombs being dropped is placed on Japan.




I am still waiting for replies to many posts. I point this out again, because you continue to hide and lie. Posting more crap that again, I easily prove is not factual.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Some here probably know who General Telford Taylor was. He was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. In 1970, Taylor wrote that while the morality of Hiroshima was debatable, he knew of no credible justification for Nagasaki, and he said Nagasaki was a war crime:

The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable, but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki. It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes” (_Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, _Chicago: Quandrangle, 1970, p. 143; see also Richard Minear, _Victors’ Justice: Tokyo War Crimes Trial_, Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 101)​
What would you say if I told you that James Byrnes, Truman’s Japan-hating secretary of state, the author of the Byrnes Note, admitted after the war that the atomic bombs did not force Japan to surrender, that Japan was already beaten before they were nuked, and that this was evidenced by Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel?!

Well, here’s how it happened: Some Japanese officials were claiming that they had had no choice but to surrender once they saw that America had nukes, and they implied that in a “fair” (i.e., conventional) fight, Japan would have defeated an American invasion of the home islands and forced America to sue for a negotiated peace.

When Byrnes heard these claims, he held a press conference on August 29 to refute them. He told reporters that Japan was already beaten before we nuked them, and as proof he cited Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel that the Japanese knew they were beaten before Hiroshima. The next day, August 30, the _New York Times _printed a story on Byrnes’ remarks—the story was titled “Japan Beaten Before Atom Bomb, Byrnes Says, Citing Peace Bids.” Dr. Peter Kuznick discusses the _New York Times_ article on Byrnes’ comments:

The _New York Times_ reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)​
Very few books on Japan’s surrender mention this amazing fact.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Some here probably know who General Telford Taylor was. He was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. In 1970, Taylor wrote that while the morality of Hiroshima was debatable, he knew of no credible justification for Nagasaki, and he said Nagasaki was a war crime:
> 
> The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable, but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki. It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes” (_Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, _Chicago: Quandrangle, 1970, p. 143; see also Richard Minear, _Victors’ Justice: Tokyo War Crimes Trial_, Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 101)​
> What would you say if I told you that James Byrnes, Truman’s Japan-hating secretary of state, the author of the Byrnes Note, admitted after the war that the atomic bombs did not force Japan to surrender, that Japan was already beaten before they were nuked, and that this was evidenced by Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel?!
> 
> Well, here’s how it happened: Some Japanese officials were claiming that they had had no choice but to surrender once they saw that America had nukes, and they implied that in a “fair” (i.e., conventional) fight, Japan would have defeated an American invasion of the home islands and forced America to sue for a negotiated peace.
> 
> When Byrnes heard these claims, he held a press conference on August 29 to refute them. He told reporters that Japan was already beaten before we nuked them, and as proof he cited Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel that the Japanese knew they were beaten before Hiroshima. The next day, August 30, the _New York Times _printed a story on Byrnes’ remarks—the story was titled “Japan Beaten Before Atom Bomb, Byrnes Says, Citing Peace Bids.” Dr. Peter Kuznick discusses the _New York Times_ article on Byrnes’ comments:
> 
> The _New York Times_ reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)​
> Very few books on Japan’s surrender mention this amazing fact.


And again you run from books you quote and statements you make. So now onto somebody else that does not matter. You could post a thousand quotes and they all have no bearing on history.

Japan lost a war because of the actions of themselves, had they surrendered, they would of saved many lives. But Japan was unwilling to surrender until we dropped two of thee deadliest weapons man has ever seen, at that time.

We saved an easy million lives, the fact that you can not post anything to dispute that fact proves once again, you are a charlatan.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> * So far I’ve only cited a relatively small part of the important information in Hasegawa’s landmark book _Racing the Enemy. _.



Why did you not start, with the conclusion, that shows you are wrong? Let me quote the book for you. Here, from the book you are referencing, the blame for the atomic bombs being dropped is placed on Japan.View attachment 282736

I am still waiting for replies to many posts. I point this out again, because you continue to hide and lie. Posting more crap that again, I easily prove is not factual.


----------



## MaryL

Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. Fuck that. We have been over this, Japan  invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere".  Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people.  Boo hoo.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. Fuck that. We have been over this, Japan  invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere".  Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people.  Boo hoo.




You really think we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians in an act of revenge on behalf of China? Really?


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> Some here probably know who General Telford Taylor was. He was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. In 1970, Taylor wrote that while the morality of Hiroshima was debatable, he knew of no credible justification for Nagasaki, and he said Nagasaki was a war crime:
> 
> The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable, but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki. It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes” (_Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, _Chicago: Quandrangle, 1970, p. 143; see also Richard Minear, _Victors’ Justice: Tokyo War Crimes Trial_, Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 101)​
> What would you say if I told you that James Byrnes, Truman’s Japan-hating secretary of state, the author of the Byrnes Note, admitted after the war that the atomic bombs did not force Japan to surrender, that Japan was already beaten before they were nuked, and that this was evidenced by Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel?!
> 
> Well, here’s how it happened: Some Japanese officials were claiming that they had had no choice but to surrender once they saw that America had nukes, and they implied that in a “fair” (i.e., conventional) fight, Japan would have defeated an American invasion of the home islands and forced America to sue for a negotiated peace.
> 
> When Byrnes heard these claims, he held a press conference on August 29 to refute them. He told reporters that Japan was already beaten before we nuked them, and as proof he cited Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel that the Japanese knew they were beaten before Hiroshima. The next day, August 30, the _New York Times _printed a story on Byrnes’ remarks—the story was titled “Japan Beaten Before Atom Bomb, Byrnes Says, Citing Peace Bids.” Dr. Peter Kuznick discusses the _New York Times_ article on Byrnes’ comments:
> 
> The _New York Times_ reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)​
> Very few books on Japan’s surrender mention this amazing fact.


Further proof Truman’s nuking of Japan was totally unnecessary, but don’t tell the duped American.


----------



## gipper

MaryL said:


> Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. Fuck that. We have been over this, Japan  invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere".  Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people.  Boo hoo.


In other words, you think mass murdering women and children of a defenseless nation is entirely okay, as long as they attacked you first. 

PS...Japan didn’t kill millions of people. You have been duped.


----------



## MaryL

I watch NHK (Japanese television) all the time, with the moving memorials of  Hiroshima every year. Its touching. But they rarely bring up Japanese imperialism and the slaughter of millions of Chinese and the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor that that started the whole thing. Perhaps they should.


----------



## MaryL

gipper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. Fuck that. We have been over this, Japan  invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere".  Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people.  Boo hoo.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you think mass murdering women and children of a defenseless nation is entirely okay, as long as they attacked you first.
> 
> PS...Japan didn’t kill millions of people. You have been duped.
Click to expand...

IN other words: Japan murdered millions,and did atrocities and that should be ignored? That Imperial  Japanese co- prosperity sphere, the rape of Nanking. Going back to the mid 30s. And then we, America , embargoed  Japan to stop their imperialism  That's what led to the Japanese attack on  Pearl harbor. Hiroshima/Nagasaki  was just payback, too bad it took twice to convince the fascist Japanese we meant business. That's on THEM.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Why did you not start, with the conclusion, that shows you are wrong? Let me quote the book for you. Here, from the book you are referencing, the blame for the atomic bombs being dropped is placed on Japan.



How does Hasegawa's conclusion "show" that I am "wrong"? Hasegawa does not say that Truman et al were blameless but that he believes that Japan's leaders, even the peace advocates, warrant more of the blame than Truman and Stalin do. I happen to disagree with Hasegawa on the apportionment of blame/responsibility, and I would note that dozens of the facts he cites point in a different direction, but his opinion on this one point does not change any of the facts that I have cited from his book. Furthermore, the articles that he wrote after his book was published clearly seem to markedly criticize Truman for his handling of the nuke decision. 

I notice you still have not addressed Hasegawa's questioning of whether the A-bomb had to be dropped or should have been dropped. I notice you still have dodged around his very clear contention that nukes played a rather minor role in Japan's surrender decision and that the Soviet invasion was by far the major reason they surrendered.




> I am still waiting for replies to many posts. I point this out again, because you continue to hide and lie. Posting more crap that again, I easily prove is not factual.



You have proven no such thing. You have ignored or failed to seriously address most of the evidence I have posted. I read your replies, but so often they are so dishonest and sophomoric that I do not respond to them.

Show me where you have "proven" that I, not to mention the scholars I've quoted, am wrong about the fact that we targeted the center of Hiroshima instead of the outskirts where the factories and military facilities were located. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Byrnes insisted that Japan was beaten before we nuked them. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Truman, instead of taking the advice of his Japan experts, took Stalin's and Byrnes' advice not to modify the surrender terms. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack. Show me where I am wrong about the fact, noted by Hasegawa, that Soviet intelligence reported that in April 1945 the Japanese knew they could not continue the war for more than another eight months. Etc., etc., etc.



> MARYL: Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. We have been over this, Japan invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere". Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland



That is a ludicrous comparison that, by the way, is based on Soviet and Chinese Communist propaganda. You have no clue what you are talking about regarding Japan's actions in China.

You do realize that Japan was capitalist and anti-Communist, right?  You do realize that Japan was the most Westernized nation in Asia at the time, right?  You do realize that Japan's main opponent in Manchuria was not the Chinese but the Soviets, right?  You do realize that Japan acquired Korea after defeating Russia, which was trying to acquire Korea too, right? You do realize that millions of Chinese sided with the Japanese against the Nationalists and the Communists, because they brought stability, law and order, and economic progress, right?



> ...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people. Boo hoo.



Leaving aside the questionable claim that Japan started the war in China, I take it you want to condemn the lesser of the evils in Asia. The Japanese army did not kill nearly as many innocent people as did the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, and they arguably did not kill as many people as did the Nationalists. In some places, such as Korea and Taiwan, Japanese rule, by any rational comparison, was moderate and beneficial.

Truman handed China over to the Communists and sentenced tens of millions of Chinese to death in so doing. Because of FDR's and Truman's pro-Soviet/pro-Communist policies on China and Korea, China fell to the Communists; the Soviets gained valuable territory in Manchuria and on key coastal islands; and we had to wage a bloody war in Korea just to free half of the country from the Communists, something that would not have been necessary if we had not demanded that Japan abandon Korea.


----------



## MaryL

Japan wasn't a blameless victim here, they precipitated  this. Japan sought  to enslave and conquer indo china. Well before there was Nazi Party , at the same time El duce Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. and his new Roman empire.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Mikegriffith1: So far I’ve only cited a relatively small part of the important information in Hasegawa’s landmark book _Racing the Enemy.
> _
> Elektra: And it is best you only cite a small part, for the small part you have cited has proven you wrong on the Japanese willing to surrender and the impact of the Soviet Union declaring war against Japan.



You have cherry-picked two statements from his book and have ignored everything else he says in the book, not to mention everything else he has said in his subsequent articles. Let us review a few facts about Hasegawa’s book, not just the two statements you have cherry-picked (and misinterpreted).

FACT: Hasegawa states in plain English that the idea that the nukes caused Japan to surrender and that nuking Japan saved American lives is a “myth," and he says that  there were alternatives to nuking Japan that Truman failed to pursue:

Americans still cling to the myth that the atomic bombs provided the knockout punch to the Japanese government. The decision to use the bomb saved not only American soldiers but also the Japanese, according to this narrative. This myth serves to justify Truman’s decision and ease the collective American conscience. To this extent, it is important to American national identity. But as this book demonstrates, this myth cannot be supported by historical facts. Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration, for reasons of its own, declined to pursue. . . .​
Justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki by making a historically unsustainable argument that the atomic bombs ended the war is no longer tenable. (pp. 299-300)​
Needless to say, this is not your position, but it is the position that I have defended throughout this thread.

FACT: Hasegawa says that “even without the atomic bombs,” Japan “most likely” would have surrendered “shortly after Soviet entry into the war” (p. 296).

This is my position, and it is miles from your position.

FACT: Hasegawa says that the two atomic bombs alone, without the Soviet invasion, “most likely would _not_ have prompted the Japanese to surrender” (p. 296). A few pages later Hasegawa makes an even strong statement along this line:

On the basis of the available evidence, however, it is clear that the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone were _not_ decisive in inducing Japan to surrender. Despite their destructive power, the atomic bombs were not sufficient to change the direction of Japanese diplomacy. The Soviet invasion was. (p. 298)​
This is nearly identical to my position, but it is miles from your position.

FACT: Hasegawa notes that Stalin hoped that Japan would not surrender before the Soviets were able to enter the war. The Soviets were worried that Truman would soften the surrender terms and that Japan would surrender before the Soviet Union could enter the war. Therefore, Stalin urged Truman to continue to insist on unconditional surrender:

To his mind, the war would have to last long enough for the Soviet Union to join it. . . .​
Stalin also feared the early termination of the war as a result of Japan’s premature acceptance of surrender. In order to prolong the war long enough for the Soviets to complete their preparations to attack Japan, he urged the United States to adhere to the unconditional surrender demand. (p. 86)​
I think it’s a travesty that Truman chose to follow the advice of one of the biggest mass murders in world history. You, on the other hand, have ducked and dodged all over the place when confronted with the fact that Truman followed the very policy that Stalin wanted him to follow.

By the way, Hasegawa also notes that Stalin was worried about the peace feelers that Japan was sending through Sweden and Switzerland (p. 88). We know Truman was made aware of these peace feelers, yet he did nothing to pursue them. Nor did Truman modify the surrender terms even after he learned that Hirohito himself wanted to end the war, that Hirohito had authorized an approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal, and that the only real obstacle was the fear that the emperor would be deposed in unconditional surrender. We know that in May, Acting Secretary of State Grew carefully explained to Truman that the Japanese would never surrender if they believed we would depose the emperor. Grew also explained how and why the emperor's power was limited by Japanese law and tradition. But Truman, bound by his unbelievably ignorant belief that the emperor was one of the militarists, wouldn't listen. 

FACT: Hasegawa notes that the peace faction had to be careful or else the hardliners might force the appointment of a new cabinet, and violent hardliners might assassinate peace advocates:

Togo also knew how delicate the domestic situation was. One false step and the cabinet might implode, or political figures who worked for peace might be assassinated. (p. 95)​
FACT: In May 1945, the Big Six adopted a document that stated that “Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire” (p. 73).

This explains why the hardliners on the Big Six immediately agreed to convene a Big Six meeting after they learned of the Soviet invasion, whereas they saw no need for a Big Six meeting after they learned of Hiroshima.


----------



## gipper

MaryL said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. Fuck that. We have been over this, Japan  invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere".  Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people.  Boo hoo.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you think mass murdering women and children of a defenseless nation is entirely okay, as long as they attacked you first.
> 
> PS...Japan didn’t kill millions of people. You have been duped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IN other words: Japan murdered millions,and did atrocities and that should be ignored? That Imperial  Japanese co- prosperity sphere, the rape of Nanking. Going back to the mid 30s. And then we, America , embargoed  Japan to stop their imperialism  That's what led to the Japanese attack on  Pearl harbor. Hiroshima/Nagasaki  was just payback, too bad it took twice to convince the fascist Japanese we meant business. That's on THEM.
Click to expand...

So this argument keeps rearing it’s ugly head. 

Your position is since the Japanese committed atrocities, the USA is justified in committing atrocities. I don’t accept this. We shouldn’t mass murder civilians because our enemy does it. There is no justification for committing atrocities EVER. 

Truman was a terribly flawed and ignorant man. He believed as you do.

FDR set up events for a Japan’s attack and knew it was forthcoming. Please get informed.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not start, with the conclusion, that shows you are wrong? Let me quote the book for you. Here, from the book you are referencing, the blame for the atomic bombs being dropped is placed on Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does Hasegawa's conclusion "show" that I am "wrong"? Hasegawa does not say that Truman et al were blameless but that he believes that Japan's leaders, even the peace advocates, warrant more of the blame than Truman and Stalin do. I happen to disagree with Hasegawa on the apportionment of blame/responsibility, and I would note that dozens of the facts he cites point in a different direction, but his opinion on this one point does not change any of the facts that I have cited from his book. Furthermore, the articles that he wrote after his book was published clearly seem to markedly criticize Truman for his handling of the nuke decision.
> 
> I notice you still have not addressed Hasegawa's questioning of whether the A-bomb had to be dropped or should have been dropped. I notice you still have dodged around his very clear contention that nukes played a rather minor role in Japan's surrender decision and that the Soviet invasion was by far the major reason they surrendered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for replies to many posts. I point this out again, because you continue to hide and lie. Posting more crap that again, I easily prove is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proven no such thing. You have ignored or failed to seriously address most of the evidence I have posted. I read your replies, but so often they are so dishonest and sophomoric that I do not respond to them.
> 
> Show me where you have "proven" that I, not to mention the scholars I've quoted, am wrong about the fact that we targeted the center of Hiroshima instead of the outskirts where the factories and military facilities were located. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Byrnes insisted that Japan was beaten before we nuked them. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Truman, instead of taking the advice of his Japan experts, took Stalin's and Byrnes' advice not to modify the surrender terms. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack. Show me where I am wrong about the fact, noted by Hasegawa, that Soviet intelligence reported that in April 1945 the Japanese knew they could not continue the war for more than another eight months. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MARYL: Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. We have been over this, Japan invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere". Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a ludicrous comparison that, by the way, is based on Soviet and Chinese Communist propaganda. You have no clue what you are talking about regarding Japan's actions in China.
> 
> You do realize that Japan was capitalist and anti-Communist, right?  You do realize that Japan was the most Westernized nation in Asia at the time, right?  You do realize that Japan's main opponent in Manchuria was not the Chinese but the Soviets, right?  You do realize that Japan acquired Korea after defeating Russia, which was trying to acquire Korea too, right? You do realize that millions of Chinese sided with the Japanese against the Nationalists and the Communists, because they brought stability, law and order, and economic progress, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people. Boo hoo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the questionable claim that Japan started the war in China, I take it you want to condemn the lesser of the evils in Asia. The Japanese army did not kill nearly as many innocent people as did the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, and they arguably did not kill as many people as did the Nationalists. In some places, such as Korea and Taiwan, Japanese rule, by any rational comparison, was moderate and beneficial.
> 
> Truman handed China over to the Communists and sentenced tens of millions of Chinese to death in so doing. Because of FDR's and Truman's pro-Soviet/pro-Communist policies on China and Korea, China fell to the Communists; the Soviets gained valuable territory in Manchuria and on key coastal islands; and we had to wage a bloody war in Korea just to free half of the country from the Communists, something that would not have been necessary if we had not demanded that Japan abandon Korea.
Click to expand...

Only the parts you dictate are fact, are fact?

You quote and cite a book for weeks and when I open my copy of the book and literally show what it states it is now wrong.

Well there you again, another source you used in confidence you now discredit. 

If I keep at you, you will eventually discredit all your sources. 

Technically, and person with a little bit of honesty and integrity is able to analyze events in history and write informative books on the subject.

That is what this book is, sure, there is some opinion in his book but at the same time he placed the blame on the people responsible.

You can not swallow that fact, too bad for you.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not start, with the conclusion, that shows you are wrong? Let me quote the book for you. Here, from the book you are referencing, the blame for the atomic bombs being dropped is placed on Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does Hasegawa's conclusion "show" that I am "wrong"? Hasegawa does not say that Truman et al were blameless but that he believes that Japan's leaders, even the peace advocates, warrant more of the blame than Truman and Stalin do. I happen to disagree with Hasegawa on the apportionment of blame/responsibility, and I would note that dozens of the facts he cites point in a different direction, but his opinion on this one point does not change any of the facts that I have cited from his book. Furthermore, the articles that he wrote after his book was published clearly seem to markedly criticize Truman for his handling of the nuke decision.
> 
> I notice you still have not addressed Hasegawa's questioning of whether the A-bomb had to be dropped or should have been dropped. I notice you still have dodged around his very clear contention that nukes played a rather minor role in Japan's surrender decision and that the Soviet invasion was by far the major reason they surrendered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for replies to many posts. I point this out again, because you continue to hide and lie. Posting more crap that again, I easily prove is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proven no such thing. You have ignored or failed to seriously address most of the evidence I have posted. I read your replies, but so often they are so dishonest and sophomoric that I do not respond to them.
> 
> Show me where you have "proven" that I, not to mention the scholars I've quoted, am wrong about the fact that we targeted the center of Hiroshima instead of the outskirts where the factories and military facilities were located. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Byrnes insisted that Japan was beaten before we nuked them. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Truman, instead of taking the advice of his Japan experts, took Stalin's and Byrnes' advice not to modify the surrender terms. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack. Show me where I am wrong about the fact, noted by Hasegawa, that Soviet intelligence reported that in April 1945 the Japanese knew they could not continue the war for more than another eight months. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MARYL: Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. We have been over this, Japan invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere". Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a ludicrous comparison that, by the way, is based on Soviet and Chinese Communist propaganda. You have no clue what you are talking about regarding Japan's actions in China.
> 
> You do realize that Japan was capitalist and anti-Communist, right?  You do realize that Japan was the most Westernized nation in Asia at the time, right?  You do realize that Japan's main opponent in Manchuria was not the Chinese but the Soviets, right?  You do realize that Japan acquired Korea after defeating Russia, which was trying to acquire Korea too, right? You do realize that millions of Chinese sided with the Japanese against the Nationalists and the Communists, because they brought stability, law and order, and economic progress, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people. Boo hoo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the questionable claim that Japan started the war in China, I take it you want to condemn the lesser of the evils in Asia. The Japanese army did not kill nearly as many innocent people as did the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, and they arguably did not kill as many people as did the Nationalists. In some places, such as Korea and Taiwan, Japanese rule, by any rational comparison, was moderate and beneficial.
> 
> Truman handed China over to the Communists and sentenced tens of millions of Chinese to death in so doing. Because of FDR's and Truman's pro-Soviet/pro-Communist policies on China and Korea, China fell to the Communists; the Soviets gained valuable territory in Manchuria and on key coastal islands; and we had to wage a bloody war in Korea just to free half of the country from the Communists, something that would not have been necessary if we had not demanded that Japan abandon Korea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the parts you dictate are fact, are fact?
> 
> You quote and cite a book for weeks and when I open my copy of the book and literally show what it states it is now wrong.
> 
> Well there you again, another source you used in confidence you now discredit.
> 
> If I keep at you, you will eventually discredit all your sources.
> 
> Technically, and person with a little bit of honesty and integrity is able to analyze events in history and write informative books on the subject.
> 
> That is what this book is, sure, there is some opinion in his book but at the same time he placed the blame on the people responsible.
> 
> You can not swallow that fact, too bad for you.
Click to expand...


You believe the following:

1. Total war is what you do in war. 
2. Mass murdering civilians in war is entirely justified and should be utilized as needed, to win the war. 
3. The nuking of Japan was necessary to end the war and was entirely justified. 
4. Unconditional surrender is what our leaders demanded and it must be imposed, no matter the costs. 
5. Occupying Japan was necessary. 
6. The mass murder committed by the Japanese, justifies the US government mass murdering Japanese civilians. 
7. The Japanese were unprovoked by FDR and committed a sneak attack on Pear Harbor, in which the US was caught off guard. 
8. Since they attacked a military base sneakily and were entirely unprovoked, the US government has the right to murder and destroy all of Japan. 

Please let me know which points I got wrong?


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not start, with the conclusion, that shows you are wrong? Let me quote the book for you. Here, from the book you are referencing, the blame for the atomic bombs being dropped is placed on Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does Hasegawa's conclusion "show" that I am "wrong"? Hasegawa does not say that Truman et al were blameless but that he believes that Japan's leaders, even the peace advocates, warrant more of the blame than Truman and Stalin do. I happen to disagree with Hasegawa on the apportionment of blame/responsibility, and I would note that dozens of the facts he cites point in a different direction, but his opinion on this one point does not change any of the facts that I have cited from his book. Furthermore, the articles that he wrote after his book was published clearly seem to markedly criticize Truman for his handling of the nuke decision.
> 
> I notice you still have not addressed Hasegawa's questioning of whether the A-bomb had to be dropped or should have been dropped. I notice you still have dodged around his very clear contention that nukes played a rather minor role in Japan's surrender decision and that the Soviet invasion was by far the major reason they surrendered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for replies to many posts. I point this out again, because you continue to hide and lie. Posting more crap that again, I easily prove is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proven no such thing. You have ignored or failed to seriously address most of the evidence I have posted. I read your replies, but so often they are so dishonest and sophomoric that I do not respond to them.
> 
> Show me where you have "proven" that I, not to mention the scholars I've quoted, am wrong about the fact that we targeted the center of Hiroshima instead of the outskirts where the factories and military facilities were located. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Byrnes insisted that Japan was beaten before we nuked them. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Truman, instead of taking the advice of his Japan experts, took Stalin's and Byrnes' advice not to modify the surrender terms. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack. Show me where I am wrong about the fact, noted by Hasegawa, that Soviet intelligence reported that in April 1945 the Japanese knew they could not continue the war for more than another eight months. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MARYL: Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. We have been over this, Japan invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere". Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a ludicrous comparison that, by the way, is based on Soviet and Chinese Communist propaganda. You have no clue what you are talking about regarding Japan's actions in China.
> 
> You do realize that Japan was capitalist and anti-Communist, right?  You do realize that Japan was the most Westernized nation in Asia at the time, right?  You do realize that Japan's main opponent in Manchuria was not the Chinese but the Soviets, right?  You do realize that Japan acquired Korea after defeating Russia, which was trying to acquire Korea too, right? You do realize that millions of Chinese sided with the Japanese against the Nationalists and the Communists, because they brought stability, law and order, and economic progress, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people. Boo hoo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the questionable claim that Japan started the war in China, I take it you want to condemn the lesser of the evils in Asia. The Japanese army did not kill nearly as many innocent people as did the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, and they arguably did not kill as many people as did the Nationalists. In some places, such as Korea and Taiwan, Japanese rule, by any rational comparison, was moderate and beneficial.
> 
> Truman handed China over to the Communists and sentenced tens of millions of Chinese to death in so doing. Because of FDR's and Truman's pro-Soviet/pro-Communist policies on China and Korea, China fell to the Communists; the Soviets gained valuable territory in Manchuria and on key coastal islands; and we had to wage a bloody war in Korea just to free half of the country from the Communists, something that would not have been necessary if we had not demanded that Japan abandon Korea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the parts you dictate are fact, are fact?
> 
> You quote and cite a book for weeks and when I open my copy of the book and literally show what it states it is now wrong.
> 
> Well there you again, another source you used in confidence you now discredit.
> 
> If I keep at you, you will eventually discredit all your sources.
> 
> Technically, and person with a little bit of honesty and integrity is able to analyze events in history and write informative books on the subject.
> 
> That is what this book is, sure, there is some opinion in his book but at the same time he placed the blame on the people responsible.
> 
> You can not swallow that fact, too bad for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe the following:
> 
> 1. Total war is what you do in war.
> 2. Mass murdering civilians in war is entirely justified and should be utilized as needed, to win the war.
> 3. The nuking of Japan was necessary to end the war and was entirely justified.
> 4. Unconditional surrender is what our leaders demanded and it must be imposed, no matter the costs.
> 5. Occupying Japan was necessary.
> 6. The mass murder committed by the Japanese, justifies the US government mass murdering Japanese civilians.
> 7. The Japanese were unprovoked by FDR and committed a sneak attack on Pear Harbor, in which the US was caught off guard.
> 8. Since they attacked a military base sneakily and were entirely unprovoked, the US government has the right to murder and destroy all of Japan.
> 
> Please let me know which points I got wrong?
Click to expand...

Waking up?


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> You have cherry-picked two statements from his book and have ignored everything else he says in the book, not to mention everything else he has said in his subsequent articles. .


Cherry picked? I quoted the conclusion. It is funny, reading your replies. The conclusion, the whole book summarized in the authors conclusion.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not start, with the conclusion, that shows you are wrong? Let me quote the book for you. Here, from the book you are referencing, the blame for the atomic bombs being dropped is placed on Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does Hasegawa's conclusion "show" that I am "wrong"? Hasegawa does not say that Truman et al were blameless but that he believes that Japan's leaders, even the peace advocates, warrant more of the blame than Truman and Stalin do. I happen to disagree with Hasegawa on the apportionment of blame/responsibility, and I would note that dozens of the facts he cites point in a different direction, but his opinion on this one point does not change any of the facts that I have cited from his book. Furthermore, the articles that he wrote after his book was published clearly seem to markedly criticize Truman for his handling of the nuke decision.
> 
> I notice you still have not addressed Hasegawa's questioning of whether the A-bomb had to be dropped or should have been dropped. I notice you still have dodged around his very clear contention that nukes played a rather minor role in Japan's surrender decision and that the Soviet invasion was by far the major reason they surrendered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for replies to many posts. I point this out again, because you continue to hide and lie. Posting more crap that again, I easily prove is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proven no such thing. You have ignored or failed to seriously address most of the evidence I have posted. I read your replies, but so often they are so dishonest and sophomoric that I do not respond to them.
> 
> Show me where you have "proven" that I, not to mention the scholars I've quoted, am wrong about the fact that we targeted the center of Hiroshima instead of the outskirts where the factories and military facilities were located. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Byrnes insisted that Japan was beaten before we nuked them. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Truman, instead of taking the advice of his Japan experts, took Stalin's and Byrnes' advice not to modify the surrender terms. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack. Show me where I am wrong about the fact, noted by Hasegawa, that Soviet intelligence reported that in April 1945 the Japanese knew they could not continue the war for more than another eight months. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MARYL: Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. We have been over this, Japan invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere". Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a ludicrous comparison that, by the way, is based on Soviet and Chinese Communist propaganda. You have no clue what you are talking about regarding Japan's actions in China.
> 
> You do realize that Japan was capitalist and anti-Communist, right?  You do realize that Japan was the most Westernized nation in Asia at the time, right?  You do realize that Japan's main opponent in Manchuria was not the Chinese but the Soviets, right?  You do realize that Japan acquired Korea after defeating Russia, which was trying to acquire Korea too, right? You do realize that millions of Chinese sided with the Japanese against the Nationalists and the Communists, because they brought stability, law and order, and economic progress, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people. Boo hoo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the questionable claim that Japan started the war in China, I take it you want to condemn the lesser of the evils in Asia. The Japanese army did not kill nearly as many innocent people as did the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, and they arguably did not kill as many people as did the Nationalists. In some places, such as Korea and Taiwan, Japanese rule, by any rational comparison, was moderate and beneficial.
> 
> Truman handed China over to the Communists and sentenced tens of millions of Chinese to death in so doing. Because of FDR's and Truman's pro-Soviet/pro-Communist policies on China and Korea, China fell to the Communists; the Soviets gained valuable territory in Manchuria and on key coastal islands; and we had to wage a bloody war in Korea just to free half of the country from the Communists, something that would not have been necessary if we had not demanded that Japan abandon Korea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the parts you dictate are fact, are fact?
> 
> You quote and cite a book for weeks and when I open my copy of the book and literally show what it states it is now wrong.
> 
> Well there you again, another source you used in confidence you now discredit.
> 
> If I keep at you, you will eventually discredit all your sources.
> 
> Technically, and person with a little bit of honesty and integrity is able to analyze events in history and write informative books on the subject.
> 
> That is what this book is, sure, there is some opinion in his book but at the same time he placed the blame on the people responsible.
> 
> You can not swallow that fact, too bad for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe the following:
> 
> 1. Total war is what you do in war.
> 2. Mass murdering civilians in war is entirely justified and should be utilized as needed, to win the war.
> 3. The nuking of Japan was necessary to end the war and was entirely justified.
> 4. Unconditional surrender is what our leaders demanded and it must be imposed, no matter the costs.
> 5. Occupying Japan was necessary.
> 6. The mass murder committed by the Japanese, justifies the US government mass murdering Japanese civilians.
> 7. The Japanese were unprovoked by FDR and committed a sneak attack on Pear Harbor, in which the US was caught off guard.
> 8. Since they attacked a military base sneakily and were entirely unprovoked, the US government has the right to murder and destroy all of Japan.
> 
> Please let me know which points I got wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Waking up?
Click to expand...

That’s really sad. It merely proves you aren’t informed and you are a terrible blood thirsty warmonger. 

Is it any wonder our government pursues nonstop war, when so many Americans think as you do?

A nation founded on limited government and nonintervention is neither, and amazingly many Americans still revere it.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you not start, with the conclusion, that shows you are wrong? Let me quote the book for you. Here, from the book you are referencing, the blame for the atomic bombs being dropped is placed on Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does Hasegawa's conclusion "show" that I am "wrong"? Hasegawa does not say that Truman et al were blameless but that he believes that Japan's leaders, even the peace advocates, warrant more of the blame than Truman and Stalin do. I happen to disagree with Hasegawa on the apportionment of blame/responsibility, and I would note that dozens of the facts he cites point in a different direction, but his opinion on this one point does not change any of the facts that I have cited from his book. Furthermore, the articles that he wrote after his book was published clearly seem to markedly criticize Truman for his handling of the nuke decision.
> 
> I notice you still have not addressed Hasegawa's questioning of whether the A-bomb had to be dropped or should have been dropped. I notice you still have dodged around his very clear contention that nukes played a rather minor role in Japan's surrender decision and that the Soviet invasion was by far the major reason they surrendered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for replies to many posts. I point this out again, because you continue to hide and lie. Posting more crap that again, I easily prove is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proven no such thing. You have ignored or failed to seriously address most of the evidence I have posted. I read your replies, but so often they are so dishonest and sophomoric that I do not respond to them.
> 
> Show me where you have "proven" that I, not to mention the scholars I've quoted, am wrong about the fact that we targeted the center of Hiroshima instead of the outskirts where the factories and military facilities were located. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Byrnes insisted that Japan was beaten before we nuked them. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Truman, instead of taking the advice of his Japan experts, took Stalin's and Byrnes' advice not to modify the surrender terms. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack. Show me where I am wrong about the fact, noted by Hasegawa, that Soviet intelligence reported that in April 1945 the Japanese knew they could not continue the war for more than another eight months. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MARYL: Yeah, America just nuked Japan for fun. Nagasaki was just double the fun. We have been over this, Japan invaded China in the 30s as part of the "co prosperity sphere". Just like say, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and started WII because it was part of the Sudetenland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a ludicrous comparison that, by the way, is based on Soviet and Chinese Communist propaganda. You have no clue what you are talking about regarding Japan's actions in China.
> 
> You do realize that Japan was capitalist and anti-Communist, right?  You do realize that Japan was the most Westernized nation in Asia at the time, right?  You do realize that Japan's main opponent in Manchuria was not the Chinese but the Soviets, right?  You do realize that Japan acquired Korea after defeating Russia, which was trying to acquire Korea too, right? You do realize that millions of Chinese sided with the Japanese against the Nationalists and the Communists, because they brought stability, law and order, and economic progress, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...poor little Japan, starting war and killing millions of innocent people. Boo hoo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leaving aside the questionable claim that Japan started the war in China, I take it you want to condemn the lesser of the evils in Asia. The Japanese army did not kill nearly as many innocent people as did the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, and they arguably did not kill as many people as did the Nationalists. In some places, such as Korea and Taiwan, Japanese rule, by any rational comparison, was moderate and beneficial.
> 
> Truman handed China over to the Communists and sentenced tens of millions of Chinese to death in so doing. Because of FDR's and Truman's pro-Soviet/pro-Communist policies on China and Korea, China fell to the Communists; the Soviets gained valuable territory in Manchuria and on key coastal islands; and we had to wage a bloody war in Korea just to free half of the country from the Communists, something that would not have been necessary if we had not demanded that Japan abandon Korea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the parts you dictate are fact, are fact?
> 
> You quote and cite a book for weeks and when I open my copy of the book and literally show what it states it is now wrong.
> 
> Well there you again, another source you used in confidence you now discredit.
> 
> If I keep at you, you will eventually discredit all your sources.
> 
> Technically, and person with a little bit of honesty and integrity is able to analyze events in history and write informative books on the subject.
> 
> That is what this book is, sure, there is some opinion in his book but at the same time he placed the blame on the people responsible.
> 
> You can not swallow that fact, too bad for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe the following:
> 
> 1. Total war is what you do in war.
> 2. Mass murdering civilians in war is entirely justified and should be utilized as needed, to win the war.
> 3. The nuking of Japan was necessary to end the war and was entirely justified.
> 4. Unconditional surrender is what our leaders demanded and it must be imposed, no matter the costs.
> 5. Occupying Japan was necessary.
> 6. The mass murder committed by the Japanese, justifies the US government mass murdering Japanese civilians.
> 7. The Japanese were unprovoked by FDR and committed a sneak attack on Pear Harbor, in which the US was caught off guard.
> 8. Since they attacked a military base sneakily and were entirely unprovoked, the US government has the right to murder and destroy all of Japan.
> 
> Please let me know which points I got wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Waking up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s really sad. It merely proves you aren’t informed and you are a terrible blood thirsty warmonger.
> 
> Is it any wonder our government pursues nonstop war, when so many Americans think as you do?
> 
> A nation founded on limited government and nonintervention is neither, and amazingly many Americans still revere it.
Click to expand...

Oops, A man so afraid of war is easily hurt with words. You should never fight for freedom let alone post on message boards.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Hasegawa's conclusion "show" that I am "wrong"? Hasegawa does not say that Truman et al were blameless but that he believes that Japan's leaders, even the peace advocates, warrant more of the blame than Truman and Stalin do. I happen to disagree with Hasegawa on the apportionment of blame/responsibility, and I would note that dozens of the facts he cites point in a different direction, but his opinion on this one point does not change any of the facts that I have cited from his book. Furthermore, the articles that he wrote after his book was published clearly seem to markedly criticize Truman for his handling of the nuke decision.
> 
> I notice you still have not addressed Hasegawa's questioning of whether the A-bomb had to be dropped or should have been dropped. I notice you still have dodged around his very clear contention that nukes played a rather minor role in Japan's surrender decision and that the Soviet invasion was by far the major reason they surrendered.
> 
> You have proven no such thing. You have ignored or failed to seriously address most of the evidence I have posted. I read your replies, but so often they are so dishonest and sophomoric that I do not respond to them.
> 
> Show me where you have "proven" that I, not to mention the scholars I've quoted, am wrong about the fact that we targeted the center of Hiroshima instead of the outskirts where the factories and military facilities were located. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Byrnes insisted that Japan was beaten before we nuked them. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Truman, instead of taking the advice of his Japan experts, took Stalin's and Byrnes' advice not to modify the surrender terms. Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack. Show me where I am wrong about the fact, noted by Hasegawa, that Soviet intelligence reported that in April 1945 the Japanese knew they could not continue the war for more than another eight months. Etc., etc., etc.
> 
> That is a ludicrous comparison that, by the way, is based on Soviet and Chinese Communist propaganda. You have no clue what you are talking about regarding Japan's actions in China.
> 
> You do realize that Japan was capitalist and anti-Communist, right?  You do realize that Japan was the most Westernized nation in Asia at the time, right?  You do realize that Japan's main opponent in Manchuria was not the Chinese but the Soviets, right?  You do realize that Japan acquired Korea after defeating Russia, which was trying to acquire Korea too, right? You do realize that millions of Chinese sided with the Japanese against the Nationalists and the Communists, because they brought stability, law and order, and economic progress, right?
> 
> Leaving aside the questionable claim that Japan started the war in China, I take it you want to condemn the lesser of the evils in Asia. The Japanese army did not kill nearly as many innocent people as did the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, and they arguably did not kill as many people as did the Nationalists. In some places, such as Korea and Taiwan, Japanese rule, by any rational comparison, was moderate and beneficial.
> 
> Truman handed China over to the Communists and sentenced tens of millions of Chinese to death in so doing. Because of FDR's and Truman's pro-Soviet/pro-Communist policies on China and Korea, China fell to the Communists; the Soviets gained valuable territory in Manchuria and on key coastal islands; and we had to wage a bloody war in Korea just to free half of the country from the Communists, something that would not have been necessary if we had not demanded that Japan abandon Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the parts you dictate are fact, are fact?
> 
> You quote and cite a book for weeks and when I open my copy of the book and literally show what it states it is now wrong.
> 
> Well there you again, another source you used in confidence you now discredit.
> 
> If I keep at you, you will eventually discredit all your sources.
> 
> Technically, and person with a little bit of honesty and integrity is able to analyze events in history and write informative books on the subject.
> 
> That is what this book is, sure, there is some opinion in his book but at the same time he placed the blame on the people responsible.
> 
> You can not swallow that fact, too bad for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe the following:
> 
> 1. Total war is what you do in war.
> 2. Mass murdering civilians in war is entirely justified and should be utilized as needed, to win the war.
> 3. The nuking of Japan was necessary to end the war and was entirely justified.
> 4. Unconditional surrender is what our leaders demanded and it must be imposed, no matter the costs.
> 5. Occupying Japan was necessary.
> 6. The mass murder committed by the Japanese, justifies the US government mass murdering Japanese civilians.
> 7. The Japanese were unprovoked by FDR and committed a sneak attack on Pear Harbor, in which the US was caught off guard.
> 8. Since they attacked a military base sneakily and were entirely unprovoked, the US government has the right to murder and destroy all of Japan.
> 
> Please let me know which points I got wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Waking up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s really sad. It merely proves you aren’t informed and you are a terrible blood thirsty warmonger.
> 
> Is it any wonder our government pursues nonstop war, when so many Americans think as you do?
> 
> A nation founded on limited government and nonintervention is neither, and amazingly many Americans still revere it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops, A man so afraid of war is easily hurt with words. You should never fight for freedom let alone post on message boards.
Click to expand...

Yes you love war, which only proves you are a complete idiot.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the parts you dictate are fact, are fact?
> 
> You quote and cite a book for weeks and when I open my copy of the book and literally show what it states it is now wrong.
> 
> Well there you again, another source you used in confidence you now discredit.
> 
> If I keep at you, you will eventually discredit all your sources.
> 
> Technically, and person with a little bit of honesty and integrity is able to analyze events in history and write informative books on the subject.
> 
> That is what this book is, sure, there is some opinion in his book but at the same time he placed the blame on the people responsible.
> 
> You can not swallow that fact, too bad for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe the following:
> 
> 1. Total war is what you do in war.
> 2. Mass murdering civilians in war is entirely justified and should be utilized as needed, to win the war.
> 3. The nuking of Japan was necessary to end the war and was entirely justified.
> 4. Unconditional surrender is what our leaders demanded and it must be imposed, no matter the costs.
> 5. Occupying Japan was necessary.
> 6. The mass murder committed by the Japanese, justifies the US government mass murdering Japanese civilians.
> 7. The Japanese were unprovoked by FDR and committed a sneak attack on Pear Harbor, in which the US was caught off guard.
> 8. Since they attacked a military base sneakily and were entirely unprovoked, the US government has the right to murder and destroy all of Japan.
> 
> Please let me know which points I got wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Waking up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s really sad. It merely proves you aren’t informed and you are a terrible blood thirsty warmonger.
> 
> Is it any wonder our government pursues nonstop war, when so many Americans think as you do?
> 
> A nation founded on limited government and nonintervention is neither, and amazingly many Americans still revere it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops, A man so afraid of war is easily hurt with words. You should never fight for freedom let alone post on message boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you love war, which only proves you are a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

I love freedom, you prove you are a coward.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe the following:
> 
> 1. Total war is what you do in war.
> 2. Mass murdering civilians in war is entirely justified and should be utilized as needed, to win the war.
> 3. The nuking of Japan was necessary to end the war and was entirely justified.
> 4. Unconditional surrender is what our leaders demanded and it must be imposed, no matter the costs.
> 5. Occupying Japan was necessary.
> 6. The mass murder committed by the Japanese, justifies the US government mass murdering Japanese civilians.
> 7. The Japanese were unprovoked by FDR and committed a sneak attack on Pear Harbor, in which the US was caught off guard.
> 8. Since they attacked a military base sneakily and were entirely unprovoked, the US government has the right to murder and destroy all of Japan.
> 
> Please let me know which points I got wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Waking up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s really sad. It merely proves you aren’t informed and you are a terrible blood thirsty warmonger.
> 
> Is it any wonder our government pursues nonstop war, when so many Americans think as you do?
> 
> A nation founded on limited government and nonintervention is neither, and amazingly many Americans still revere it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops, A man so afraid of war is easily hurt with words. You should never fight for freedom let alone post on message boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you love war, which only proves you are a complete idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love freedom, you prove you are a coward.
Click to expand...

LOL. 

Freedom is not war and it is not mass murdering defenseless civilians. It is most certainly is not doing the bidding of the ruling class. 

Why don’t statist know this fundamental truth?


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Only the parts you dictate are fact, are fact? You quote and cite a book for weeks and when I open my copy of the book and literally show what it states it is now wrong.
> Well there you again, another source you used in confidence you now discredit. If I keep at you, you will eventually discredit all your sources.



This is getting silly. You have quoted a few lines from the book and have interpreted them rather expansively, to say the least, whereas I have quoted numerous substantial statements from the book, and you have done nothing but duck and dodge in response to those quotes. I have proven that Hasegawa's research supports my position on virtually key point I have made.

You made a big deal over Hasegawa's statement that Japan's leaders bear more of the "responsibility" for the destructive end of the war than do Truman and Stalin, as if this statement somehow addresses or refutes all the facts that I've cited from Hasegawa's book.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "responsibility" and "guilt/blame." I am responsible for my children's conduct, but not necessarily guilty of it or to blame for it. A military commander is responsible for the conduct of his troops, even when they perform actions without his knowledge or consent. Hasegawa's opinion that Japan's leaders bear more responsibility for the war's end than do Truman and Stalin does not change the fact that he also says that Truman did not need to nuke Japan, that the nukes did not end the war, that the nukes did not save American lives, that Truman failed to pursue alternatives to nuking, that the Japanese would have surrendered soon after the Soviet invasion without nukes being used, etc., etc.

I don't happen to agree with Hasegawa on the assignment of responsibility, but this is not a major issue. Similarly, it does not bother me that Hasegawa opines that  Truman was not a "villain." I myself am unsure whether Truman acted out of malice or out of ignorance and incompetence, or a mix of both. There are two or three other issues where I disagree with Hasegawa, but on the whole he and I agree about 85% of the time. The central point is that Hasegawa argues that Truman did not need to nuke Japan, that there were alternatives to nuking that Truman refused to pursue, that the atomic bombings did not end the war nor save American lives, etc., etc.

Finally, regarding the B-32 that was "shot down" over Tokyo on August 18, you are correct that there were only two B-32s, but neither bomber was shot down. It is rather telling that the 17 Japanese fighters that intercepted the two B-32s did not shoot down either of them, contrary to what you seemed to imply. Neither bomber was shot down, but one of the crew members was mortally wounded during the aerial combat. Furthermore, we flew B-32s over Tokyo the day before, on August 17, and they were intercepted and shot at but were not shot down. The Japanese did not know that the B-32s were doing recon missions because we didn't bother to tell them.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been nuked by two small formations of three bombers each, the Japanese were understandably alarmed by the sight of two B-32s over Tokyo, in addition to the fact that we had carried out a huge bombing raid on Osaka on August 14, _after_ Japan had surrendered.


----------



## miketx

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Japs shoulda surrendered sooner.


----------



## gipper

miketx said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Japs shoulda surrendered sooner.
Click to expand...

They tried to surrender but Dirty Harry ignored them, so that he could nuke them. He really liked mass murdering defenseless Japanese women and children.  Plus he wanted to impress Uncle Joe.


----------



## miketx

gipper said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Japs shoulda surrendered sooner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender but Dirty Harry ignored them, so that he could nuke them. He really liked mass murdering defenseless Japanese women and children.  Plus he wanted to impress Uncle Joe.
Click to expand...

you're a fucking liar.


----------



## gipper

miketx said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Japs shoulda surrendered sooner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender but Dirty Harry ignored them, so that he could nuke them. He really liked mass murdering defenseless Japanese women and children.  Plus he wanted to impress Uncle Joe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're a fucking liar.
Click to expand...

You’re a fucking uninformed idiot.  Get informed.


----------



## HenryBHough

If Truman had more than a one-time use pair of nuts he'd have nuked Moscow when he finished with Japan.  Even if he had to wait a few months whilst the boffins brewed 'nother nuke.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is getting silly. You have quoted a few lines from the book and have interpreted them rather expansively, to say the least, whereas I have quoted numerous substantial statements from the book, and you have done nothing but duck and dodge in response to those quotes. I have proven that Hasegawa's research supports my position on virtually key point I have made.


I have responded much to your comments. When your first few lines prove to be lies, that makes all you state a lie.

When a few of your quotes proves your post wrong, what more can I do.

Ducking and dodging, that is what you have done. Care for a list of posts you never ever responded to!

And again, I quoted the conclusion of the book which placed the blame for the atomic bombs squarely as the responsibility of the actions the Japanese took. Call the conclusion anything you like. Either way it is the conclusion of the book you brought into this OP. 

You dont like the conclusion your book established? Then quit using google and actually read the book! You dont need to be blindsided.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> They tried to surrender but Dirty Harry ignored them, so that he could nuke them. He really liked mass murdering defenseless Japanese women and children.  Plus he wanted to impress Uncle Joe.


They tried surrendering by killing a 1000 men? Really? go ahead and explain how that works.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They tried to surrender but Dirty Harry ignored them, so that he could nuke them. He really liked mass murdering defenseless Japanese women and children.  Plus he wanted to impress Uncle Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> They tried surrendering by killing a 1000 men? Really? go ahead and explain how that works.
Click to expand...

Sorry I can’t explain anything to someone of your exceedingly low intelligence. It just can’t be done. 

KILL...KILL...KILL...


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> [
> 
> Sorry I can’t explain anything to someone of your exceedingly low intelligence. It just can’t be done.
> 
> KILL...KILL...KILL...


You can not explain anything to anyone of any intelligence. That is your failure, another of your pathetic shortcomings. The inability to articulate your opinion so others are able to comprehend.


----------



## mikegriffith1

As I've said, I agree with about 85% of Hasegawa's position, or, to put it another way, Hasegawa's research supports about 85% of my position. 

The only substantive issue where I disagree with Hasegawa to a substantial degree is his argument that Japan would not have surrendered before November 1 without a Soviet invasion and without nukes. 

Hasegawa acknowledges that the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) reached the opposite conclusion, but he contends that the USSBS got it wrong and that some of the Survey's evidence contradicted their conclusion (pp. 294-295). 

It is true that some of the Japanese officials whom the USSBS interviewed said Japan would have kept fighting after November 1 with a Soviet invasion and without nukes, while others said the opposite. The USSBS and Hasegawa each weighed the conflicting evidence and simply reached different conclusions. 

Yet, Hasegawa himself notes that Soviet intelligence reported in April 1945 that the new Japanese cabinet and other officials believed that, at best, Japan could only continue fighting until December (pp. 56-57). 

Anyway, on the most crucial points, I agree with Hasegawa, namely, that Truman did not need to nuke Japan, that the atomic bombings did not save American lives, that Truman failed to pursue alternatives to nuking, that the nukes did not cause Japan to surrender, and that Japan surrendered because of the Soviet invasion.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> As I've said, I agree with about 85% of Hasegawa's position, or, to put it another way, Hasegawa's research supports about 85% of my position.


As you dictate. You certainly are an arrogant prick. Hasegawa's supports your position? Hasegawa' wrote his book to support your position,? Yet, you call using his conclusion cherry picking? You are wrong, history is a bitch, you can't win against the facts.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> It is true that some of the Japanese officials whom the USSBS interviewed said Japan would have kept fighting after November 1 with a Soviet invasion and without nukes, while others said the opposite. The USSBS and Hasegawa each weighed the conflicting evidence and simply reached different conclusions.



In the first sentence, "with a Soviet invasion" should read "without a Soviet invasion."


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Cherry picked? I quoted the conclusion. It is funny, reading your replies. The conclusion, the whole book summarized in the authors conclusion.



Uh, you didn't "quote the conclusion"--you cherry-picked two statements _from _the multi-page conclusion. You ignored the fact that Hasegawa says that Truman did not need to nuke Japan, that the nukes did not cause Japan to surrender, that nuking Japan did not save American lives, and that the Soviet invasion was the reason Japan surrendered.

You ignored all of those key points and cherry-picked two statements, one of which said that Truman was not a villain, and the other of which said that Japan bore more of the responsibility for the war's destructive ending than did Truman or Stalin.

Now, regarding the claim that Japan started the war with China, leaving aside the important point that there really was no sovereign country of "China" at the time but rather areas controlled by different factions that claimed to be "China," people who claim that Japan started the war must be unaware of a huge body of information on this issue.

The war started in 1937 when full-scale fighting began in Shanghai following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. But that fighting erupted because the Nationalists, led by Chiang Kaishek, decided to break the existing truce and attacked the Japanese district in Shanghai with two divisions. Chiang Kaishek apparently believed he could quickly overwhelm the small Japanese force in the area, but he turned out to be badly mistaken. Unlike the previous time when the Nationalists had picked a fight with the Japanese in Shanghai, this time the Japanese were not willing to agree to a settlement but instead decided it was time to drive the Nationalists out of Shanghai and take control of the city. As Far East expert Peter Harmsen points out, the Japanese had no desire to fight over Shanghai; indeed, senior Japanese generals believed the army was overextended and did not want to try to take Shanghai--they wanted to reach a long-term deal with the Nationalists and pull back into Manchuria:

Japan, on the other hand, only entered the battle reluctantly. The army already felt overstretched in the north of China, and for the wrong reasons. Many Japanese generals considered the Soviet Union to be the main threat and the one that most resources had to be directed towards. The Chinese themselves understood this was the case, and on occasion admitted so in public. “Japan had no wish to fight at Shanghai,” Chinese General Zhang Fakui, one of the top field commanders during the struggle for the city, said in a post-war interview. “It should be simple to see that we took the initiative.” (_Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941, _Kindle Edition, Casemate Publishers, 2018, loc. 1453)​
Nevertheless, FDR and his leftist allies in the press, not to mention the Chinese Communists and Nationalists and the Soviet Union, all claimed that the Japanese taking of Shanghai was another example of Japanese aggression.

Before the fighting began in Shanghai, Japan had made a very reasonable peace offer, and there were plenty of people in the Nationalist camp who thought the offer was a good one. It would have left the Nationalists in control of most of China and would have required only tacit recognition of Japan's state in Manchuria: Manchukuo.

But, soon after Japan announced this peace initiative, Chiang Kaishek recklessly moved four divisions into the area, whereas the Japanese only had a fraction of that number of troops in the area. Naturally, the movement of four divisions into the area alarmed the Japanese, especially given that they had just made a credible and reasonable peace offer. Even then, the Japanese continued their peace initiative, and then Chiang Kaishek attacked the Japanese area of Shanghai, and the war was on.

Some people here don’t seem to understand that the Japanese were “already in Shanghai” because they had a legal right, by treaty, to be there, as did the Americans, the British, the Dutch, and the Germans. Like every other country that had a legal presence in Shanghai, the Japanese had a small force there to protect Japanese citizens in the city. Most Japanese lived in the Shanghai district called Hongkew, and Hongkew became known as Little Tokyo.  

We should also keep in mind that during WWI, Japan overtook Britain as the country with the largest number of its citizens living in Shanghai and in China as a whole. By the early 1930s, Japanese citizens in China accounted for about 80% of the foreigners who were living in the country.

Until James Crowley's seminal research on the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in his book _Japan's Quest for Autonomy_, nearly everyone believed the Chinese Nationalists' and Communists’ claim that the Japanese army had engineered it. Crowley found strong evidence that this was not the case. Yet, some authors still repeat the myth that the Japanese engineered the incident.

Peter Harmsen examines the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in detail in chapter 3 of his previously mentioned book _Storm Clouds Over the Pacific, 1931-1941. _Another good source on the incident is Hata Ikuhiko's chapter "The Marco Polo Bridge Incident, 1937," in _The China Quagmire _(Columbia University Press, 1983).


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, you didn't "quote the conclusion"--you cherry-picked two statements _from _the multi-page conclusion.
> 
> You ignored the fact that Hasegawa says that Truman did not need to nuke Japan, that the nukes did not cause Japan to surrender, that nuking Japan did not save American lives, and that the Soviet invasion was the reason Japan surrendered.
> .


Cherry picking, cherry picking, call it what you wish. We all see that you do nothing but pick up rotten fruit from the ground.

I did not quote the conclusion but I did quote from the conclusion, you say? 

You are truly a fool. Your posts are literally unfocused and rambling. They do not address one singular aspect of the Pacific War. They contain bits and pieces of many different things. Trying to get you to focus on one aspect has been impossible.

I guess that is my fault, I should of.asked you to focus on one aspect before running off in ten different directions.

How am I to address an entire book in one post? Of course I picked parts that prove points that you will not be able to answer. Of course I do not address entire chapters in one post.

Cherry picking? I am far from done as to quoting the book to prove how wrong you are. Yes, you are scatterbraines. Me, I am targeting your obvious failures that destroys your opinion which is based on propaganda.


----------



## mikegriffith1

miketx said:


> Japs shoulda surrendered sooner.



I take it you haven't read the rest of the thread. The peace faction, which included the emperor, his aides, and several senior military officials, was trying to bring about a surrender months before Hiroshima, and some Japanese officials began to initiate peace feelers with American officials through third parties in April, three months before Hirosima. I detailed some of these approaches in a previous reply. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender_, and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.

But Truman, ignorantly doing Stalin's bidding, refused to follow up on any of these peace feelers, even though he was aware of them.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> I take it you haven't read the rest of the thread. The peace faction, which included the emperor, his aides, and several senior military officials, was trying to bring about a surrender months before Hiroshima, and some Japanese officials began to initiate peace feelers with American officials through third parties in April, three months before Hirosima. I detailed some of these approaches in a previous reply. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender_, and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.
> 
> But Truman, ignorantly doing Stalin's bidding, refused to follow up on any of these peace feelers, even though he was aware of them.


More bullshit. Peace feelers? 

The Supreme Council never authorized anybody to negotiate peace. You stated nothing happened in Japan without the Supreme Council first authorizing any action. Have you forgotten this? 

John Toland? I thinks you should read the book before you think that John Toland will help you here. It clearly spells out in The Rising Sun that the Japanese were not going to surrender and the the Japanese seeking peace were far from being authorized to seek peace. 

John Tolands book will show that Dulles was authorized to negotiate peace but the Japanese who approached did not have an official agreement and were acting as renegades. 

No serious peace offer was ever made by the Japanese, anything and everything was vague. But go ahead and cite something specific, instead of offering you poor paraphrasing of something you found with google.


----------



## elektra

And more posts ignored by the grifter1. mikegrifter1 ignores much he does not have answers to.


----------



## elektra

mikegriffith1 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that some of the Japanese officials whom the USSBS interviewed said Japan would have kept fighting after November 1 with a Soviet invasion and without nukes, while others said the opposite. The USSBS and Hasegawa each weighed the conflicting evidence and simply reached different conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the first sentence, "with a Soviet invasion" should read "without a Soviet invasion."
Click to expand...

Speculating on what could or would of happened. Had the USA not dropped the bombs, the Soviet Union would not of declared war on Japan. 

Russia had to race to get into the war, after dragging its feet for so many months, years. Once the bombs started to drop, Russia new Japan was beat and it would be a matter of days before they surrendered directly to the USA. Hence, Russia entered the war so that they could gain territory. 

Without the bombs, it is doubtful Russia would of declared war against Japan. They were waiting for the end, so that they would not have to spend their resources needlessly. Why waste men's lives when the USA had lives to waste.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you haven't read the rest of the thread. The peace faction, which included the emperor, his aides, and several senior military officials, was trying to bring about a surrender months before Hiroshima, and some Japanese officials began to initiate peace feelers with American officials through third parties in April, three months before Hirosima. I detailed some of these approaches in a previous reply. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender_, and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.
> 
> But Truman, ignorantly doing Stalin's bidding, refused to follow up on any of these peace feelers, even though he was aware of them.
> 
> 
> 
> More bullshit. Peace feelers?
> 
> The Supreme Council never authorized anybody to negotiate peace. You stated nothing happened in Japan without the Supreme Council first authorizing any action. Have you forgotten this?
> 
> John Toland? I thinks you should read the book before you think that John Toland will help you here. It clearly spells out in The Rising Sun that the Japanese were not going to surrender and the the Japanese seeking peace were far from being authorized to seek peace.
> 
> John Tolands book will show that Dulles was authorized to negotiate peace but the Japanese who approached did not have an official agreement and were acting as renegades.
> 
> No serious peace offer was ever made by the Japanese, anything and everything was vague. But go ahead and cite something specific, instead of offering you poor paraphrasing of something you found with google.
Click to expand...

A closed mind is a terrible thing to witness. 

Why do you admire Dirty Harry Truman?  He clearly was a fool.


----------



## mikegriffith1

elektra said:


> Cherry picking, cherry picking, call it what you wish. We all see that you do nothing but pick up rotten fruit from the ground.
> 
> I did not quote the conclusion but I did quote from the conclusion, you say?
> 
> You are truly a fool. Your posts are literally unfocused and rambling. They do not address one singular aspect of the Pacific War. They contain bits and pieces of many different things. Trying to get you to focus on one aspect has been impossible.
> 
> I guess that is my fault, I should of.asked you to focus on one aspect before running off in ten different directions.
> 
> How am I to address an entire book in one post? Of course I picked parts that prove points that you will not be able to answer. Of course I do not address entire chapters in one post.
> 
> Cherry picking? I am far from done as to quoting the book to prove how wrong you are. Yes, you are scatterbraines. Me, I am targeting your obvious failures that destroys your opinion which is based on propaganda.



You are not to be taken seriously. You have quoted nothing from Hasegawa's book that I haven't been able to answer, not to mention that you've quoted very little from his book. It is comical that you keep pretending that Hasegawa supports your position in any substantial way. Are you not aware that the Truman apologists whose works you are using have all bitterly attacked Hasegawa's book?

I have emphasized four key points throughout this thread, and Hasegawa supports every one of them, namely:

* Truman did not need to nuke Japan.
* Nuking Japan did not save American lives.
* Truman had alternatives to nuking that he failed to pursue.
* The Soviet invasion, not the nukes, caused Japan to surrender.

Let's quote Hasegawa again, just in case you suffer another memory lapse:

Americans still cling to the myth that the atomic bombs provided the knockout punch to the Japanese government. The decision to use the bomb saved not only American soldiers but also the Japanese, according to this narrative. This myth serves to justify Truman’s decision and ease the collective American conscience. To this extent, it is important to American national identity. But as this book demonstrates, this myth cannot be supported by historical facts. Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration, for reasons of its own, declined to pursue. . . .​
Justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki by making a historically unsustainable argument that the atomic bombs ended the war is no longer tenable. (pp. 299-300)​
And:

Therefore, even without the atomic bombs, the war most likely would have ended shortly after Soviet entry into the war--before November 1. (p. 296)​


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cherry picking, cherry picking, call it what you wish. We all see that you do nothing but pick up rotten fruit from the ground.
> 
> I did not quote the conclusion but I did quote from the conclusion, you say?
> 
> You are truly a fool. Your posts are literally unfocused and rambling. They do not address one singular aspect of the Pacific War. They contain bits and pieces of many different things. Trying to get you to focus on one aspect has been impossible.
> 
> I guess that is my fault, I should of.asked you to focus on one aspect before running off in ten different directions.
> 
> How am I to address an entire book in one post? Of course I picked parts that prove points that you will not be able to answer. Of course I do not address entire chapters in one post.
> 
> Cherry picking? I am far from done as to quoting the book to prove how wrong you are. Yes, you are scatterbraines. Me, I am targeting your obvious failures that destroys your opinion which is based on propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not to be taken seriously. You have quoted nothing from Hasegawa's book that I haven't been able to answer, not to mention that you've quoted very little from his book. It is comical that you keep pretending that Hasegawa supports your position in any substantial way. Are you not aware that the Truman apologists whose works you are using have all bitterly attacked Hasegawa's book?
> 
> I have emphasized four key points throughout this thread, and Hasegawa supports every one of them, namely:
> 
> * Truman did not need to nuke Japan.
> * Nuking Japan did not save American lives.
> * Truman had alternatives to nuking that he failed to pursue.
> * The Soviet invasion, not the nukes, caused Japan to surrender.
> 
> Let's quote Hasegawa again, just in case you suffer another memory lapse:
> 
> Americans still cling to the myth that the atomic bombs provided the knockout punch to the Japanese government. The decision to use the bomb saved not only American soldiers but also the Japanese, according to this narrative. This myth serves to justify Truman’s decision and ease the collective American conscience. To this extent, it is important to American national identity. But as this book demonstrates, this myth cannot be supported by historical facts. Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration, for reasons of its own, declined to pursue. . . .​
> Justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki by making a historically unsustainable argument that the atomic bombs ended the war is no longer tenable. (pp. 299-300)​
> And:
> 
> Therefore, even without the atomic bombs, the war most likely would have ended shortly after Soviet entry into the war--before November 1. (p. 296)​
Click to expand...

Some Americans are too feeble minded to accept the fact that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary, to say nothing of the terrible immortality. It’s just a bridge too far.


----------



## mikegriffith1

gipper said:


> Some Americans are too feeble minded to accept the fact that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary, to say nothing of the terrible immortality. It’s just a bridge too far.



And what is sad and ironic is that many of those Americans are conservatives--they just seem to have a mental/emotional block when it comes to this issue. They will excoriate FDR and Truman on a host of other issues, and rightfully so, but they can't seem to bring themselves to condemn FDR for his treasonous and/or horrendous handling of WW II nor to condemn Truman for his treasonous and/or horrible handling of the end of the Pacific War and its aftermath.


----------



## Persistence Of Memory

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.


That was a 550 ft home run.

Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.

More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter..


----------



## mikegriffith1

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.



This is a disingenuous argument and an erroneous comparison. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic. I won't go through the list of FDR's provocations, not to mention his rejection of all of Japan's peace offers. To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's nuke attacks on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians, especially when he knew Japan was already beaten and trying to surrender, is absurd.



Persistence Of Memory said:


> That was a 550 ft home run.



Perhaps if you're in grade school it might seem like a "home run." Actually, it's a silly and simplistic argument, not to mention an erroneous comparison that ignores most of the relevant facts.



> Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.



So, I take it you haven't read the thread. The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender. We did not need to nuke Japan. Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.



> More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter.



The A-bomb did not save one American life because it did not cause Japan to surrender, as numerous scholars have documented. Again, I take it you have not bothered to read the thread. There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes. Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender. Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.


----------



## candycorn

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a disingenuous argument and an erroneous comparison. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic. I won't go through the list of FDR's provocations, not to mention his rejection of all of Japan's peace offers. To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's A-bomb attack on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians when he knew most of Japan's leaders wanted to surrender is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a 550 ft home run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you're in grade school it might seem like a "home run." Actually, it's a silly and simplistic argument, not to mention an erroneous comparison that ignores most of the relevant facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I take it you haven't read the thread. The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender. We did not need to nuke Japan. Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The A-bomb did not save one American life because it did not cause Japan to surrender, as numerous scholars have documented. Again, I take it you have not bothered to read the thread. There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes. Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender. Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.
Click to expand...

And the Jap attack on Manila, Guam, China, Bali....what was that?


----------



## candycorn

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a disingenuous argument and an erroneous comparison. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic. I won't go through the list of FDR's provocations, not to mention his rejection of all of Japan's peace offers. To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's nuke attacks on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians when he knew Japan was already beaten and trying to surrender is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a 550 ft home run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you're in grade school it might seem like a "home run." Actually, it's a silly and simplistic argument, not to mention an erroneous comparison that ignores most of the relevant facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I take it you haven't read the thread. The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender. We did not need to nuke Japan. Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The A-bomb did not save one American life because it did not cause Japan to surrender, as numerous scholars have documented. Again, I take it you have not bothered to read the thread. There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes. Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender. Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the oft repeated saying....don’t start none and there won’t be none.  Our response with Japan were in line with their barbaric actions.


----------



## mikegriffith1

candycorn said:


> And the Jap attack on Manila, Guam, China, Bali....what was that?



Sigh. . . .  Just sigh. . . . Gosh, really? After all the facts presented in this thread about what FDR was doing to the Japanese to choke their economy and provoke them to fight, this is your response? And "China"?! You must be kidding. Go back and read this thread.

And, of course, you still ignore the clear evidence that FDR *wanted* Japan to attack. We know this from Stimson's diary and from the McCollum Memo, among other sources.


----------



## Persistence Of Memory

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a disingenuous argument and an erroneous comparison. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic. I won't go through the list of FDR's provocations, not to mention his rejection of all of Japan's peace offers. To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's nuke attacks on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians, especially when he knew Japan was already beaten and trying to surrender, is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a 550 ft home run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you're in grade school it might seem like a "home run." Actually, it's a silly and simplistic argument, not to mention an erroneous comparison that ignores most of the relevant facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I take it you haven't read the thread. The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender. We did not need to nuke Japan. Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The A-bomb did not save one American life because it did not cause Japan to surrender, as numerous scholars have documented. Again, I take it you have not bothered to read the thread. There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes. Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender. Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.
Click to expand...

How old are you? I got a lot of my info from my father, who was actually there for yrs.He knew a lot. I read history books, real books.

There seems to be a heck of a lot of arm chair quarterbacks and Monday Morning 20/20 rear hindsighters on this thread.

So this thread is not for me. Thanks for your responses.


----------



## mikegriffith1

candycorn said:


> Reminds me of the oft repeated saying....don’t start none and there won’t be none.



There is just no getting you to engage in a reasoned, fact-based discussion on this issue, is there?  And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?



> Our response with Japan were in line with their barbaric actions.



There you go again acting like all Japanese were guilty of the actions of the bad actors in the army. Pray tell: What barbaric actions did the women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit? What barbaric actions did the seniors, women, and children in the 65 cities that we fire-bombed and/or naval-bombarded commit?

What percentage of Japanese soldiers do you believe committed war crimes, and what percentage of Japan's population do you believe those soldiers constituted?


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.


Sadly, you find murdering everyone at Pearl Harbor more justified for some bizarre reason.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Reminds me of the oft repeated saying....don’t start none and there won’t be none.  Our response with Japan were in line with their barbaric actions.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> And who starts a fight:


The one who drops bombs to brutally murder _thousands_ of people at Pearl Harbor. That is who starts a fight, dumb ass.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?


Listen snowflake...stop trolling USMB. Only a fuck'n idiot would think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. I'm not buying your shit. You're just looking to get a rise out of people because you're bored.

Grow up and find a hobby. Seriously.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> You are not to be taken seriously.


Says the immature asshat trolling from his mom's basement. 

Snowflake, the only tragedy with Japan is that we didn't drop a third nuclear bomb on their evil ass. They came looking for a fight and they found it. They deserved a LOT worse than they got.

Now stop your immature nonsense and move along so the adults can have a conversation.


----------



## mikegriffith1

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you find murdering everyone at Pearl Harbor more justified for some bizarre reason.
Click to expand...


I think his point is that the Japanese attack on the U.S. military ships and planes at Pearl Harbor was far more justified than Truman's atomic-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were filled mostly with women, children, and seniors, especially given the fact that Truman knew that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, were ready to surrender, if only he would guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed, and that Japanese officials had been sending out peace feelers for weeks.

Are you ever going to answer the question of what you think any other country would do if three major nations ganged up on it and did to it what the U.S., England, and Holland were doing to Japan? What do you think any nation would do if three other nations froze its assets, making it virtually impossible for it to make purchases on the international market, cut off 90% of its oil supply, cut off most of its supply of vital raw materials, moved a major naval base thousands of miles closer to it, and also stationed bombers within 700 miles of its territory and within 600 miles of some of its military installations--and then rejected every reasonable peace offer that the nation made to get those hostile acts revoked? Hey?

And are you ever going to address the evidence that FDR *wanted* Japan to attack and that in one White House meeting he even talked about maneuvering Japan into firing the first shot?


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you find murdering everyone at Pearl Harbor more justified for some bizarre reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think his point is that the Japanese attack on the U.S. military ships and planes at Pearl Harbor was far more justified than Truman's atomic-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Click to expand...

Yeah. No shit. That is *exactly* what I said.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Are you ever going to answer the question of what you think any other country would do if three major nations ganged up on it and did to it what the U.S., England, and Holland were doing to Japan?


Any rational leader would do nothing. They would just go about their business and make trade agreements with nations willing to work with them.

Only a fuck'n tyrant (and idiot) believes that a nation refusing to engage in trade with them justifies a surprise bombing.


----------



## mikegriffith1

P@triot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the immature asshat trolling from his mom's basement.
> , the only tragedy with Japan is that we didn't drop a third nuclear bomb on their evil ass. They came looking for a fight and they found it. They deserved a LOT worse than they got.
> 
> Now stop your immature nonsense and move along so the adults can have a conversation.
Click to expand...


Your jingoistic ignorance is matched only by your rudeness. You are no "patriot." Your heroes FDR and Truman handed over hundreds of millions of people to Communism, preserved one of the most murderous regimes in modern history, and enabled another historically murderous regime to come to power. 

Determined to preserve and aid the Soviet Union, FDR picked a fight with our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan, refused all of Japan's peace offers, and saved the Soviet Union. Then, his lackluster VP took Stalin's advice and refused to modify the surrender terms because he was determined to drop at least two nukes, and then he proceeded to hand over China to the Maoist Communists and thereby sentenced at least 30 million Chinese to death.

If that's your version of "patriotism," Eisenhower and a whole bunch of other senior military officers weren't patriotic.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you find murdering everyone at Pearl Harbor more justified for some bizarre reason.
Click to expand...

What?  Now that’s fucked up. 

First you will find no one more anti war than me. War is a racket and always about the health of the State. War is never necessary and is almost always a set up. 

Secondly, you believe the Japanese murdered everyone at Pearl Harbor. Really?  Apparently you haven’t looked at the casualty counts. 

Here’s an exercise for you, if you are competent. Please compare the casualties at Pearl with those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Can you do that?


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the immature asshat trolling from his mom's basement.
> , the only tragedy with Japan is that we didn't drop a third nuclear bomb on their evil ass. They came looking for a fight and they found it. They deserved a LOT worse than they got.
> 
> Now stop your immature nonsense and move along so the adults can have a conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your jingoistic ignorance is matched only by your rudeness. You are no "patriot." Your heroes FDR and Truman handed over hundreds of millions of people to Communism, preserved one of the most murderous regimes in modern history, and enabled another historically murderous regime to come to power.
> 
> Determined to preserve and aid the Soviet Union, FDR picked a fight with our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan, refused all of Japan's peace offers, and saved the Soviet Union. Then, his lackluster VP took Stalin's advice and refused to modify the surrender terms because he was determined to drop at least two nukes, and then he proceeded to hand over China to the Maoist Communists and thereby sentenced at least 30 million Chinese to death.
> 
> If that's your version of "patriotism," Eisenhower and a whole bunch of other senior military officers weren't patriotic.
Click to expand...

So much truth in that post, that it must blow the mind of the uninformed statist American.


----------



## gipper

Persistence Of Memory said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a disingenuous argument and an erroneous comparison. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic. I won't go through the list of FDR's provocations, not to mention his rejection of all of Japan's peace offers. To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's nuke attacks on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians, especially when he knew Japan was already beaten and trying to surrender, is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a 550 ft home run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you're in grade school it might seem like a "home run." Actually, it's a silly and simplistic argument, not to mention an erroneous comparison that ignores most of the relevant facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Japanese casualties saved because of the Bombs far outweigh Nagasaki. We would have had to attack Japan all over their country tearing it to pieces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I take it you haven't read the thread. The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender. We did not need to nuke Japan. Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly is the AMERICAN LIVES saved from slaughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The A-bomb did not save one American life because it did not cause Japan to surrender, as numerous scholars have documented. Again, I take it you have not bothered to read the thread. There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes. Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender. Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old are you? I got a lot of my info from my father, who was actually there for yrs.He knew a lot. I read history books, real books.
> 
> There seems to be a heck of a lot of arm chair quarterbacks and Monday Morning 20/20 rear hindsighters on this thread.
> 
> So this thread is not for me. Thanks for your responses.
Click to expand...

Get informed. Read this and tell me what you think of it. 

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb | Ralph Raico


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Jap attack on Manila, Guam, China, Bali....what was that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh. . . .  Just sigh. . . . Gosh, really? After all the facts presented in this thread about what FDR was doing to the Japanese to choke their economy and provoke them to fight, this is your response? And "China"?! You must be kidding. Go back and read this thread.
> 
> And, of course, you still ignore the clear evidence that FDR *wanted* Japan to attack. We know this from Stimson's diary and from the McCollum Memo, among other sources.
Click to expand...

It’s as if their brain shut down after third grade.  They just can’t allow for additional learning. Particularly so in Candycane’s case.


----------



## Persistence Of Memory

P@triot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?
> 
> 
> 
> Listen snowflake...stop trolling USMB. Only a fuck'n idiot would think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. I'm not buying your shit. You're just looking to get a rise out of people because you're bored.
> 
> Grow up and find a hobby. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Do some people here realize that we were in a F war???

Were we supposed to get permission first??

This thread is total nonsense.


----------



## candycorn

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of the oft repeated saying....don’t start none and there won’t be none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is just no getting you to engage in a reasoned, fact-based discussion on this issue, is there?  And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?
Click to expand...

The guy who throws the first punch


mikegriffith1 said:


> There you go again acting like all Japanese were guilty of the actions of the bad actors in the army. Pray tell: What barbaric actions did the women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit? What barbaric actions did the seniors, women, and children in the 65 cities that we fire-bombed and/or naval-bombarded commit?
> 
> What percentage of Japanese soldiers do you believe committed war crimes, and what percentage of Japan's population do you believe those soldiers constituted?



don’t know, don’t care.  Our actions were justified


----------



## gipper

Persistence Of Memory said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?
> 
> 
> 
> Listen snowflake...stop trolling USMB. Only a fuck'n idiot would think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. I'm not buying your shit. You're just looking to get a rise out of people because you're bored.
> 
> Grow up and find a hobby. Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do some people here realize that we were in a F war???
> 
> Were we supposed to get permission first??
> 
> This thread is total nonsense.
Click to expand...

LMFAO. 

You think mass murdering defenseless civilians is entirely just and right, because it’s war.  WTF!  So, the mass murdering by the Nazis and Japanese is okay, because it’s war.  Apparently the Nuremberg Trials were unnecessary, because it’s war. 

I find that kind of thinking disgusting and ignorant...AND ENTIRELY UN-AMERICAN.


----------



## Persistence Of Memory

gipper said:


> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?
> 
> 
> 
> Listen snowflake...stop trolling USMB. Only a fuck'n idiot would think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. I'm not buying your shit. You're just looking to get a rise out of people because you're bored.
> 
> Grow up and find a hobby. Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do some people here realize that we were in a F war???
> 
> Were we supposed to get permission first??
> 
> This thread is total nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO.
> 
> You think mass murdering defenseless civilians is entirely just and right, because it’s war.  WTF!  So, the mass murdering by the Nazis and Japanese is okay, because it’s war.  Apparently the Nuremberg Trials were unnecessary, because it’s war.
> obably
> I find that kind of thinking disgusting and ignorant...AND ENTIRELY UN-AMERICAN.
Click to expand...


Look pal. What I find really disgusting and UNAMERICAN. is you would sacrafice another 100k American soldiers slaughtered for this thread. I find that totally disturbing from you, so disturbing I'll never read you again.......Calls me UNAMERICAN while more soldiers would have died. Jesus Christ this thread sucks donkey DICK....So historically bankrupt.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Your heroes FDR...


I hate FDR and the entire board knows it. I consider him one of the three worst presidents ever (along with Woodrow Wilson and MaObama).

You should do your homework before commenting.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR picked a fight with our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan


They weren’t “anti-communist”. They were anti-China. And that’s because they were pro-Nazi.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. They were stopped entirely by 1945. They had nothing left by summer, but you find mass murdering defenseless Japanese civilians entirely justified.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you find murdering everyone at Pearl Harbor more justified for some bizarre reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?  Now that’s fucked up.
Click to expand...

It is. But that is literally your position. You’re on record stating as much. Sick.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> War is *never* necessary...


God, small children are so adorable. I love their innocence.

Adolf Hitler invaded over 20 nations (including, but not limited to, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Greece, Yugoslavia, Austria) and you official position is that all of them should have surrendered and become serfs. Because nobody should fight back. War is “never” necessary.


----------



## gipper

Persistence Of Memory said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?
> 
> 
> 
> Listen snowflake...stop trolling USMB. Only a fuck'n idiot would think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. I'm not buying your shit. You're just looking to get a rise out of people because you're bored.
> 
> Grow up and find a hobby. Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do some people here realize that we were in a F war???
> 
> Were we supposed to get permission first??
> 
> This thread is total nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO.
> 
> You think mass murdering defenseless civilians is entirely just and right, because it’s war.  WTF!  So, the mass murdering by the Nazis and Japanese is okay, because it’s war.  Apparently the Nuremberg Trials were unnecessary, because it’s war.
> obably
> I find that kind of thinking disgusting and ignorant...AND ENTIRELY UN-AMERICAN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look pal. What I find really disgusting and UNAMERICAN. is you would sacrafice another 100k American soldiers slaughtered for this thread. I find that totally disturbing from you, so disturbing I'll never read you again.......Calls me UNAMERICAN while more soldiers would have died. Jesus Christ this thread sucks donkey DICK....So historically bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Your post is completely ignorant. Get informed before posting dupe.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Persistence Of Memory said:


> I got a lot of my info from my father, who was actually there for yrs. He knew a lot.



Your father had no information on Truman's decision to nuke two Japanese cities, nor did any other soldier or sailor serving in the Pacific, and your father had nothing to do with the decision. If Truman had done what he knew he needed to do to end the war in July, the overwhelming majority of GIs would not have cared one hoot that the emperor was not deposed.



> There seems to be a heck of a lot of arm chair quarterbacks and Monday Morning 20/20 rear hindsighters on this thread.



Oh, no, no, that dog won't hunt. Truman KNEW that Japanese officials were sending out peace feelers in May, three months before Hiroshima. By early July, Truman KNEW that even the emperor wanted to surrender and that the only real obstacle was the fear that the emperor would be deposed. Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew, one of the few genuine Japan experts in the government, gave Truman two extensive briefings in May and explained the emperor's status and limited power and why the Japanese would never surrender if they thought the emperor would be deposed. And Truman KNEW that Japan was already severely beaten and prostrate.

Truman lied to his own chief of staff and assured him that the nukes would only be used on military targets. He lied to the American people and told them the egregious falsehood that Hiroshima was "a military base" and that this "military base" was chosen as the first target to minimize civilian casualties. Truman was either being played as an absolute fool by the Japan haters in the War Department and the State Department, such as Byrnes and Acheson, or he was lying through his teeth.

And after Truman had nuked two Japanese cities and allowed the Soviets to enter the war, he proceeded to hand over China, northern Korea, and northern Vietnam to the Communists. In China, the Communists proceeded to kill over 30 million Chinese. We had to fight a bloody war just to prevent southern Korea from going Communist, and then we had to fight another war to try to keep southern Vietnam from going Communist, but Truman's fellow Democrats stabbed South Vietnam in the back and refused to provide the air and logistical support we had promised by treaty to give them.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Here’s an exercise for you, if you are competent. Please compare the casualties at Pearl with those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Can you do that?


*1.* War is “never” necessary so why compare? 

*2.* The goal is not to “even” the body count. Only someone of extraordinary ignorance would think like that. The goal is deterrence. The response should be so ghastly and catastrophic that not only would the nation targeted never dare consider attacking you again, but no nation would dare consider it. And that’s what the nuclear weapons did. They saved millions of American lives. Because nobody thought about striking the U.S. again until 50 years later by people who weren’t even alive when we dropped the bombs.

This is why immature idealists like you are never placed in national security positions. You keep crying on the internet, k? We’ll leave national security to the professionals.


----------



## P@triot

Persistence Of Memory said:


> Do some people here realize that we were in a F war??? Were we supposed to get permission first?? This thread is total nonsense.


Well Mike is just trolling (which is why he started an idiotic thread about something that happened 80 years ago) and Gipper is an immature idealist.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do some people here realize that we were in a F war??? Were we supposed to get permission first?? This thread is total nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Mike is just trolling (which is why he started an idiotic thread about something that happened 80 years ago) and Gipper is an immature idealist.
Click to expand...

The truth is trolling. Trolling is truth. Orwell’s 1984 lives. 

Whatever are we going to do with statists?


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here’s an exercise for you, if you are competent. Please compare the casualties at Pearl with those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Can you do that?
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* War is “never” necessary so why compare?
> 
> *2.* The goal is not to “even” the body count. Only someone of extraordinary ignorance would think like that. The goal is deterrence. The response should be so ghastly and catastrophic that not only would the nation targeted never dare consider attacking you again, but no nation would dare consider it. And that’s what the nuclear weapons did. They saved millions of American lives. Because nobody thought about striking the U.S. again until 50 years later by people who weren’t even alive when we dropped the bombs.
> 
> This is why immature idealists like you are never placed in national security positions. You keep crying on the internet, k? We’ll leave national security to the professionals.
Click to expand...

Think. Please just try to think.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got a lot of my info from my father, who was actually there for yrs. He knew a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your father had no information on Truman's decision to nuke two Japanese cities, nor did any other soldier or sailor serving in the Pacific, and your father had nothing to do with the decision. If Truman had done what he knew he needed to do to end the war in July, the overwhelming majority of GIs would not have cared one hoot that the emperor was not deposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be a heck of a lot of arm chair quarterbacks and Monday Morning 20/20 rear hindsighters on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no, no, that dog won't hunt. Truman KNEW that Japanese officials were sending out peace feelers in May, three months before Hiroshima. By early July, Truman KNEW that even the emperor wanted to surrender and that the only real obstacle was the fear that the emperor would be deposed. Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew, one of the few genuine Japan experts in the government, gave Truman two extensive briefings in May and explained the emperor's status and limited power and why the Japanese would never surrender if they thought the emperor would be deposed. And Truman KNEW that Japan was already severely beaten and prostrate.
> 
> Truman lied to his own chief of staff and assured him that the nukes would only be used on military targets. He lied to the American people and told them the egregious falsehood that Hiroshima was "a military base" and that this "military base" was chosen as the first target to minimize civilian casualties. Truman was either being played as an absolute fool by the Japan haters in the War Department and the State Department, such as Byrnes and Acheson, or he was lying through his teeth.
> 
> And after Truman had nuked two Japanese cities and allowed the Soviets to enter the war, he proceeded to hand over China, northern Korea, and northern Vietnam to the Communists. In China, the Communists proceeded to kill over 30 million Chinese. We had to fight a bloody war just to prevent southern Korea from going Communist, and then we had to fight another war to try to keep southern Vietnam from going Communist, but Truman's fellow Democrats stabbed South Vietnam in the back and refused to provide the air and logistical support we had promised by treaty to give them.
Click to expand...

The patience you have shown for these warmongering statist dummies is very admirable.


----------



## Unkotare

Persistence Of Memory said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?
> 
> 
> 
> Listen snowflake...stop trolling USMB. Only a fuck'n idiot would think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. I'm not buying your shit. You're just looking to get a rise out of people because you're bored.
> 
> Grow up and find a hobby. Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do some people here realize that we were in a F war???
> 
> Were we supposed to get permission first??
> 
> This thread is total nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO.
> 
> You think mass murdering defenseless civilians is entirely just and right, because it’s war.  WTF!  So, the mass murdering by the Nazis and Japanese is okay, because it’s war.  Apparently the Nuremberg Trials were unnecessary, because it’s war.
> obably
> I find that kind of thinking disgusting and ignorant...AND ENTIRELY UN-AMERICAN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look pal. What I find really disgusting and UNAMERICAN. is you would sacrafice another 100k American soldiers slaughtered for this thread. I find that totally disturbing from you, so disturbing I'll never read you again.......Calls me UNAMERICAN while more soldiers would have died. Jesus Christ this thread sucks donkey DICK....So historically bankrupt.
Click to expand...




Try reading the thread.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?
> 
> 
> 
> Listen snowflake...stop trolling USMB. Only a fuck'n idiot would think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. I'm not buying your shit. You're just looking to get a rise out of people because you're bored.
> 
> Grow up and find a hobby. Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do some people here realize that we were in a F war???
> 
> Were we supposed to get permission first??
> 
> This thread is total nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMFAO.
> 
> You think mass murdering defenseless civilians is entirely just and right, because it’s war.  WTF!  So, the mass murdering by the Nazis and Japanese is okay, because it’s war.  Apparently the Nuremberg Trials were unnecessary, because it’s war.
> obably
> I find that kind of thinking disgusting and ignorant...AND ENTIRELY UN-AMERICAN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look pal. What I find really disgusting and UNAMERICAN. is you would sacrafice another 100k American soldiers slaughtered for this thread. I find that totally disturbing from you, so disturbing I'll never read you again.......Calls me UNAMERICAN while more soldiers would have died. Jesus Christ this thread sucks donkey DICK....So historically bankrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the thread.
Click to expand...

It won’t help.


----------



## Persistence Of Memory

P@triot said:


> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do some people here realize that we were in a F war??? Were we supposed to get permission first?? This thread is total nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Mike is just trolling (which is why he started an idiotic thread about something that happened 80 years ago) and Gipper is an immature idealist.
Click to expand...

This thread is the biggest joke on this board. I see a bunch of Google University Professors here. Masters of Google


----------



## HenryBHough

Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.


----------



## gipper

HenryBHough said:


> Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.


Yes!  Our criminal government needs to kill as many innocent women and children as possible. It’s the American Way!  

You, W, and Ellen must be great friends. LOL


----------



## HenryBHough

gipper said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!  Our criminal government needs to kill as many innocent women and children as possible. It’s the American Way!
> 
> You, W, and Ellen must be great friends. LOL
Click to expand...


And here I thought only France was populated by surrender monkey!

Silly me.


----------



## gipper

HenryBHough said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!  Our criminal government needs to kill as many innocent women and children as possible. It’s the American Way!
> 
> You, W, and Ellen must be great friends. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here I thought only France was populated by surrender monkey!
> 
> Silly me.
Click to expand...

Let’s see?  Surrendering and mass murdering innocents could only be considered the same thing, by a blood thirsty statist.


----------



## Skylar

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.

I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. *And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines *as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.

With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, *rather than a protracted invasion* killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for YEARS....

.......weeks after Nagasaki *we began delivering food and supplies to the Japanese people. *


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.




That’s not funny.


----------



## Unkotare

Skylar said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.
> 
> I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. *And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines *as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
> 
> The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.
> 
> With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, *rather than a protracted invasion* killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for.....*. *
Click to expand...




Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.


----------



## Skylar

Unkotare said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.
> 
> I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. *And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines *as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
> 
> The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.
> 
> With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, *rather than a protracted invasion* killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for.....*. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
Click to expand...


Or.....are merely aware of the facts.


----------



## Unkotare

Skylar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.
> 
> I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. *And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines *as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
> 
> The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.
> 
> With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, *rather than a protracted invasion* killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for.....*. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
Click to expand...


Apparently not.


----------



## Skylar

Unkotare said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.
> 
> I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. *And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines *as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
> 
> The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.
> 
> With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, *rather than a protracted invasion* killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for.....*. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
Click to expand...


Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.


----------



## Unkotare

Skylar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.
> 
> I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. *And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines *as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
> 
> The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.
> 
> With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, *rather than a protracted invasion* killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for.....*. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
Click to expand...




Speculation is not fact.


----------



## gipper

Skylar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.
> 
> I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. *And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines *as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
> 
> The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.
> 
> With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, *rather than a protracted invasion* killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for.....*. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
Click to expand...

 Numerous experts, researchers, and military officers dispute your “facts.”  The fact that you know nothing of their works, should make you want to get informed.

The A-bombings were a war crime worse than Hitler’s death camps. Dirty Harry Truman is burning in Hell for eternity. Thank God!


----------



## Skylar

Unkotare said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.
> 
> I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. *And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines *as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
> 
> The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.
> 
> With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, *rather than a protracted invasion* killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for.....*. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is not fact.
Click to expand...

Still not a single specific disagreement with the factual veracity of anything I've said.

Find me when you can actually find a single inaccuracy in anything I've said.


----------



## gipper

Skylar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still not a single specific disagreement with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Find me when you can actually find a single inaccuracy in anything I've said.
Click to expand...

You better get to work reading this thread. Because it’s all here.


----------



## Skylar

gipper said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese refused to surrender after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki, the emperor's recorded surrender had to be smuggled out of the imperial palace as the war council STILL wanted to fight.
> 
> I lived in Japan for years. I was born there. Among my neighbors in Sakai were a pair of sisters who were children during the war, living in the rubble of Osaka. *And yet at the age 6 and 9, these young girls were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack the US marines *as they landed on the shores of the Kansai region. That was *before* Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
> 
> The idea that the Japanese would have meekly surrendered without Nagaski and Hiroshima is poorly supported.
> 
> With the casualty estimates for a land invasion were orders of magnitude higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And yet, *rather than a protracted invasion* killing hundreds of thousands of our own troops and millions of the Japanese (most likely including 6 year old Mariko and 9 year old Mizuho still clutching their bamboo spears) in a conflict that could have gone for.....*. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numerous experts, researchers, and military officers dispute your “facts.”  The fact that you know nothing of their works, should make you want to get informed.
Click to expand...


You mean the experts and researchers you've failed to cite or even NAME?

Why don't you work on your own body of knowledge before you start rambling about mine.


> The A-bombings were a war crime worse than Hitler’s death camps. Dirty Harry Truman is burning in Hell for eternity. Thank God!



Laughing...nope. Most estimates put the death told in Hiroshima at around 150,000 and Nagasaki at around 75,000. So 225,000.

Compare that with 6,000,000 with Hitler's camps. Alas, Gipper, 225,000 is not 'worse' than 6,000,000. In fact, you may want to look up the term 'order of magnitude'. It will help you understand exactly how wrong you are.

Worse still for your argument, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ended a war. The Japanese surrendered about a week after Nagasaki. Where the death camps didn't. 

Maybe you could dial up the research you do...and dial back the hysterical melodrama?


----------



## gipper

Skylar said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numerous experts, researchers, and military officers dispute your “facts.”  The fact that you know nothing of their works, should make you want to get informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the experts and researchers you've failed to cite or even NAME?
> 
> Why don't you work on your own body of knowledge before you start rambling about mine.
> 
> 
> 
> The A-bombings were a war crime worse than Hitler’s death camps. Dirty Harry Truman is burning in Hell for eternity. Thank God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...nope. Most estimates put the death told in Hiroshima at around 150,000 and Nagasaki at around 75,000. So 225,000.
> 
> Compare that with 6,000,000 with Hitler's camps. Alas, Gipper, 225,000 is not 'worse' than 6,000,000. In fact, you may want to look up the term 'order of magnitude'. It will help you understand exactly how wrong you are.
> 
> Worse still for your argument, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ended a war. The Japanese surrendered about a week after Nagasaki. Where the death camps didn't.
> 
> Maybe you could dial up the research you do...and dial back the hysterical melodrama?
Click to expand...

Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.


----------



## gipper

Skylar said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numerous experts, researchers, and military officers dispute your “facts.”  The fact that you know nothing of their works, should make you want to get informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the experts and researchers you've failed to cite or even NAME?
> 
> Why don't you work on your own body of knowledge before you start rambling about mine.
> 
> 
> 
> The A-bombings were a war crime worse than Hitler’s death camps. Dirty Harry Truman is burning in Hell for eternity. Thank God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...nope. Most estimates put the death told in Hiroshima at around 150,000 and Nagasaki at around 75,000. So 225,000.
> 
> Compare that with 6,000,000 with Hitler's camps. Alas, Gipper, 225,000 is not 'worse' than 6,000,000. In fact, you may want to look up the term 'order of magnitude'. It will help you understand exactly how wrong you are.
> 
> Worse still for your argument, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ended a war. The Japanese surrendered about a week after Nagasaki. Where the death camps didn't.
> 
> Maybe you could dial up the research you do...and dial back the hysterical melodrama?
Click to expand...

Okay I will agree that Hitler’s death camps were worse, but not by much without considering the numbers killed.


----------



## Unkotare

Skylar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still not a single specific disagreement with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Find me when you can actually find a single inaccuracy in anything I've said.
Click to expand...



Read carefully: speculation is not fact. Don’t demand factual contradiction when you haven’t presented fact. You have presented 70+ year old propaganda.


----------



## Skylar

Unkotare said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still not a single specific disagreement with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Find me when you can actually find a single inaccuracy in anything I've said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read carefully: speculation is not fact. Don’t demand factual contradiction when you haven’t presented fact. You have presented 70+ year old propaganda.
Click to expand...


Read carefully.....you have yet to dispute a single point I've made, nor have you found a single inaccuracy.

'uh-uh' isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one. 

Find me when you manage to actually disagree with any specific point I've made. Until then, keep running


----------



## Skylar

gipper said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or.....are merely aware of the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numerous experts, researchers, and military officers dispute your “facts.”  The fact that you know nothing of their works, should make you want to get informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the experts and researchers you've failed to cite or even NAME?
> 
> Why don't you work on your own body of knowledge before you start rambling about mine.
> 
> 
> 
> The A-bombings were a war crime worse than Hitler’s death camps. Dirty Harry Truman is burning in Hell for eternity. Thank God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...nope. Most estimates put the death told in Hiroshima at around 150,000 and Nagasaki at around 75,000. So 225,000.
> 
> Compare that with 6,000,000 with Hitler's camps. Alas, Gipper, 225,000 is not 'worse' than 6,000,000. In fact, you may want to look up the term 'order of magnitude'. It will help you understand exactly how wrong you are.
> 
> Worse still for your argument, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ended a war. The Japanese surrendered about a week after Nagasaki. Where the death camps didn't.
> 
> Maybe you could dial up the research you do...and dial back the hysterical melodrama?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay I will agree that Hitler’s death camps were worse, but not by much without considering the numbers killed.
Click to expand...



Not by much? Again, I direct you to the phrase 'order of magnitude'. That's when you multiply the number by 10. 

And the numbers *those killed in the death camps were more than an order of magnitude MORE than those that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. *

Worse for your argument, Hiroshima and Nagasaki ENDED a war. With the Hirohito *announcing the surrender of Japan about a week after the final bombing*. Within weeks, we were providing food and supplies to the Japanese people.

The death camps ended no war at all. Large scale, systematic murder at these camps began in 1941. And continued, unabaded for 4 more years.

Little more than a WEEK compared to 4 more YEARS. Yet you say the differences are 'not much'?

Or old friend 'order of magnitude' says otherwise.


----------



## Unkotare

Skylar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still not a single specific disagreement with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Find me when you can actually find a single inaccuracy in anything I've said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read carefully: speculation is not fact. Don’t demand factual contradiction when you haven’t presented fact. You have presented 70+ year old propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read carefully.....you have yet to dispute a single point I've made, nor have you found a single inaccuracy.
> 
> 'uh-uh' isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.
> 
> Find me when you manage to actually disagree with any specific point I've made. Until then, keep running
Click to expand...





You are confused.


----------



## gipper

Skylar said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice you don't actually disagree with the factual veracity of anything I've said.
> 
> Which speaks volumes to who of us is aware of the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numerous experts, researchers, and military officers dispute your “facts.”  The fact that you know nothing of their works, should make you want to get informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the experts and researchers you've failed to cite or even NAME?
> 
> Why don't you work on your own body of knowledge before you start rambling about mine.
> 
> 
> 
> The A-bombings were a war crime worse than Hitler’s death camps. Dirty Harry Truman is burning in Hell for eternity. Thank God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...nope. Most estimates put the death told in Hiroshima at around 150,000 and Nagasaki at around 75,000. So 225,000.
> 
> Compare that with 6,000,000 with Hitler's camps. Alas, Gipper, 225,000 is not 'worse' than 6,000,000. In fact, you may want to look up the term 'order of magnitude'. It will help you understand exactly how wrong you are.
> 
> Worse still for your argument, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ended a war. The Japanese surrendered about a week after Nagasaki. Where the death camps didn't.
> 
> Maybe you could dial up the research you do...and dial back the hysterical melodrama?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay I will agree that Hitler’s death camps were worse, but not by much without considering the numbers killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not by much? Again, I direct you to the phrase 'order of magnitude'. That's when you multiply the number by 10.
> 
> And the numbers *those killed in the death camps were more than an order of magnitude MORE than those that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. *
> 
> Worse for your argument, Hiroshima and Nagasaki ENDED a war. With the Hirohito *announcing the surrender of Japan about a week after the final bombing*. Within weeks, we were providing food and supplies to the Japanese people.
> 
> The death camps ended no war at all. Large scale, systematic murder at these camps began in 1941. And continued, unabaded for 4 more years.
> 
> Little more than a WEEK compared to 4 more YEARS. Yet you say the differences are 'not much'?
> 
> Or old friend 'order of magnitude' says otherwise.
Click to expand...

Go away. Why post in a thread that you refuse to read?


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> There is just no getting you to engage in a reasoned, fact-based discussion on this issue, is there?  And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?





candycorn said:


> The guy who throws the first punch.



That's third-grade logic. Just about every legal system on the planet recognizes the principle that provocation can constitute starting the fight, even if the provocator does not throw the first punch.

I notice you guys keep avoiding the question about what you think any other self-respecting nation would do if three major nations ganged up on it and did to it what we, the Dutch, and British were doing to Japan.



mikegriffith1 said:


> There you go again acting like all Japanese were guilty of the actions of the bad actors in the army. Pray tell: What barbaric actions did the women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit? What barbaric actions did the seniors, women, and children in the 65 cities that we fire-bombed and/or naval-bombarded commit?
> 
> What percentage of Japanese soldiers do you believe committed war crimes, and what percentage of Japan's population do you believe those soldiers constituted?





candycorn said:


> don’t know, don’t care.



That's certainly true.



candycorn said:


> Our actions were justified.



So you're just gonna keep repeating this militaristic myth and ignore the fact that Japan was prostrate and starving, that Japan was trying to surrender, that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack, that Truman knew all of these things, and that the nukes did not even cause Japan to surrender anyway?

You know, if it was such a righteous deed, why did Truman lie about the first nuke? Huh? Why did he pretend that Hiroshima was "a military base" and that it was nuked to minimize civilian casualties? Why did the Truman administration and MacArthur's occupation government lie about radiation effects and dismiss all the reports of severe injury and death from radiation? Why did the War Department suppress most photos and films of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims? Hey? Is that the conduct of people who believe they've done something good?


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is just no getting you to engage in a reasoned, fact-based discussion on this issue, is there?  And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy who throws the first punch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's third-grade logic. Just about every legal system on the planet recognizes the principle that provocation can constitute starting the fight, even if the provocator does not throw the first punch.
> 
> I notice you guys keep avoiding the question about what you think any other self-respecting nation would do if three major nations ganged up on it and did to it what we, the Dutch, and British were doing to Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again acting like all Japanese were guilty of the actions of the bad actors in the army. Pray tell: What barbaric actions did the women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit? What barbaric actions did the seniors, women, and children in the 65 cities that we fire-bombed and/or naval-bombarded commit?
> 
> What percentage of Japanese soldiers do you believe committed war crimes, and what percentage of Japan's population do you believe those soldiers constituted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> don’t know, don’t care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's certainly true.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our actions were justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're just gonna keep repeating this militaristic myth and ignore the fact that Japan was prostrate and starving, that Japan was trying to surrender, that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack, that Truman knew all of these things, and that the nukes did not even cause Japan to surrender anyway?
> 
> You know, if it was such a righteous deed, why did Truman lie about the first nuke? Huh? Why did he pretend that Hiroshima was "a military base" and that it was nuked to minimize civilian casualties? Why did the Truman administration and MacArthur's occupation government lie about radiation effects and dismiss all the reports of severe injury and death from radiation? Why did the War Department suppress most photos and films of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims? Hey? Is that the conduct of people who believe they've done something good?
Click to expand...

It is amazing how they purposely ignore the facts.  It is equally amazing how uncaring and warlike they are. 

Just goes to prove government controlled education and media can fool some of the people all the time.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Whatever are we going to do with statists?


I don't know. But when you figure it out, let me know. Work on immature idealists too while you're at it. Would love to rid the world of BOTH groups.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Just about every legal system on the planet recognizes the principle that provocation can constitute starting the fight, even if the provocator does not throw the first punch.


You seriously need to consult an attorney. I've never seen someone so ignorant of the law. Throwing the first punch will get you charged with assault in 100% of cases save for one thing: you do have a "personal space" you can defend so that you don't have to wait to be assaulted (and possibly incapacitated) before defending yourself.

But short of invading that personal space aggressively - there is *nothing* I can do to "provoke" a punch for you legally. You will get charged with assault _every_ time, you imbecile.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever are we going to do with statists?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. But when you figure it out, let me know. Work on immature idealists too while you're at it. Would love to rid the world of BOTH groups.
Click to expand...

Yes it’s immature and idealistic to condemn the wanton slaughter of defenseless civilians. LOL!

You and your brethren condemn the slaughter of innocent civilians by Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.  Yet you commend the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians by the USA. 

Think. Please think.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Yes!  Our criminal government needs to kill as many innocent women and children as possible. It’s the American Way!
> 
> You, W, and Ellen must be great friends. LOL


You, Saddam Hussein, and Barack Obama must be great friends. All of you paint the United States as "evil" and the evil nations as the "innocent, defenseless angels".

The difference though is that they actually believe it, while your bored ass is just trolling.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Yes it’s immature and idealistic to condemn the wanton slaughter of defenseless civilians. LOL!


The people of Germany weren't "innocent". They were the one's who supported Adolf Hitler. They were the one's who rallied for Adolf Hitler. They were the one's who voted for Adolf Hitler.

Same with Japan. Same with China. Same with Iran.

I'd tell you to think, but you're _clearly_ not capable.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.


But not nearly as amazing as people so eager to ignore history for a whitewashed, utopian rewritten version of it.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> But not nearly as amazing as people so eager to ignore history for a whitewashed, utopian rewritten version of it.
Click to expand...

You are the one ignoring history. You believe lies spoon feed you by a corrupt state. Again, you aren’t very smart.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people can be so eager to parrot 70 year old propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> But not nearly as amazing as people so eager to ignore history for a whitewashed, utopian rewritten version of it.
Click to expand...


You're afraid to study history? What are you doing here?


----------



## HenryBHough

Unkotare said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tehran should be the new Nagasaki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not funny.
Click to expand...


Happy to hear you agree.  It should not be "funny" - just dead-as-a-fart serious.  Until that's accomplished there can be no peace in The Middle East.  So......what's with the smirk?


----------



## Persistence Of Memory

I know I'm a freckled faced freshman poster here and should just mop the floors and keep my F mouth shut. I know that!!

How in the hell could this thread last for near 150 pages of  total nonsense. How many posts???.................................NEAR 1500?????

People are looking at crap 80 F years later. Analyzing if FDR would have sheet his pants one less time, Churchill would have kicked Stalin in the nuts and everything would have been different and better.

This thread has stage 5 cancer. Cancer threads can only be dealt in one way. All opposition to the OP scatters from here for 2 weeks. Like a scab, it will fall.

This is the only treatment known to man to battle Thread Cancer. If used correctly, it has a near 100% cure rate


----------



## Unkotare

Persistence Of Memory said:


> I know I'm a freckled faced freshman poster here and should just mop the floors and keep my F mouth shut. I know that!!
> 
> How in the hell could this thread last for near 150 pages of  total nonsense. How many posts???.................................NEAR 1500?????
> 
> People are looking at crap 80 F years later. Analyzing if FDR would have sheet his pants one less time, Churchill would have kicked Stalin in the nuts and everything would have been different and better.
> 
> This thread has stage 5 cancer. Cancer threads can only be dealt in one way. All opposition to the OP scatters from here for 2 weeks. Like a scab, it will fall.
> 
> This is the only treatment known to man to battle Thread Cancer. If used correctly, it has a near 100% cure rate




It's the History forum, dumbass. It is a forum for discussing history.


----------



## gipper

Persistence Of Memory said:


> I know I'm a freckled faced freshman poster here and should just mop the floors and keep my F mouth shut. I know that!!
> 
> How in the hell could this thread last for near 150 pages of  total nonsense. How many posts???.................................NEAR 1500?????
> 
> People are looking at crap 80 F years later. Analyzing if FDR would have sheet his pants one less time, Churchill would have kicked Stalin in the nuts and everything would have been different and better.
> 
> This thread has stage 5 cancer. Cancer threads can only be dealt in one way. All opposition to the OP scatters from here for 2 weeks. Like a scab, it will fall.
> 
> This is the only treatment known to man to battle Thread Cancer. If used correctly, it has a near 100% cure rate


Go away. You clearly are unwilling to learn the truth. You prefer wallowing in your ignorance.


----------



## mikegriffith1

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> War is *never* necessary...
> 
> 
> 
> God, small children are so adorable. I love their innocence.
> 
> Adolf Hitler invaded over 20 nations (including, but not limited to, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Greece, Yugoslavia, Austria) and you official position is that all of them should have surrendered and become serfs. Because nobody should fight back. War is “never” necessary.
Click to expand...


I won't pretend to give Gipper's official position, but your "official position" seems to be that it was just fine that FDR saved the Soviet Union twice, that FDR sided with the Soviets in China by funneling aid to the Chinese Nationalists (who were also receiving Soviet aid), that FDR condemned Japan's move into China but said nothing about the fact that that move was done in large part to counter the Soviets' efforts to strengthen their influence in China (as mentioned, they were aiding the Nationalists), that FDR ensured that Japan did not invade the Soviet when such an invasion would have led to the USSR's downfall, that FDR and Truman handed over tens of millions of Eastern Europeans to Soviet tyranny, that Truman handed over China, North Korea, and much of Vietnam to the Communists, and in the process sentenced over 30 million Chinese to death at the hands of Mao's henchmen.

And if anyone expresses the view that these actions were terrible and disastrous, not to mention treasonous, you accuse them of being unpatriotic!


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it’s immature and idealistic to condemn the wanton slaughter of defenseless civilians. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> The people of Germany weren't "innocent". They were the one's who supported Adolf Hitler. They were the one's who rallied for Adolf Hitler. They were the one's who voted for Adolf Hitler.
> 
> Same with Japan. Same with China. Same with Iran.
> 
> I'd tell you to think, but you're _clearly_ not capable.
Click to expand...


Let’s do a little thought experiment.  W invades Iraq and caused possibly as many as one million deaths of mostly civilians (no doubt this makes you so proud).  Let’s say Iraq manages to beat back the invasion and ultimately invades the US homeland.  Since Americans elected W, you think the Iraqi armed forces are justified in mass murdering American civilians. 

Do you see your foolish thinking?


----------



## mikegriffith1

gipper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it’s immature and idealistic to condemn the wanton slaughter of defenseless civilians. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> The people of Germany weren't "innocent". They were the one's who supported Adolf Hitler. They were the one's who rallied for Adolf Hitler. They were the one's who voted for Adolf Hitler.
> 
> Same with Japan. Same with China. Same with Iran.
> 
> I'd tell you to think, but you're _clearly_ not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let’s do a little thought experiment.  W invades Iraq and caused possibly as many as one million deaths of mostly civilians (no doubt this makes you so proud).  Let’s say Iraq manages to beat back the invasion and ultimately invades the US homeland.  Since Americans elected W, you think the Iraqi armed forces are justified in mass murdering American civilians. Do you see your foolish thinking?
Click to expand...


Bullseye. You've identified one of the main problems with the militaristic logic that we're seeing from the FDR-Truman apologists. If we were justified in killing at least half a million Japanese civilians because some Japanese soldiers committed war crimes, then Iraq would have been entirely justified, by this logic, in killing hundreds of thousands of American civilians if they had managed to invade America.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> ...but your "official position" seems to be that it was just fine that FDR saved the Soviet Union twice, that FDR sided with the Soviets in China by funneling aid to the Chinese Nationalists (who were also receiving Soviet aid), that FDR condemned Japan's move into China but said nothing about the fact that that move was done in large part to counter the Soviets' efforts to strengthen their influence in China...


Reading isn't your strong point, uh? FDR was a piece of shit who destroyed the U.S. Constitution. But that being said, nothing he did with regards to Japan warranted them dropping bombs on us. Nothing.

Only an asshole would argue that exercising a nation's sovereign freedom to help - or deny help - to anyone they so choose, warrants being bombed.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Let’s do a little thought experiment.  W invades Iraq and caused possibly as many as one million deaths of mostly civilians (no doubt this makes you so proud).  Let’s say Iraq manages to beat back the invasion and ultimately invades the US homeland.  Since Americans elected W, you think the Iraqi armed forces are justified in mass murdering American civilians.


Abso...fucking...lutely. You're dumb ass _doesn't_?!? Holy shit. You are the most immature idealist I've ever come across.

I have to assume you are about 6 years old or so. Because nobody above that age would be completely ignorant of the concept of war (which is to kill as many of your enemy as possible).


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> If we were justified in killing at least half a million Japanese civilians because some Japanese soldiers committed war crimes, then Iraq would have been entirely justified, by this logic, in killing hundreds of thousands of American civilians if they had managed to invade America.


Hey parrot....

*A.* Iraq would absolutely be justified

*B.* Attempting to compare FDR denying trade with Japan to Saddam brutally murdering millions and invading other nations is a special kind of stupid. So tired of you leftist supporting brutal regimes while simultaneously attempting to paint the U.S. as the "evil" empire.

Would love to see your soft, coddled ass make it one day in another nation. You'd be curled up in the fetal position crying like a little bitch.


----------



## HenryBHough

The way the EU is headed - jonesing to become the new Nazi Nation - maybe nuking Brussels might not be a bad idea.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Let’s do a little thought experiment.  W invades Iraq and caused possibly as many as one million deaths of mostly civilians (no doubt this makes you so proud).  Let’s say Iraq manages to beat back the invasion and ultimately invades the US homeland.  Since Americans elected W, you think the Iraqi armed forces are justified in mass murdering American civilians.
> 
> Do you see your foolish thinking?


Allow me to do an actual "thought experiment" (ask an adult for help here):

You neighbor comes over and asks to borrow your lawnmower. You say "no". You then believe your neighbor would be 100% justified in coming into your home in the middle of the night, while you slept, and brutally murdered your wife, your 5 year old daughter, and your 8 month old infant son.

Yes folks...that is *literally* the argument gipper and mikegriffith1 have made in this thread.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s do a little thought experiment.  W invades Iraq and caused possibly as many as one million deaths of mostly civilians (no doubt this makes you so proud).  Let’s say Iraq manages to beat back the invasion and ultimately invades the US homeland.  Since Americans elected W, you think the Iraqi armed forces are justified in mass murdering American civilians.
> 
> Do you see your foolish thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to do an actual "thought experiment" (ask an adult for help here):
> 
> You neighbor comes over and asks to borrow your lawnmower. You say "no". You then believe your neighbor would be 100% justified in coming into your home in the middle of the night, while you slept, and brutally murdered your wife, your 5 year old daughter, and your 8 month old infant son.
> 
> Yes folks...that is *literally* the argument gipper and mikegriffith1 have made in this thread.
Click to expand...

LOL. Now that is really dumb. 

Apparently you don’t know how dumb. LOL.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s do a little thought experiment.  W invades Iraq and caused possibly as many as one million deaths of mostly civilians (no doubt this makes you so proud).  Let’s say Iraq manages to beat back the invasion and ultimately invades the US homeland.  Since Americans elected W, you think the Iraqi armed forces are justified in mass murdering American civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Abso...fucking...lutely. You're dumb ass _doesn't_?!? Holy shit. You are the most immature idealist I've ever come across.
> 
> I have to assume you are about 6 years old or so. Because nobody above that age would be completely ignorant of the concept of war (which is to kill as many of your enemy as possible).
Click to expand...

Yes you believe as the Nazis, Imperial Japanese, Soviets did. Kill innocent women and children ruthlessly and relentlessly.  Kill them all. 

You’re so dumb you don’t know how dumb that is.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it’s immature and idealistic to condemn the wanton slaughter of defenseless civilians. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> The people of Germany weren't "innocent". They were the one's who supported Adolf Hitler. They were the one's who rallied for Adolf Hitler. They were the one's who voted for Adolf Hitler.
> 
> Same with Japan. Same with China. Same with Iran.
> 
> I'd tell you to think, but you're _clearly_ not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let’s do a little thought experiment.  W invades Iraq and caused possibly as many as one million deaths of mostly civilians (no doubt this makes you so proud).  Let’s say Iraq manages to beat back the invasion and ultimately invades the US homeland.  Since Americans elected W, you think the Iraqi armed forces are justified in mass murdering American civilians. Do you see your foolish thinking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullseye. You've identified one of the main problems with the militaristic logic that we're seeing from the FDR-Truman apologists. If we were justified in killing at least half a million Japanese civilians because some Japanese soldiers committed war crimes, then Iraq would have been entirely justified, by this logic, in killing hundreds of thousands of American civilians if they had managed to invade America.
Click to expand...

The thing is they are so slanted they don’t understand the consequences of their horrendous beliefs.


----------



## mikegriffith1

P@triot said:


> Reading isn't your strong point, uh? FDR was a piece of crap who destroyed the U.S. Constitution. But that being said, nothing he did with regards to Japan warranted them dropping bombs on us. Nothing.
> 
> Only a butthole would argue that exercising a nation's sovereign freedom to help - or deny help - to anyone they so choose, warrants being bombed.



One, I notice you again avoid the point that we know that FDR wanted the Japanese to attack. Two, I don't think you are aware of everything FDR was doing to provoke Japan to war. In his monograph _Japan’s Decision for War in 1941: Some Enduring Lessons _(U.S. Army War College, 2009), Dr. Jeffrey Record, a professor at the Air War College, makes some important points about Japan’s reasons for deciding to wage war on the U.S. and the role that FDR’s draconian sanctions played in that decision. Surprisingly, Dr. Record also notes that FDR’s sanctions and demands would have been viewed as unacceptable to the U.S. if a foreign power had done them to us. Says Dr. Record,

The United States was, in effect, demanding that Japan renounce its status as an aspiring great power and consign itself to permanent strategic dependency on a hostile Washington. Such a choice would have been unacceptable to any great power. Japan’s survival as a major industrial and military power was a stake— far more compelling reasons for war than the United States later advanced for its disastrous wars of choice in Vietnam and Iraq. Would the United States ever have permitted a hostile power to wreck its foreign commerce and strangle its domestic economy without a resort to war? (p. 21, https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/pub905.pdf).​
I will quote this paragraph again as the final paragraph in the following rather long extract from Dr. Record’s monograph:

It is the central conclusion of this monograph that the Japanese decision for war against the United States in 1941 was dictated by Japanese pride and the threatened economic destruction of Japan by the United States. The United States sought to deter Japanese imperial expansion into Southeast Asia by employing its enormous leverage over the Japanese economy; it demanded that Japan withdraw its forces from both Indochina and China—in effect that Japan renounce its empire in exchange for a restoration of trade with the United States and acceptance of American principles of international behavior. Observed Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart in retrospect: “No Government, least of all the Japanese, could be expected to swallow such humiliating conditions, and utter loss of face.”

This conclusion excuses neither the attack on Pearl Harbor nor the stupidity of Tokyo’s statecraft in the 1930s. . . .​
Nor does this monograph’s thesis excuse the savagery of Japanese behavior in East Asia during the 1930s and 1940s. . . .​
All that said, however, it is necessary to observe that the United States was also guilty of grievous miscalculation in the Pacific in 1941. It takes at least two parties to transform a political dispute into war. Racism was hardly unique to the Japanese, and Americans were, if anything, even more culturally ignorant of Japan than the Japanese were of the United States. The conviction, widespread within the Roosevelt administration until the last months of 1941, that no sensible Japanese leader could rationally contemplate war with the United States, blinded key policymakers to the likely consequences of such reckless decisions as the imposition of what amounted to a complete trade embargo of Japan in the summer of 1941. The embargo abruptly deprived Japan of 80 percent of its oil requirements, confronting Tokyo with the choice of either submitting to U.S. demands that it give up its empire in China and resume its economic dependency on the United States or, alternatively, advancing into resource-rich Southeast Asia and placing its expanded empire on an economically independent foundation. The embargo thus provoked rather than cowed Japan. David Kahn has observed that:​
American racism and rationalism kept the United States from thinking that Japan would attack it. . . . Japan was not only more distant [than Germany]; since she had no more than half America’s population and only one-ninth of America’s industrial output, rationality seemed to preclude her attacking the United States. And disbelief in a Japanese attack was reinforced by belief in the superiority of the white race. Americans looked upon Japanese as bucktoothed, bespectacled little yellow men, forever photographing things with their omnipresent cameras so they could copy them. Such opinions were held not only by common bigots but by opinion makers as well.​
The issue of “rationality” is a false one. Cultures as disparate as those of the United States and Japan in the 1930s defy a common standard of rationality. Rationality lies in the eyes of the beholder, and “rational” leaders can make horribly mistaken decisions. American examples include the Truman administration’s decision to cross the 38th Parallel in Korea in 1950, which witlessly provoked an unnecessary war with China; the Johnson administration’s decision to commit U.S. ground combat forces to South Vietnam’s defense in 1965; and the George W. Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. . . .​
Japan’s decision for war was made after months of agonizing internal debate by leaders who recognized America’s vast industrial superiority and who, in the more sober moments, suffered few illusions about Japan’s chances in a protracted war against America. Japan’s leaders did not want war with the United States, but by the fall of 1941 few saw any acceptable alternative to war. They believed that Japan’s invasion of British- and Dutch-controlled Southeast Asia would mean war with the United States, and they resigned themselves to it. . . .​
Roosevelt viewed the Soviet Union as an indispensable belligerent against Hitler and took the threat of a Japanese invasion of Siberia from Manchuria quite seriously; there is even evidence that he deliberately stiffened U.S. policy toward Japan in the wake of Germany’s invasion of Russia for the purpose of encouraging the Japanese to look south rather than north. . . .​
The Roosevelt administration was well aware that Japan imported 90 percent of its oil, of which 75-80 percent was from the United States (which in 1940 accounted for an astounding 63 percent of the world’s output of petroleum). Roosevelt also knew that the Dutch East Indies, which produced 3 percent of the world’s output, was the only other convenient oil producer that could meet Japan’s import needs.​
The freeze order was the culmination of a program of sanctioning Japan for its aggression in China that began in January 1940 with the U.S. withdrawal from its 1911 commercial treaty with Japan (notice of abrogation was given in July 1939). Sanctioning escalated in July 1940 with the passage of the National Defense Act, which granted the administration authority to ban or restrict the export of items declared vital to national defense. On July 25 Roosevelt announced a ban on Japanese acquisition of U.S. high-octane aviation gasoline, certain grades of steel and scrap iron, and some lubricants. In September the White House imposed a ban on all scrap iron exports to Japan. Because the Japanese steel industry was highly dependent on imported scrap iron from the United States, the ban compelled Japan to draw down its stockpiles and operate its steel industry well below capacity; indeed, the ban blocked any significant expansion of Japanese steel production during the war.33 In December the embargo was expanded to include iron ore, steel, and steel products, and the following month expanded to include copper (of which the United States supplied 80 percent of Japan’s requirements), brass, bronze, zinc, nickel, and potash. “Almost every week thereafter other items were added to the list, each of which was much needed for Japanese industrial production”. . . .​
But, as Roosevelt understood, it was Japan’s oil dependency on the United States, a dependency, ironically, that had deepened with Japan’s expanding military operations in China, that constituted the real hangman’s noose around Japan’s neck. . . .​
The result, in conjunction with the seizure of Japanese assets by Great Britain and the Netherlands, was a complete suspension of Japanese economic access to the United States and the destruction of between 50 and 75 percent of Japan’s foreign trade.41 In early November 1941, Joseph Grew, the U.S. ambassador to Japan, cabled Secretary of State Hull that “the greater part of Japanese commerce has been lost, Japanese industrial production has been drastically curtailed, and Japan’s national resources have been depleted.” Grew went on to warn of “an all-out, do-or-die attempt, actually risking national hara kiri, to make Japan impervious to economic embargoes abroad rather than to yield to foreign pressure”. . . .​
The culmination of U.S. economic warfare against Japan by late summer of 1941 confronted Tokyo with essentially two choices: seizure of Southeast Asia, or submission to the United States. Economic destitution and attendant military paralysis would soon become a reality if Japan did nothing. The embargo was already beginning to strangle Japanese industry, and Japan’s stockpiled oil amounted to no more than 18- 24 months of normal consumption—and substantially less should Japan mount major military operations in Southeast Asia. . . .​
Yet the price the Americans demanded for lifting the embargo and restoring U.S.-Japanese trade to some semblance of normality was no more acceptable: abandonment of empire. The Roosevelt administration demanded that Japan not only terminate its membership in the Tripartite Alliance, but also withdraw its military forces from both China and Indochina, and by extension, the Japanese feared, Manchuria (after all, the United States had refused to recognize the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo). Abandonment of China and Indochina would have compelled Japan to write off its hard-won gains on the Asian mainland since 1937 and drop any hope of becoming the dominant power in East Asia. For Japan, a major reason for establishing an empire in East Asia was to free itself of the very kind of humiliating economic dependency on the United States that the embargo represented. And what was to stop the Americans from coercing further territorial concessions from the Japanese, including withdrawal from Manchuria and even Korea and Formosa? Japan “could not accept any interim solution that left it dependent on American largesse” or any deal that left it in a position of “continued reliance on the whims of Washington. The possibility that the Americans might supply Japan with just enough oil, steel, and other materials to maintain a starveling existence was intolerable to any Japanese statesman”. . . .​
The United States was, in effect, demanding that Japan renounce its status as an aspiring great power and consign itself to permanent strategic dependency on a hostile Washington. Such a choice would have been unacceptable to any great power. Japan’s survival as a major industrial and military power was a stake— far more compelling reasons for war than the United States later advanced for its disastrous wars of choice in Vietnam and Iraq. Would the United States ever have permitted a hostile power to wreck its foreign commerce and strangle its domestic economy without a resort to war? (pp. 6-21, https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/pub905.pdf)​
And this is not to mention FDR's military provocations: moving the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor (which made training, strategic, or logistical sense),  basing B-17 bombers in Philippines, and sending small ships on useless alleged "recon" missions within range of Japanese naval forces (the Japanese did not take the bait).


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> .....So tired of you leftist .......




"Leftist"? Who are YOU to call anyone a leftist while you suck the nuts of a long-dead leftist scumbag who himself sucked the nuts of one of the few worse leftist scumbags in power in the world at the time? You worship a villain who showed the same regard for American citizens and our Constitution that he did the lives of countless civilians around the world (including those in the US). Your choice of hero worship paints YOU as the "leftist."


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s do a little thought experiment.  W invades Iraq and caused possibly as many as one million deaths of mostly civilians (no doubt this makes you so proud).  Let’s say Iraq manages to beat back the invasion and ultimately invades the US homeland.  Since Americans elected W, you think the Iraqi armed forces are justified in mass murdering American civilians.
> 
> Do you see your foolish thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to do an actual "thought experiment" (ask an adult for help here):
> 
> You neighbor comes over and asks to borrow your lawnmower. You say "no". You then believe your neighbor would be 100% justified in coming into your home in the middle of the night, while you slept, and brutally murdered your wife, your 5 year old daughter, and your 8 month old infant son.
> 
> Yes folks...that is *literally* the argument gipper and mikegriffith1 have made in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Now that is really dumb.
> 
> Apparently you don’t know how dumb. LOL.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha! You have absolutely no response when someone uses your own words to illustrate just how dumb you've been in this thread.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Yes you believe as the Nazis, Imperial Japanese, Soviets did. Kill innocent women and children ruthlessly and relentlessly.  Kill them all.


Well they killed their own citizens. I don't believe in that. I do believe in defending myself by any and all means necessary. Only an idiot wouldn't.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> I don't think you are aware of everything FDR was doing to provoke Japan to war.
> 
> I will quote this paragraph again as the final paragraph in the following rather long extract from Dr. Record’s monograph:
> 
> It is the central conclusion of this monograph that the J*apanese decision for war* against the United States in 1941 *was dictated by Japanese pride*​


Oh, well _hell_, why didn't you say so?!? Pride is a damn good reason to drop bombs on unsuspecting people. And it's a damn good reason to believe they were justified and the United States was "evil" for not taking their bombing and asking for more.


----------



## mikegriffith1

P@triot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you are aware of everything FDR was doing to provoke Japan to war.
> 
> I will quote this paragraph again as the final paragraph in the following rather long extract from Dr. Record’s monograph:
> 
> It is the central conclusion of this monograph that the J*apanese decision for war* against the United States in 1941 *was dictated by Japanese pride*​
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well _hell_, why didn't you say so?!? Pride is a damn good reason to drop bombs on unsuspecting people.
Click to expand...


Now you're just being dishonest. Let's read the part of Dr. Record's statement that you snipped, with the snipped part in italics

It is the central conclusion of this monograph thatthe Japanese decision for war against the United States in 1941 was dictated by Japanese pride _and the threatened economic destruction of Japan by the United States._​
Yes, you'd better believe that defending yourself against economic destruction is a doggone good reason for a nation to go to war. Many nations throughout history have gone to war when another nation or nations were trying to bring about about their economic destruction. 

I notice you again avoided the point that FDR severely provoked Japan, that he rejected all of Japan's peace offers, and that he wanted Japan to attack.



> And it's a damn good reason to believe they were justified and the United States was "evil" for not taking their bombing and asking for more.



Yeah, this is more third-grade posturing. It's very odd to see you apply the label of "leftist" to people who criticize FDR's provocation of our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan, his treasonous supporting of the Soviet Union, his handing over tens of millions of people to Communist rule at Yalta, etc., etc. It is equally odd to see you cry "leftist" against people who object to Truman's nuking of an anti-Communist country that did not want to fight us in the first place, an anti-Communist country that tried to reach a peace deal with us, an anti-Communist country that Truman knew was willing to surrender if only he would modify the surrender terms to guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed. 

Just to be clear: YOU are the one who is siding with Soviet mass-murderer Joseph Stalin, who did not want the U.S. to make peace with Japan in 1941 and who urged Truman not to modify the demand for unconditional surrender.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Admiral Ellis Zacharias’s book _Secret Missions: The Story of an Intelligence Officer _(Naval Institute Press, 1946) contains much valuable information about Japan’s peace efforts and surrender. In 1942, Zacharias began working in the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and headed the Office of War Information, which conducted psyops operations and did Japanese-language broadcasts to Japan.

Admiral Zacharias wrote that in December 1944 or January 1945, ONI received an intelligence report through a neutral country that revealed that peace advocates in the Japanese government, including the emperor, were maneuvering to bring about Japan’s surrender. The document predicted with amazing accuracy the events that unfolded in the Japanese government, such as the resignation of General Koiso and the appointment of Admiral Suzuki to bring about an end to the war (pp. 335-341).

Admiral Zacharias, who had served as a naval attache in Japan before the war, was a genuine Japan expert and spoke fluent Japanese. He argued strongly that the peace faction in Japan’s government could bring about a surrender if Truman would modify the surrender terms to include an assurance that the emperor would not be deposed or molested (pp. 363-375).


----------



## mikegriffith1

A little-known fact—and it’s little-known because few books on WW II discuss it—is that the battle in the government over modifying unconditional surrender and nuking Japan was a battle between Republicans and conservative Democrats on the one hand vs. liberals/New Dealers on the other hand. Most Republicans and conservative Democrats in the government wanted to modify the surrender terms to assure the emperor would not be deposed and either opposed nuking Japan or argued that it should be done against a military target and only after an explicit warning was issued. It was mostly liberals/New Dealers who wanted to stick with unconditional surrender and who wanted to nuke Japanese cities with no warning.

Historians Waldo Heinrichs and Marc Gallicchio’s discuss this revealing fact in their book _Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945_ (Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 629-631. Admiral Ellis Zacharias also discussed this fact in his book _Secret Missions: The Story of an Intelligence Officer _(Naval Institute Press, 1946), pp. 333-338, 383-394. In the months leading up to Hiroshima, one conservative journal complained that it was “’liberals and New Dealers’ who wanted to execute the emperor” and that the refusal to modify the surrender terms was needlessly prolonging the war (_Implacable Foes, _pp. 629-631). Liberals in the White House and in the War Department launched vicious attacks on Joseph Grew and on other Japan experts who correctly argued that the Japanese would never surrender if they believed we would depose the emperor, and that there was a strong possibility that the peace faction in Japan’s government could bring about a surrender if Truman would simply provide an assurance that the emperor would not be deposed (_Secret Missions, _333-338, 383-395).

It's also worth noting that many of the early critics of Truman's nuking of Japan were conservatives (American Conservatives Are the Forgotten Critics of the Atomic Bombing of Japan | Barton J. Bernstein). 

In later years, many liberals finally began to question the necessity and morality of Truman's nuking of Japan.


----------



## mikegriffith1

As I’ve mentioned, Admiral Ellis Zacharias’s book _Secret Missions: The Story of an Intelligence Officer _(U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1946) contains a large amount of valuable information about the events leading to Japan’s surrender. For example, Admiral Zacharias noted that numerous peace feelers were coming in to Washington by late May or early June, and that one of feelers via the Vatican had the approval of the emperor:

By then [late May, early June] peace feelers were coming in to Washington in amazingly large numbers. The most persistent of these came via the Vatican. . . .​
It was reported that the emperor himself was seeking mediation through the Pope through the Archbishop of Tokyo, who happened to be the brother of a former foreign minister, the late Yosuke Matsuoka. . . . The Vatican was informed openly that the Archbishop of Tokyo was acting upon the emperor’s behest and that his [the archbishop’s] role was merely that of an intermediary. . . .

These approaches began to reach the Vatican in April and continued throughout May. . . . (p. 364).​
Admiral Zacharias, like so many other scholars, lamented Truman’s failure to follow up on the peace opening that was provided when we learned that the Japanese were seeking Soviet mediation to clarify the surrender terms and to reach a peace deal, and the admiral noted that the holdup was the lack of certainty about the emperor’s fate in unconditional surrender. Admiral Zacharias argued that if the various statements on unconditional surrender, including the Potsdam Declaration, had been provided in June, the war would have ended without Soviet intervention and without the dropping of nukes:

Admiral Suzuki, the new premier, was particularly concerned over this question of Japanese sovereignty. He was very close to the emperor, having been grand chamberlain for many years. . . .​
He was more than willing to heed the emperor’s desire to bring about peace—but his loyalty to the emperor made him refrain from doing anything about it until he could ascertain what the Allies had in mind regarding the future of the fate of the imperial house. In his plight he decided upon what in retrospect appears to have been a desperate move. In June he instructed Mr. Sato, the Japanese ambassador to the Kremlin, to make representations to Marshal Stalin and ask him to intervene with the Western Allies on Japan’s behalf in order to obtain a further clarification of the unconditional surrender formula, and, if possible, peace terms. . . .​
It is left to the judgment of history to explain why it was necessary for the Soviet Union to take its course of action and why the Allies refused to exploit the opening provided by Japan herself. If the detailed interpretations of the unconditional surrender formula had been forthcoming in June rather than the end of July [when the Potsdam Declaration was issued], the war would have ended without Soviet participation and before the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although the historical perspective is insufficient as yet to provide a complete picture as it existed in June 1945, it is an undeniable fact that the diplomatic situation provided an opportunity for peace many weeks before mid-August. . . . (pp. 367-368)​


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Yes, you'd better believe that defending yourself against economic destruction is a doggone good reason for a nation to go to war.


Yeeaahh...no it's *not*. At all. Only an asshole would say something like that. Only defending one's self against lethal force (including preemptive) is a reason for war.

The U.S. had absolutely not ability to create "economic destruction" for Japan. They had their own nation with their own resources. If they couldn't function on their own, that's their own incompetence.

Bottom line, you're an idiot. Typical left-wing, American-hating idiot.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Here is a sensible explanation of the alternatives that were available to Truman in August 1945, alternatives that did not involve killing over 200,000 civilians and seriously injuring thousands of others with two atomic bombs, presented by Dr. Alex Wellerstein, a professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Dr. Wellerstein holds a doctorate in the history of science from Harvard University. Dr. Wellerstein:

Many of those who defend the bombings seem to end up in a position of believing that 1. there were no other options on the table at the time except for exactly what did occur, and 2. that questioning whether there were other options does historical damage. As a historian, I find both of these positions absurd. First, history is full of contingency, and there were several explicit options (and a few implicit ones) on the table in 1945 — more than just “bomb” versus “invade”. . . .​
The Hiroshima mission was delayed until August 6th because of weather conditions in Japan. The Kokura mission (which became the Nagasaki mission) was originally scheduled for August 11th, but got pushed up to August 9th because it was feared that further bad weather was coming. At the very least, waiting more than three days after Hiroshima might have been humane. Three days was barely enough time for the Japanese high command to verify that the weapon used was a nuclear bomb, much less assess its impact and make strategic sense of it. Doing so may have avoided the need for the second bombing run altogether. Even if the Japanese had not surrendered, the option for using further bombs would not have gone away. . . .​
Two months before Hiroshima, scientists at the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory, one of the key Manhattan Project facilities, authored a report arguing that the first use of an atomic bomb should not be on an inhabited city. The committee, chaired by Nobel laureate and German exile James Franck, argued that a warning, or demonstration, of the bomb on, say, a barren island, would be a worthwhile endeavor. If the Japanese still refused to surrender, then the further use of the weapon, and its further responsibility, could be considered by an informed world community. Another attractive possibility for a demonstration could be the center of Tokyo Bay, which would be visible from the Imperial Palace but have a minimum of casualties if made to detonate high in the air. Leo Szilard, a scientist who had helped launch the bomb effort, circulated a petition signed by dozens of Manhattan Project scientists arguing for such an approach. . . .​
By the summer of 1945, a substantial number of the Japanese high command, including the Emperor, were looking for a diplomatic way out of the war. Their problem was that the Allies had, with the Potsdam Declaration, continued to demand “unconditional surrender,” and emphasized the need to remove “obstacles” preventing the “democratic tendencies” of the Japanese people. What did this mean, for the postwar Japanese government? To many in the high command, this sounded a lot like getting rid of the Imperial system, and the Emperor, altogether, possibly prosecuting him as a “war criminal.” For the Japanese leaders, one could no more get rid of the Emperor system and still be “Japan” than one could get rid of the US Constitution and still be “the United States of America.” During the summer, those who constituted the “Peace Party” of the high council sent out feelers to the then still-neutral Soviet Union to serve as possible mediators with the United States, hopefully negotiating an end-of-war situation that would give some guarantees as to the Emperor’s position. (Were there alternatives to the atomic bombings?)​


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is a sensible explanation of the alternatives that were available to Truman in August 1945, alternatives that did not involve killing over 200,000 civilians and seriously injuring thousands of others with two atomic bombs


But those “alternatives” didn’t include _ending the war_. The atomic bombs did. Now move along, Paid Russian Troll. You’re not dividing Americans here because nobody believes you are actually an American.

I don’t blame the left for your ignorant troll posts. I blame Putin.


----------



## mikegriffith1

P@triot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sensible explanation of the alternatives that were available to Truman in August 1945, alternatives that did not involve killing over 200,000 civilians and seriously injuring thousands of others with two atomic bombs
> 
> 
> 
> But those “alternatives” didn’t include _ending the war_.
Click to expand...


Uh, yes they did. 



> The atomic bombs did.



No, they did not. Read this thread. The bombs did not end the war. The Big Six would not even meet in response to Hiroshima, but they met almost as soon as they heard about the Russian invasion.



> Now move along, Paid Russian Troll. You’re not dividing Americans here because nobody believes you are actually an American.



LOL! Huh?! You must be joking. In case you somehow missed this fact, some of my main points are that the Soviet version of WW II is a lie, that we should have let the Soviet Union get wiped out when we had the chance, that Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after the war was a crime and a tragedy, and that allowing the Soviets to enter the Pacific War was a huge mistake.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Another myth that Hasegawa debunks is that Truman decided to nuke Japan because Japan rejected the Potsdam Declaration. Hasegawa points out that General Handy’s order to General Spaatz authorizing the use of nukes was given on July 25, the day before the Potsdam Declaration was released: 

It is important to note that Handy’s order to Spaatz, the only existing direct order to deploy atomic bombs against Japan, was given on July 25, the day before the Potsdam Proclamation was issued. The popular myth, artificially concocted by Truman and Stimson themselves and widely believed in the United States, that Japan’s rejection of the Potsdam Proclamation led to the U.S. decision to drop the bomb, cannot be supported by the facts. Truman wrote that he issued the order to drop the bomb _after _Japan rejected the Potsdam Proclamation. The truth is quite the opposite. (_Racing the Enemy, _p. 152)​
This explains why Truman and Byrnes refused to clarify the emperor's status in the Potsdam Declaration. They did not want Japan to surrender until they had a chance to drop at least one or two nukes on Japan. 

By the way, we knew that American POWs were being held in Hiroshima, but we nuked the city anyway.


----------



## mikegriffith1

P@triot said:


> Now move along, Paid Russian Troll. You’re not dividing Americans here because nobody believes you are actually an American. I don’t blame the left for your ignorant troll posts. I blame Putin.



This comical polemic deserves further comment. I guess you don't realize that you are the one parroting Russian propaganda, not I. 

The Soviets were thrilled when FDR began imposing increasingly harsh sanctions on Japan for doing the same thing that we, the French, the British, not to mention the Soviets, had been doing for decades. The Soviets were deathly afraid that Japan would attack their eastern flank; therefore, their agents in the U.S. government and in the media launched a propaganda campaign to smear Japan and to persuade the American government not to make peace with Japan but to provoke Japan to war. FDR did everything the Soviets wanted him to do regarding Japan, and then some.

Ditto for China. The Soviets did not want the Nationalists to make peace with Japan. The Soviets provided huge amounts of military aid to the Nationalists, including the sending of advisers and even pilots. Here, too, FDR followed Soviet policy and joined the Soviets in urging/pressuring the Nationalists not to make peace with Japan. 

So if anyone is talking like a Russian troll, it is you, not I.

And, "P@triot," I don't know about your version of American patriotism, but my version does not include betraying a long-time anti-Communist ally, provoking that ally to war, siding with one of the most brutal tyrannies in world history, and then handing over China to the Chinese Communists, who proceeded to kill over 30 million Chinese.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> And, "P@triot," I don't know about your version of American patriotism, but my version does not include betraying a long-time anti-Communist ally, provoking that ally to war, siding with one of the most brutal tyrannies in world history, and then handing over China to the Chinese Communists, who proceeded to kill over 30 million Chinese.


No, instead _your_ version deems America as the “great imperialist evil empire” who attacked innocent little Japan and deserved to be bombed at Pearl Harbor.

Move along, Putin boy.


----------



## luchitociencia

P@triot said:


> No, instead _your_ version deems America as the “great imperialist evil empire” who attacked innocent little Japan and deserved to be bombed at Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Move along, Putin boy.



I'm not American born. And until right over my teens, I remember to heard in my country that the attack to Pearl Harbor was the culmination of several petitions of Japan for the US to stop the oil embargo.

What I heard was that while the war was in progress, the US and England decided to provoke Japan to get into the war. Doing so, Japan, which in those years was a great nation, the leader of the fish industry in the world, and the envy of the rest of nations because of it, could be included to be destroyed and "kill two birds (Germany and Japan) with the same shot".

Japan was in need of oil to keep their fish industry in business but the oil was controlled by the allies before the end of the war and they denied their petitions.

This version I heard in my teens "justifies" the desperate resolution of Japan to attack the US base near their island.

By the way, do you know why the US government decided to put in concentration camps to Japanese people regardless of age and sex?


----------



## gipper

luchitociencia said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, instead _your_ version deems America as the “great imperialist evil empire” who attacked innocent little Japan and deserved to be bombed at Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Move along, Putin boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not American born. And until right over my teens, I remember to heard in my country that the attack to Pearl Harbor was the culmination of several petitions of Japan for the US to stop the oil embargo.
> 
> What I heard was that while the war was in progress, the US and England decided to provoke Japan to get into the war. Doing so, Japan, which in those years was a great nation, the leader of the fish industry in the world, and the envy of the rest of nations because of it, could be included to be destroyed and "kill two birds (Germany and Japan) with the same shot".
> 
> Japan was in need of oil to keep their fish industry in business but the oil was controlled by the allies before the end of the war and they denied their petitions.
> 
> This version I heard in my teens "justifies" the desperate resolution of Japan to attack the US base near their island.
> 
> By the way, do you know why the US government decided to put in concentration camps to Japanese people regardless of age and sex?
Click to expand...

Yes, FDR did all he could to incite Japan to attack. He imposed draconian sanctions and absurd demands on Japan, like demanding their leave China before oil would be released. He knew Japan couldn’t meet his demands. He then refused to even meet with Japan’s envoys in Washington, who tried on multiple occasions to appease FDR.   

He also knew the Japanese fleet was steaming to Pearl Harbor, since their naval communications code was broken by the US. He refused to warn commanders and then scapegoated them after the attack. He did get the carriers out, but sacrificed the sailors left in the harbor. (Clearly FDR was a psychopath). 

The forced imprisonment of Japanese Americans was another sick thing FDR did.  It was racist and unconstitutional, but many Americans feared these people might be traitors.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Hasegawa hits the nail on the head when he makes the case that Truman and Byrnes used the Potsdam Declaration as their excuse for nuking Japan, that they refused to include an assurance about the emperor’s status in the declaration precisely because they feared that such an assurance would induce the Japanese to surrender before the nukes could be dropped:

In order to drop the bomb, the United States had to issue the ultimatum to Japan. . . . And this ultimatum had to be rejected by the Japanese in order to justify the use of the atomic bomb. The best way to accomplish all this was to insist upon unconditional surrender. . . .​
In the July 25 entry for his Potsdam diary, Truman . . . stated, “This weapon is to be used between now and August 10th. I have told the Secretary of War. Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. . . . The target will be a purely military target.” Thus even before the atomic bomb was deployed, the president was deceiving himself into believing that a bomb with the ability to cause “the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high” could be used solely against military targets without killing women and children. . . .​
He did not say that he hoped Japan would accept it [the Potsdam Declaration] so that he would not have to use the bomb. Rather, his diary implies that he would issue the ultimatum only as an excuse to justify the dropping of the bomb. . . . (_Racing the Enemy, _pp. 158-160)​
Hasegawa also points out that Truman and Byrnes’ decision not to ask the Soviets to sign the Potsdam Declaration, even though they knew the Soviets wanted and expected to be included in any such proclamation, was a further guarantee that Japan would not accept it:

The omission of Stalin’s signature from the Potsdam Proclamation had a profound effect on Japanese policy. The Japanese immediately noticed that Stalin did not sign the proclamation. This prompted them to continue their efforts to terminate the war through Soviet mediation rather than immediately accepting the conditions stipulated by the Potsdam Proclamation. (p. 162)​
As Truman and Byrnes knew, Stalin’s signature on the Potsdam Declaration might have caused the Japanese to either accept the Potsdam terms or to open direct negotiations with America. The first possibility would have made it impossible to test the nukes on Japan. The second possibility would have made it difficult to justify using nukes.

These facts belie the story that Truman and Byrnes wanted to avoid Soviet entry into the war at all costs. They were more determined to avoid an early Japanese surrender so they could nuke Japan than they were to keep the Soviets from entering the war. As Hasegawa notes,

But the question remains: If Byrnes’ overriding concern was Soviet expansion in China, why did he not accept Stimson’s recommendation to forestall Soviet entry into the war? From the Magic intercepts, he was well aware that dropping the demand for unconditional surrender and ensuring the continuation of a constitutional monarchy under the current dynasty [i.e., promising not to depose the emperor] might quicken Japanese surrender. More important, he also knew that any ultimatum that insisted upon unconditional surrender would be rejected by Japan. (p. 158)​


----------



## whitehall

I changed my mind after reading James Bradley's remarkable book, "Flyboys". I always felt that it was immoral for the U.S. to be the first to use nuclear weapons against the Japanese but it may have saved Japanese (and American) lives. Saipan was the first piece of the Japanese homeland that the U.S. invaded and scores of civilians committed suicide rather than surrender to U.S. forces. Old grandfathers slit the throats of their grandkids and threw them in the ocean before jumping to their deaths. Young girls fixed their hair and their clothes and jumped to their deaths. Even after loudspeakers in Japanese explained that U.S. Troops meant them no harm they continued to kill themselves. The country was collectively insane. Bushido holdouts had a grand plan that 3 million Japanese civilians (mostly women and children and old men) would mobilize with sharpened bamboo spears and confront the invading army. Even after General LeMay ordered Tokyo to be firebombed with cylinders of napalm and an estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians were incinerated in a single B-29 firestorm raid the Bushido crazies and the maniac emperor thought they could still win the final battle. It wasn't until the super weapon was unleashed that the crazies decided to surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

whitehall said:


> ....Saipan was the first piece of the Japanese homeland that the U.S. invaded and scores of civilians committed suicide rather than surrender to U.S. forces. .....




Cultural ignorance leads to misinterpretation.


----------



## Unkotare

whitehall said:


> .... would mobilize with sharpened bamboo spears and confront the invading army. ......



Propaganda meant for the domestic population, not you 75 years later.


----------



## Flash

I worked at Hanford a couple of decades ago.  

Hanford is where they made the plutonium core for the nuclear weapon used at Nagasaki.

They were retired but there were still some of the old timers around that had worked on the project.

They were damn proud of the work they did and the results that it achieved.  A quick end to the war saving hundreds of thousands if not over a million American and Japanese lives.

Self loathing American hating Liberals can do all the pathetic mindless idiotic revisionism they want and then go fuck themselves.  They don't know any more about History as they know about Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, the Constitution or Biology.

.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ... A quick end to the war saving hundreds of thousands if not over a million American and Japanese lives....
> 
> .




Read the whole thread. That speculation has been dealt with already.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... A quick end to the war saving hundreds of thousands if not over a million American and Japanese lives....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread. That speculation has been dealt with already.
Click to expand...


I read the  whole thread.  I saw a lot of revisionist stupidity.

Nobody knows jackshit about what could have happen.  What we do know is what did happen.

The war was quickly over with the course the war took.  The uranium bomb built at Oak Ridge and the plutonium bomb built at Hanford.  My uncle was damn glad the bombs were dropped.  He was scheduled for the invasion.

Anything else is nothing more than speculation.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... A quick end to the war saving hundreds of thousands if not over a million American and Japanese lives....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread. That speculation has been dealt with already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the  whole thread.  I saw a lot of revisionist stupidity.
> 
> Nobody knows jackshit about what could have happen.  What we do know is what did happen.
> 
> The war was quickly over with the course the war took.  The uranium bomb built at Oak Ridge and the plutonium bomb built at Hanford.  My uncle was damn glad the bombs were dropped.  He was scheduled for the invasion.
> 
> Anything else is nothing more than speculation.
Click to expand...


YOU are speculating. Read your own post.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... A quick end to the war saving hundreds of thousands if not over a million American and Japanese lives.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread. That speculation has been dealt with already.
Click to expand...




Flash said:


> I read the  whole thread.  I saw a lot of revisionist stupidity.



No, you read facts that you could not bring yourself to process. If any version is "revisionist," it is the Stimson version, which every nuke defense since then has used as its starting point. Stimson didn't even write most of it.

Why do you suppose that the vast majority of scholars who specialize in Japan's surrender disagree with you?



Flash said:


> Nobody knows jack about what could have happen.  What we do know is what did happen.



Actually, that's just not true, and it hasn't been true for a long, long time. You might read_ Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War_ (University of Washington Press, 2015) by Dr. Noriko Kawamura, a professor of history at Washington State University, who was able to access previously unavailable Japanese documents.



Flash said:


> The war was quickly over with the course the war took.  The uranium bomb built at Oak Ridge and the plutonium bomb built at Hanford.  My uncle was damn glad the bombs were dropped.  He was scheduled for the invasion.



Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War, without our dropping any nukes or any other kind of bomb. I bet if your uncle had known these things, he would have had a very different view of Truman's decision to nuke Japan twice in four-day period. I am willing to bet that your uncle would have been downright disgusted and ashamed of the nuking of Nagasaki if he had known the above-mentioned information.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Interestingly, even historian George Feifer, who wrote a labored, lengthy defense of the nuking of Hiroshima, conceded that a strong case can be made against the nuking of Nagasaki:

A stronger case can be made against the second bomb [Nagasaki], especially its dropping so cruelly soon after the first. The Supreme War Council’s minutes reveal that Hiroshima’s destruction made no real dent in its thinking. After acknowledging that an awesome new weapon had caused it, the members essentially proceeded directly to their outstanding military concerns. Nevertheless, three days gave them too little time to assess the damage and the nature of the weapon that produced it, let alone to reflect on the larger consequences. (_The Battle of Okinawa: The Blood and the Bomb_, 2001, Kindle Edition, loc. 8979)​
Feifer also conceded that Japan was practically prostrate before Truman nuked her:

The country’s woeful condition before the bombs were dropped was hardly secret either. Virtually her entire merchant marine and Navy lay at the bottom of the Pacific, while America alone, without the Royal Navy, had 23 battleships, 99 carriers, and 72 cruisers on hand in August. The Imperial Navy’s corresponding numbers were one, six, and four—and it had fuel only enough to sustain a force of 20 operational destroyers and perhaps 40 submarines for a few days at sea. Nor was sufficient food available for civilians who showed their ration cards in the shops that stood still. Relentless saturation bombing, easier than ever with the new bases on Okinawa and the feeble opposition from Japanese interceptors, was leveling Japan’s cities.​
The average adult existed on under 1,300 calories a day. As many as 13 million were homeless. Malaria and tuberculosis were rampant, especially in shantytowns rising in the urban ashes. Schoolchildren, barefoot in winter as well as summer, rooted out forest pine stumps for the war effort. The trees themselves were long gone. In Tokushima, home of many of the 6,000 troops lost on the _Toyoma Maru_, metal was so scarce that the bells of shrines were melted down, together with charcoal braziers, the sole source of heat for the remaining wood-and-paper homes. While huge numbers of Red Army troops mobilized to attack Manchuria—just as Tadashi Kojo had feared a year earlier, when his regiment was shipped from there to Okinawa—there was no hope of supplying the defenders even if the merchant fleet hadn’t been destroyed and the country’s industry wasn’t in shambles. Exhausted, slowly starving Japan was in no shape for further fighting. (Ibid., loc. 8862-8878)​


----------



## Doc7505

mikegriffith1 said:


> Interestingly, even historian George Feifer, who wrote a labored, lengthy defense of the nuking of Hiroshima, conceded that a strong case can be made against the nuking of Nagasaki:
> 
> A stronger case can be made against the second bomb [Nagasaki], especially its dropping so cruelly soon after the first. The Supreme War Council’s minutes reveal that Hiroshima’s destruction made no real dent in its thinking. After acknowledging that an awesome new weapon had caused it, the members essentially proceeded directly to their outstanding military concerns. Nevertheless, three days gave them too little time to assess the damage and the nature of the weapon that produced it, let alone to reflect on the larger consequences. (_The Battle of Okinawa: The Blood and the Bomb_, 2001, Kindle Edition, loc. 8979)​
> Feifer also conceded that Japan was practically prostrate before Truman nuked her:
> 
> The country’s woeful condition before the bombs were dropped was hardly secret either. Virtually her entire merchant marine and Navy lay at the bottom of the Pacific, while America alone, without the Royal Navy, had 23 battleships, 99 carriers, and 72 cruisers on hand in August. The Imperial Navy’s corresponding numbers were one, six, and four—and it had fuel only enough to sustain a force of 20 operational destroyers and perhaps 40 submarines for a few days at sea. Nor was sufficient food available for civilians who showed their ration cards in the shops that stood still. Relentless saturation bombing, easier than ever with the new bases on Okinawa and the feeble opposition from Japanese interceptors, was leveling Japan’s cities.​
> The average adult existed on under 1,300 calories a day. As many as 13 million were homeless. Malaria and tuberculosis were rampant, especially in shantytowns rising in the urban ashes. Schoolchildren, barefoot in winter as well as summer, rooted out forest pine stumps for the war effort. The trees themselves were long gone. In Tokushima, home of many of the 6,000 troops lost on the _Toyoma Maru_, metal was so scarce that the bells of shrines were melted down, together with charcoal braziers, the sole source of heat for the remaining wood-and-paper homes. While huge numbers of Red Army troops mobilized to attack Manchuria—just as Tadashi Kojo had feared a year earlier, when his regiment was shipped from there to Okinawa—there was no hope of supplying the defenders even if the merchant fleet hadn’t been destroyed and the country’s industry wasn’t in shambles. Exhausted, slowly starving Japan was in no shape for further fighting. (Ibid., loc. 8862-8878)​




~~~~~~
Just love it. Wednesday not Monday but Wednesday morning quarterbacks pontificating on decisions made 75 years ago.


----------



## fncceo

mikegriffith1 said:


> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,



It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.

Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.

In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.

It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.  

But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
Click to expand...

Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.


----------



## Unkotare

Doc7505 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, even historian George Feifer, who wrote a labored, lengthy defense of the nuking of Hiroshima, conceded that a strong case can be made against the nuking of Nagasaki:
> 
> A stronger case can be made against the second bomb [Nagasaki], especially its dropping so cruelly soon after the first. The Supreme War Council’s minutes reveal that Hiroshima’s destruction made no real dent in its thinking. After acknowledging that an awesome new weapon had caused it, the members essentially proceeded directly to their outstanding military concerns. Nevertheless, three days gave them too little time to assess the damage and the nature of the weapon that produced it, let alone to reflect on the larger consequences. (_The Battle of Okinawa: The Blood and the Bomb_, 2001, Kindle Edition, loc. 8979)​
> Feifer also conceded that Japan was practically prostrate before Truman nuked her:
> 
> The country’s woeful condition before the bombs were dropped was hardly secret either. Virtually her entire merchant marine and Navy lay at the bottom of the Pacific, while America alone, without the Royal Navy, had 23 battleships, 99 carriers, and 72 cruisers on hand in August. The Imperial Navy’s corresponding numbers were one, six, and four—and it had fuel only enough to sustain a force of 20 operational destroyers and perhaps 40 submarines for a few days at sea. Nor was sufficient food available for civilians who showed their ration cards in the shops that stood still. Relentless saturation bombing, easier than ever with the new bases on Okinawa and the feeble opposition from Japanese interceptors, was leveling Japan’s cities.​
> The average adult existed on under 1,300 calories a day. As many as 13 million were homeless. Malaria and tuberculosis were rampant, especially in shantytowns rising in the urban ashes. Schoolchildren, barefoot in winter as well as summer, rooted out forest pine stumps for the war effort. The trees themselves were long gone. In Tokushima, home of many of the 6,000 troops lost on the _Toyoma Maru_, metal was so scarce that the bells of shrines were melted down, together with charcoal braziers, the sole source of heat for the remaining wood-and-paper homes. While huge numbers of Red Army troops mobilized to attack Manchuria—just as Tadashi Kojo had feared a year earlier, when his regiment was shipped from there to Okinawa—there was no hope of supplying the defenders even if the merchant fleet hadn’t been destroyed and the country’s industry wasn’t in shambles. Exhausted, slowly starving Japan was in no shape for further fighting. (Ibid., loc. 8862-8878)​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~
> Just love it. Wednesday not Monday but Wednesday morning quarterbacks pontificating on decisions made 75 years ago.
Click to expand...


Why come to the History forum if you are opposed to studying and discussing History?


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible



Hiroshima was a legitimate military target and had a significant Imperial Army presence of 40,000 military personnel,  including the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters.  The largest number of casualties in that bombing were military personnel. The nearby city of Kure was a significant Navy anchorage and resupply depot. 

The city of Nagasaki was a major manufacturing center. The Orikami Munition works was a prime producer of torpedoes, ammunition, and aircraft engines, as well as major facilities for Mitsubishi Steel.  It was also the home of a significant military garrison and a major supply line to the bulk of the defensive forces on Kyushu Island.

By, contrast, the conventional bombings of Tokyo using napalm killed many more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagaskai combined and was less of a strategic target by that point in the war.  

Add to that, that prior to both nuclear bombings, the Allied Forces dropped leaflets on those cities imploring civilians to evacuate the area, The LeMay Leaflets.

_"Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately."_


----------



## Unkotare

ZERO old women and school girls were going to charge American soldiers with sticks. That was morale-building propaganda meant to bolster rapidly vanishing support for the war effort among a starving and utterly discontented civilization population.


----------



## miketx

gipper said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the jap military should have stopped.


----------



## gipper

fncceo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima was a legitimate military target and had a significant Imperial Army presence of 40,000 military personnel,  including the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters.  The largest number of casualties in that bombing were military personnel. The nearby city of Kure was a significant Navy anchorage and resupply depot.
> 
> The city of Nagasaki was a major manufacturing center. The Orikami Munition works was a prime producer of torpedoes, ammunition, and aircraft engines, as well as major facilities for Mitsubishi Steel.  It was also the home of a significant military garrison and a major supply line to the bulk of the defensive forces on Kyushu Island.
> 
> By, contrast, the conventional bombings of Tokyo using napalm killed many more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagaskai combined and was less of a strategic target by that point in the war.
> 
> Add to that, that prior to both nuclear bombings, the Allied Forces dropped leaflets on those cities imploring civilians to evacuate the area, The LeMay Leaflets.
> 
> _"Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately."_
Click to expand...

Nothing but war propaganda to justify mass murder.


----------



## gipper

miketx said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps the jap military should have stopped.
Click to expand...

They tried to surrender several times. Dirty Harry told them to fuck off die. Unfortunately most Americans only know what the state run schools told them. So, their clueless.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps the jap military should have stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times. Dirty Harry told them to fuck off die. Unfortunately most Americans only know what the state run schools told them. So, their clueless.
Click to expand...

That lie has been debunked in this thread alone dozens of times.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps the jap military should have stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times. Dirty Harry told them to fuck off die. Unfortunately most Americans only know what the state run schools told them. So, their clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That lie has been debunked in this thread alone dozens of times.
Click to expand...

No. State duped dummies like you never learn.


----------



## miketx

gipper said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps the jap military should have stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times. Dirty Harry told them to fuck off die. Unfortunately most Americans only know what the state run schools told them. So, their clueless.
Click to expand...

So how do you know?


----------



## fncceo

miketx said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps the jap military should have stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times. Dirty Harry told them to fuck off die. Unfortunately most Americans only know what the state run schools told them. So, their clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do you know?
Click to expand...


Apparently, he never went to school.


----------



## miketx

fncceo said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> 
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps the jap military should have stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times. Dirty Harry told them to fuck off die. Unfortunately most Americans only know what the state run schools told them. So, their clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, he never went to school.
Click to expand...

I went to middle school in the 60's, were they state run then?


----------



## Doc7505

gipper said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.
Click to expand...



~~~~~~
You're correct, but where do you start the throwing of stones. Do you begin with the Jewish diaspora, Armenian genocide, Holomodor, The Nazi Death camps that killed millions, the Allied joint firebombing bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, Wesel, Nürnberg or Würzburg.  Where and who do you point fingers. War is dirty, horrible and grisly and it's done by both sides, by order or by happenstance. Does it make it right? No! but don't go blaming Truman or America for the killing by Atomic bomb. . Had Nazi Germany, or Japan developed the Nuclear or Plutonium bombs, rest assured we'd be speaking German East of the Mississippi and Japanese West of the Big Mo...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Interestingly, even historian George Feifer, who wrote a labored, lengthy defense of the nuking of Hiroshima, conceded that a strong case can be made against the nuking of Nagasaki:
> 
> A stronger case can be made against the second bomb [Nagasaki], especially its dropping so cruelly soon after the first. The Supreme War Council’s minutes reveal that Hiroshima’s destruction made no real dent in its thinking. After acknowledging that an awesome new weapon had caused it, the members essentially proceeded directly to their outstanding military concerns. Nevertheless, three days gave them too little time to assess the damage and the nature of the weapon that produced it, let alone to reflect on the larger consequences. (_The Battle of Okinawa: The Blood and the Bomb_, 2001, Kindle Edition, loc. 8979)​
> Feifer also conceded that Japan was practically prostrate before Truman nuked her:
> 
> The country’s woeful condition before the bombs were dropped was hardly secret either. Virtually her entire merchant marine and Navy lay at the bottom of the Pacific, while America alone, without the Royal Navy, had 23 battleships, 99 carriers, and 72 cruisers on hand in August. The Imperial Navy’s corresponding numbers were one, six, and four—and it had fuel only enough to sustain a force of 20 operational destroyers and perhaps 40 submarines for a few days at sea. Nor was sufficient food available for civilians who showed their ration cards in the shops that stood still. Relentless saturation bombing, easier than ever with the new bases on Okinawa and the feeble opposition from Japanese interceptors, was leveling Japan’s cities.​
> The average adult existed on under 1,300 calories a day. As many as 13 million were homeless. Malaria and tuberculosis were rampant, especially in shantytowns rising in the urban ashes. Schoolchildren, barefoot in winter as well as summer, rooted out forest pine stumps for the war effort. The trees themselves were long gone. In Tokushima, home of many of the 6,000 troops lost on the _Toyoma Maru_, metal was so scarce that the bells of shrines were melted down, together with charcoal braziers, the sole source of heat for the remaining wood-and-paper homes. While huge numbers of Red Army troops mobilized to attack Manchuria—just as Tadashi Kojo had feared a year earlier, when his regiment was shipped from there to Okinawa—there was no hope of supplying the defenders even if the merchant fleet hadn’t been destroyed and the country’s industry wasn’t in shambles. Exhausted, slowly starving Japan was in no shape for further fighting. (Ibid., loc. 8862-8878)​



*Feifer also conceded that Japan was practically prostrate before Truman nuked her:*

Guess they should have surrendered faster...……..


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps the jap military should have stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times. Dirty Harry told them to fuck off die. Unfortunately most Americans only know what the state run schools told them. So, their clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That lie has been debunked in this thread alone dozens of times.
Click to expand...



No, it has not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> 
> 
> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps the jap military should have stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender several times. Dirty Harry told them to fuck off die. Unfortunately most Americans only know what the state run schools told them. So, their clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That lie has been debunked in this thread alone dozens of times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. State duped dummies like you never learn.
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly posted the link to SOURCE documents that show conclusively all Japan offered before surrender was a ceasefire return to 41 start points and no concessions in China.


----------



## Unkotare

Old fool can’t even be bothered to read this thread.


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier, that Truman and his cronies knew this, and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people can tell the future ... in the future.
> 
> Knowing the future from the past, that's the trick.
> 
> In fact, in the final days of the war, the Japanese cabinet was torn between those who wanted to surrender with honorable terms and those who wanted to go down fighting and take as many yabanjin down with them as possible.  I've listened to my friend's grandmother tell us stories about how they were being trained with spears as young girls in school to rush the invaders and go down fighting (she even showed us the spear).  It is unknown how many school children would have done this in reality, but she was convinced, at the time, that she would follow her school friends into the fight if it happened.
> 
> It's impossible to know what was the final straw that broke the back of the Japanese hard-liners in the cabinet.  Surely, the Russians entering the war was a factor, but the Japanese had a lot of contempt for the Russians, having decidedly defeated them previously, in 1905. I'm not convinced they saw it as a significant threat compared to the Allied invasion.  I support that belief with the fact that even after the declaration of war by the Russians, the Japanese continued to mass their forces on Kyushu island to face a potential Allied invasion from Okinawa, they did not move any forces to the north to counter a potential threat from Russia.
> 
> But, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the new weapon could not have been an insignificant factor in the decision to surrender unconditionally.  I still believe that, at the time, the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a strategically defensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.*
Click to expand...


The London Blitz?

In total war, which WW-II was without question, civilians are part of the military.  Who manufactures the tools of war?


----------



## MaryL

Everyone has 20-20 hindsight. Japan shouldn't have invaded China, for that matter, or attacked Pearl harbor, either. What ya gonna do?


----------



## gipper

MaryL said:


> Everyone has 20-20 hindsight. Japan shouldn't have invaded China, for that matter, or attacked Pearl harbor, either. What ya gonna do?


You can never justify massacring defenseless civilians.


----------



## fncceo

gipper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has 20-20 hindsight. Japan shouldn't have invaded China, for that matter, or attacked Pearl harbor, either. What ya gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> You can never justify massacring defenseless civilians.
Click to expand...


----------



## MaryL

gipper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has 20-20 hindsight. Japan shouldn't have invaded China, for that matter, or attacked Pearl harbor, either. What ya gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> You can never justify massacring defenseless civilians.
Click to expand...

Japan did it all the time as a matter of policy. The rape of  Nanjing. Unit 731.部隊


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has 20-20 hindsight. Japan shouldn't have invaded China, for that matter, or attacked Pearl harbor, either. What ya gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> You can never justify massacring defenseless civilians.
Click to expand...

A) They were not defenseless and B) it wasn't a massacre it was an attack on 2 Legitimate MILITARY Targets. You don't want Civilians killed? Don't plant an army division in their city.


----------



## MaryL

London, Dresden. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more than Nagasaki. The people that slaughtered innocent civilians (Japan)  in China, suddenly  NOW are victims because we were trying to stop THEM doing IT? Explain that.


----------



## fncceo

If you take away the emotion from nuclear weapons and evaluate their effectiveness objectively, it could be argued that nuclear weapons are the most effective weapons man has ever discovered.

In World War II, Japan was arguably the most fanatic enemy America has ever faced.  Audacious in their belief in their own superiority, morally and in every other way.  Fanatical in their ideology.  Japan puts ISIS and Al-Qaeda to shame.  Japan launched over 5,000 suicide warriors against Allied forces. They were training their civilian women and children to perform suicide attacks against invading foreigners.  The will of the Japanese to fight is probably unsurpassed in modern times.

The application of only two, very small, nuclear weapons turned the entire nation into pacifistic capitalists almost overnight.  That is certainly a great deal of buck for the bang.

Additionally, just the thought of nuclear weapons was enough to keep war down to manageable levels for the next 70 years.

If that weren't enough, no other weapon in History has spawned it's own genre of cinematic entertainment.


----------



## Kilroy2

Any country will have it hard liners or warmongers and those who disagree with warmongers. 

In the end when  the victors called for the unconditional surrender or a prompt and utter destruction of Japan if the ultimatum was ignored. 

how would anyone respond to such a request

well they argue about it 

Still after more than 67 fire bombs that even hit Tokyo and arguably killed more people that the Nukes, it became clear that killing civilians was a factor in a decision to make it a moral argument instead of a knock down brawl out fight between ground troops  

But if the emperor who finally took command of the bickering had done so sooner it might have saved some civilian lives, It was his decision to make to end the killing

who in Japan would argue with the Emperor but if the Emperor never brought it up then they can argue among themselves

eventually he had to make a moral decision to save innocent people's lives

then again if the US had been a little less aggressive and allow the Japanese to save face then who knows a peace treaty might have been reached with the killing of immoral act of killing civilians 

then the US could save face instead of arguing among themselves as what was the best way to end the war


----------



## gipper

MaryL said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has 20-20 hindsight. Japan shouldn't have invaded China, for that matter, or attacked Pearl harbor, either. What ya gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> You can never justify massacring defenseless civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan did it all the time as a matter of policy. The rape of  Nanjing. Unit 731.部隊
Click to expand...

Yep and it was entirely unjustified and a war crime.  Why would you want to emulate them?


----------



## MaryL

NAGASAKI ? The IMPERIAL JAPANESE pracataly


gipper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has 20-20 hindsight. Japan shouldn't have invaded China, for that matter, or attacked Pearl harbor, either. What ya gonna do?
> 
> 
> 
> You can never justify massacring defenseless civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan did it all the time as a matter of policy. The rape of  Nanjing. Unit 731.部隊
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep and it was entirely unjustified and a war crime.  Why would you want to emulate them?
Click to expand...

Fighting war mongers isn't a war crime...Robert Oppenheimer can attest


----------



## mikegriffith1

MaryL said:


> Everyone has 20-20 hindsight. Japan shouldn't have invaded China, for that matter, or attacked Pearl harbor, either. What ya gonna do?



Japan fought to protect its treaty-granted rights and business interests in China. The Chinese Nationalists started the war by attacking the Japanese quarter of Shanghai with several divisions while the Japanese were making peace offers. And the Japanese only decided to attack Pearl Harbor after FDR had imposed draconian sanctions on them that would have caused the collapse of Japan's economy if Japan did not find other sources of oil and other raw materials--and even then Japan only attacked after FDR had rejected every Japanese peace proposal. FDR provoked Japan to attack so he could save the Soviet Union and have an excuse to enter WW II.



gipper said:


> You can never justify massacring defenseless civilians.





RetiredGySgt said:


> A) They were not defenseless



They were practically defenseless. We've covered this ground before. We were bombing Japan at will and losing only 3 out of every 1,000 bombers. That's why the Enola Gay had no fighter escort when it nuked Hiroshima.



RetiredGySgt said:


> and B) it wasn't a massacre it was an attack on 2 Legitimate MILITARY Targets. You don't want Civilians killed? Don't plant an army division in their city.



More of your militarist propaganda. The army unit was on the outskirts of the city and was a garrison HQ unit, with no fortifications. You say you were a Gunnery Sergeant--then you know what a garrison unit is. A garrison unit is a unit that is not in combat status. Furthermore, those troops were mostly reservists and supply troops. If we wanted to bomb the garrison unit, we could have easily done so with conventional bombing and without damaging the city, but the nuke was aimed at the center of the city.

And I notice that neither you nor MaryL addressed the point that three days was far too soon to drop another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention that we knew that Japan's largest Christian community lived in Nagasaki.


----------



## MaryL

I am not saying any of that, kiddo. Japan attacked  US and that ends there, They had unit 731 and Japan pretty much deserved  getting  their ass kicked.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> ..... Japan attacked  US and that ends there......




Because that simple notion is all you are prepared to or capable of grasping. The complex reality of history overwhelms the guilt-ridden, the simple-minded, or the irrationally hateful dimwits who can't think beyond what fits on a bottle cap. Trite slogans and never-questioned bumper stickers do NOT amount to any serious study of history.


----------



## the other mike

Anyone defending our nuking of Hiroshima or Nagasaki
has no soul.


Even if we had dropped Little Boy directly on Hitler, it wouldn't have  justified killing the 150,000 people around him would it ?


----------



## Unkotare

Angelo said:


> .....
> 
> Even if we had dropped Little Boy directly on Hitler, it wouldn't have  justified killing the 150,000 people around him would it ?
> ...




Thinking about that - and measuring it within a sense of morality - is too difficult for some people so they hide behind "no choice!" "saved lives!" "not my fault!" because it is so much easier than thinking.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Angelo said:


> .....
> Even if we had dropped Little Boy directly on Hitler, it wouldn't have  justified killing the 150,000 people around him would it?



Indeed, if we were really so worried about the small garrison HQ unit that was stationed on the outskirts of Hiroshima, we could have easily bombed it with conventional bombers. Furthermore, the nuke was aimed at the center of the city, which is why the army compound suffered minimal damage compared to the city, and why so many of the soldiers there survived.

Hiroshima's harbor was useless for military purposes, since we had mined it. The army unit there had no fortifications because it was a garrison unit whose soldiers were mostly reservists and supply troops.

If that garrison unit made Hiroshima a "military target," then just about every major city in America is a "military target" because every major American city has national guard units and several units of reservists.

Similarly, if the factories in Hiroshima made the city a "military target," then every American city with factories is a "military target." Most of the factories in Hiroshima were on the outskirts of the city. Those factories, like the garrison unit, could have been bombed with conventional bombing, and, again, the nuke was purposely aimed at the city center.



Unkotare said:


> Thinking about that - and measuring it within a sense of morality - is too difficult for some people so they hide behind "no choice!" "saved lives!" "not my fault!" because it is so much easier than thinking.



And they just keep repeating myths that have been soundly debunked in this thread. They rightly complain about the refusal of some Japanese to admit Japan's war crimes, but our "thank God for the atom bomb" folks are just as guilty of obscene denial of war crimes when they argue that Hiroshima was a valid target and that the nuking of Nagasaki was also "necessary."

And let's not forget, as historian John Dower points out, that Truman approved a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan _five days after Nagasaki and after we knew Japan was going to surrender:_

Even after the Japanese government clearly indicated its intention to surrender, the United States chose to send a massive final bombing mission over Tokyo on August 14, killing and injuring additional thousands of civilians. (_History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for_ _the American Past_, p. 86)​A true patriot does not find it necessary to defend war crimes ordered by the corrupt and immoral Truman administration.


----------



## mikegriffith1

By early 1945, Japan’s air defenses were known to be so weak that when Gen. LeMay planned the massive March 9 bombing raid on Tokyo, he ordered that the bombers be stripped of their machine guns to make room for more bombs! Edwin P. Hoyt:

General LeMay called his wing commanders to meet at his Quonset hut headquarters on Guam. He showed them the results of the [February 26] Tokyo firebomb raid. . . . His XXI Bomber Command was going to switch to night raids.​
Moreover, they were going to change their entire tactics. No more high-altitude raids. They would go in low, 5,000 to 6,000 feet, and the crews would be reduced to save weight for more bombs. . . .  Japanese anti-aircraft defenses were nothing like the German, LeMay knew from his European Theater experience. He anticipated losses due to flak would be only 5 percent. . . .​
Only two aircraft had been lost to flak to date because the Japanese relied on searchlights and radar, while the German flak batteries were controlled electronically. . . .

What about fighters? Somebody asked.​
That would not be a problem. The Japanese had only two groups of night fighters in all the home islands, LeMay said. “That’s why I’m sending in the B-29s without machine guns or ammunition.” (Hoyt, _Inferno: The Fire Bombing of Japan_, New York: Madison Books, 2000, Kindle Edition, locs. 231-243)​
Guess how many of the 298 bombers were shot down during the raid? Keep in mind that not only did the bombers have no machine guns, they had no fighter escorts either. So guess how many of the defenseless 298 bombers the Japanese managed to shoot down? 40? 60? 80? Nope. Try 14. That’s right: only 14 of the 298 bombers were shot down, for a loss rate of only 4.7% (Hoyt, loc. 321). And this was in a two-hour raid with the bombers flying at low altitudes over the capital city.

By the way, that bombing raid killed over 100,000 Japanese civilians, wounded another 200,000, and left over a million people homeless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

War is hell.


----------



## P@triot

Angelo said:


> Anyone defending our nuking of Hiroshima or Nagasaki
> has no soul.
> 
> 
> Even if we had dropped Little Boy directly on Hitler, it wouldn't have  justified killing the 150,000 people around him would it ?


Anyone denouncing our use of nuclear weapons on Japan is an idiot and an asshole. Period.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Thinking about that - and measuring it within a sense of morality - is too difficult for some people so they hide behind "no choice!" "saved lives!" "not my fault!" because it is so much easier than thinking.


Yeah...because....we all know you are the bastion of thinking around here. 

Conservative: “A is the right choice”
Unkotare: “A is but the enemy in a world where B is considered”

Liberal: “B is the right choice”
Unkotare: “B sees the prism through the lense of A”

You’re literally a low quality fortune cookie if a fortune cookie could become an immature online troll. You’ve been on this board for like a decade now, have made thousands and thousands of posts, and have literally yet to add value to even a single thread. Literally. _Ever_. All you do is take up space.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, that bombing raid killed over 100,000 Japanese civilians, wounded another 200,000, and left over a million people homeless.


By the way, that’s sort of the point of _bombing_, you imbecile.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Indeed, if we were really so worried about the small garrison HQ unit that was stationed on the outskirts of Hiroshima, we could have easily bombed it with conventional bombers.


Indeed...we could have prolonged the war another 10 years and another 100,000 American lives. But real Americans weren’t down with that. We just want to win the war so we could end it. And we did. Deal with it.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking about that - and measuring it within a sense of morality - is too difficult for some people so they hide behind "no choice!" "saved lives!" "not my fault!" because it is so much easier than thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because....we all know you are the bastion of thinking around here.
> 
> Conservative: “A is the right choice”
> Unkotare: “A is but the enemy in a world where B is considered”
> 
> Liberal: “B is the right choice”
> Unkotare: “B sees the prism through the lense of A”
> 
> You’re literally a low quality fortune cookie if a fortune cookie could become an immature online troll. You’ve been on this board for like a decade now, have made thousands and thousands of posts, and have literally yet to add value to even a single thread. Literally. _Ever_. All you do is take up space.
Click to expand...


Are you done crying yet?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, if we were really so worried about the small garrison HQ unit that was stationed on the outskirts of Hiroshima, we could have easily bombed it with conventional bombers.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed...we could have prolonged the war another 10 years and another 100,000 American lives. But real Americans weren’t down with that. We just want to win the war so we could end it. And we did. Deal with it.
Click to expand...


Red herring


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone defending our nuking of Hiroshima or Nagasaki
> has no soul.
> 
> 
> Even if we had dropped Little Boy directly on Hitler, it wouldn't have  justified killing the 150,000 people around him would it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone denouncing our use of nuclear weapons on Japan is an idiot and an asshole. Period.
Click to expand...


Repeat that to yourself over and over until you can sleep. Easier than thinking.


----------



## the other mike

P@triot said:


> Anyone denouncing our use of nuclear weapons on Japan is an idiot and an asshole. Period.


Quite a compliment from a moron who thinks 9/11
was orchestrated by a dude in a cave and some clowns with boxcutters.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Are you done crying yet?


I will be when you're done taking up space. Either post something of substance or get the fuck out of here. Your schtick has grown old. Everyone is tired of it.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Repeat that to yourself over and over until you can sleep. Easier than thinking.


Pretending you're a cheap fortune cookie *isn't* "thinking", snowflake. Many years and not a single post of substance from you. Time to move along junior.


----------



## P@triot

Angelo said:


> Quite a compliment from a moron who thinks 9/11
> was orchestrated by a dude in a cave and some clowns with boxcutters.


Bwahahaha!!! Angelo thinks George W. Bush planted explosives in the World Trade Towers. 

God I _love_ conspiracy theorists. Funniest bunch of lunatics on the planet.


----------



## the other mike

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!!! Angelo thinks George W. Bush planted explosives in the World Trade Towers.
> 
> God I _love_ conspiracy theorists. Funniest bunch of lunatics on the planet.


Still spinning the truth and putting words in peoples' mouths ?
Weak sauce dawg.



P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done crying yet?
> 
> 
> 
> I will be when you're done taking up space. Either post something of substance or get the fuck out of here. Your schtick has grown old. Everyone is tired of it.
Click to expand...

Old rivals .
Political boards are microcosms of
the political scene in Washington DC pretty much.


----------



## Desperado

Question Did it save even one American Life?
If your answer is yes, it was worth it.


----------



## the other mike

The demented lunatics with hard-ons for people being blown up
are the lowest life-form on the planet.

The worst disease ever is war profiteering.


----------



## P@triot

Angelo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha!!! Angelo thinks George W. Bush planted explosives in the World Trade Towers.
> 
> God I _love_ conspiracy theorists. Funniest bunch of lunatics on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Still spinning the truth and putting words in peoples' mouths? Weak sauce dawg.
Click to expand...

Oh...I'm sorry. I thought that was the official story for all of you lunatics. Did you develop a different story? Tell me your version of who is responsible. I cannot wait.


----------



## the other mike

P@triot said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha!!! Angelo thinks George W. Bush planted explosives in the World Trade Towers.
> 
> God I _love_ conspiracy theorists. Funniest bunch of lunatics on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Still spinning the truth and putting words in peoples' mouths? Weak sauce dawg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I'm sorry. I thought that was the official story for all of you lunatics. Did you develop a different story? Tell me your version of who is responsible. I cannot wait.
Click to expand...

You getting bored there at Coalfire or wherever your cover spot is ?
*https://www.ciab.com/resources/the-carlyle-group-chertoff-group-team-up-to-buy-cybersecurity-firm/*


----------



## Desperado

Angelo said:


> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.


Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.


----------



## the other mike

Desperado said:


> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.


Really ? I thought it was their imperialist leaders who we were at war with.
I didn't kill a million Vietnamese and I'm American.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done crying yet?
> 
> 
> 
> I will be when you're done taking up space. ....
Click to expand...


Better stock up on Pedialyte, champ.


----------



## Unkotare

Desperado said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
Click to expand...


Starving children and old women were trying to kill Americans?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeat that to yourself over and over until you can sleep. Easier than thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending you're a cheap fortune cookie *isn't* "thinking", snowflake. Many years and not a single post of substance from you. Time to move along junior.
Click to expand...


How long have you been struggling with this obsession?


----------



## the other mike

Unkotare said:


> How long have you been struggling with this obsession?


Bad wiring never goes away.
He's hopeless.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Desperado said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
Click to expand...

_Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes. _

_Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases. 7000 innocent people were murdered by those who call themselves Government, and you're trying to justify it. What the Hell were they doing from across the ocean, in their own homes, to harm anyone on this plot of land?_


----------



## Desperado

Unkotare said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starving children and old women were trying to kill Americans?
Click to expand...

We are talking about the morals of the day. children and old women though sad were considered collateral damage.  Back then we played to win, not like today.
Today things have changed.


----------



## Desperado

Pumpkin Row said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes. _
> 
> _Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases. 7000 innocent people were murdered by those who call themselves Government, and you're trying to justify it. What the Hell were they doing from across the ocean, in their own homes, to harm anyone on this plot of land?_
Click to expand...

Japan proposed a conditional surrender which was unacceptable the the United States,  We demanded an unconditional surrender which we eventually got.


----------



## Unkotare

Desperado said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starving children and old women were trying to kill Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking about the morals of the day. children and old women though sad were considered collateral damage.  Back then we played to win, not like today.
> Today things have changed.
Click to expand...


It was not 1000 years ago. Deliberately targeting civilians was understood as being morally wrong. Our own military leaders recognized this.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Desperado said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes. _
> 
> _Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases. 7000 innocent people were murdered by those who call themselves Government, and you're trying to justify it. What the Hell were they doing from across the ocean, in their own homes, to harm anyone on this plot of land?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan proposed a conditional surrender which was unacceptable the the United States,  We demanded an unconditional surrender which we eventually got.
Click to expand...

_Okay, first I want to cut through that collectivist response; You had nothing to do with demanding an unconditional surrender, so this "we" is coming out of nowhere. _

_Secondly, the Japanese GOVERNMENT wanted to stay in power, which was their condition, and I want to point out that all those people that the US Government murdered with an atomic bomb had nothing to do with it. All they did was murder 7000 people they saw as nothing more than tax cattle, much like how the US Government views you. _


----------



## the other mike

Pumpkin Row said:


> _Okay, first I want to cut through that collectivist response; You had nothing to do with demanding an unconditional surrender, so this "we" is coming out of nowhere. _
> 
> _Secondly, the Japanese GOVERNMENT wanted to stay in power, which was their condition, and I want to point out that all those people that the US Government murdered with an atomic bomb had nothing to do with it. All they did was murder 7000 people they saw as nothing more than tax cattle, much like how the US Government views you. _


We've got folks who would love to nuke another country like North Korea or Iran.
I think Hillary is one of them personally.


----------



## P@triot

Angelo said:


> You getting bored there at Coalfire or wherever your *cover* spot is ?


Angelo is so important, I've been assigned to track and discredit him.


----------



## P@triot

Angelo said:


> We've got folks who would love to nuke another country like North Korea or Iran.


Putin, is that _you_???

(psst...only an asshole wouldn't want to nuke North Korea or Iran)


----------



## the other mike

*IN 2003, BOLTON got the war he wanted with Iraq. As an influential, high-profile, hawkish member of the Bush administration, Bolton put pressure on intelligence analysts, threatened international officials, and told barefaced lies about weapons of mass destruction. He has never regretted his support for the illegal and catastrophic invasion of Iraq, which killed hundreds of thousands of people.*

*Now, he wants a war with Iran. So say State Department and Pentagon officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, who were “rattled” by his request to the Pentagon “to provide the White House with military options to strike Iran last year.” The New York Times also reported that “senior Pentagon officials are voicing deepening fears” that Bolton “could precipitate a conflict with Iran.”*

*Should we be surprised? In March 2015, Bolton, then a private citizen, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times headlined, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” In July 2017, just eight months prior to joining the Trump administration, Bolton told a gathering of the cultish Iranian exile group Mujahedin-e-Khalq that “the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran” and that “before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran.”*

*John Bolton Wants to Bomb Iran — and He May Get What He Wants*
*https://theintercept.com/2019/01/15/john-bolton-wants-to-bomb-iran-and-he-may-get-what-he-wants/*


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've got folks who would love to nuke another country like North Korea or Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Putin, is that _you_???
> 
> (psst...only an asshole wouldn't want to nuke North Korea or Iran)
Click to expand...


Do you think that if you demean yourself enough you’ll really stop caring so it doesn’t hurt so much?


----------



## JoeB131

mikegriffith1 said:


> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.



Axis Mikey trying to defend Pearl Harbor. That never gets old.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Do you think that if you demean yourself enough you’ll really stop caring so it doesn’t hurt so much?


Another Unky post of 0 value (not to mention 0 coherence).


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pumpkin Row said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes. _
> 
> _Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases. 7000 innocent people were murdered by those who call themselves Government, and you're trying to justify it. What the Hell were they doing from across the ocean, in their own homes, to harm anyone on this plot of land?_
Click to expand...

Japan did NOT surrender, they offered a CEASEFIRE and return to 1941 start lines EXCEPT in China where they offered NOTHING.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pumpkin Row said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes. _
> 
> _Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases. 7000 innocent people were murdered by those who call themselves Government, and you're trying to justify it. What the Hell were they doing from across the ocean, in their own homes, to harm anyone on this plot of land?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan proposed a conditional surrender which was unacceptable the the United States,  We demanded an unconditional surrender which we eventually got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Okay, first I want to cut through that collectivist response; You had nothing to do with demanding an unconditional surrender, so this "we" is coming out of nowhere. _
> 
> _Secondly, the Japanese GOVERNMENT wanted to stay in power, which was their condition, and I want to point out that all those people that the US Government murdered with an atomic bomb had nothing to do with it. All they did was murder 7000 people they saw as nothing more than tax cattle, much like how the US Government views you. _
Click to expand...

Japan did NOT offer to surrender they offered a ceasefire with us RETURNING all the Japanese territory we had conquered. And they offered NO succession of war in China.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes. _
> 
> _Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases. 7000 innocent people were murdered by those who call themselves Government, and you're trying to justify it. What the Hell were they doing from across the ocean, in their own homes, to harm anyone on this plot of land?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan did NOT surrender, they offered a CEASEFIRE and return to 1941 start lines EXCEPT in China where they offered NOTHING.
Click to expand...



Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.


----------



## the other mike

The Wright brothers pioneered the first flight in 1903
and it only took us 11 years to start dropping bombs on people.

From the first plane to blowing up an entire city in 40 years.
*https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/ww1-bomber-aircraft.asp*


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> The scumbag FDR ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their *new toy* to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.


----------



## P@triot

Angelo said:


> The Wright brothers pioneered the first flight in 1903
> and it only took us 11 years to start dropping bombs on people.
> 
> From the first plane to blowing up an entire city in 40 years.
> *https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/ww1-bomber-aircraft.asp*


Yeah? And?

Of course we would immediately leverage that for military defense capabilities. As we would _any_ technology.


----------



## the other mike




----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.



FDR was dead by the time the Nuke was even operational... but don't let that stop you. 

The problem with all of Japan's "overtures" for peace is they wanted to keep their ill-gotten goods.  

The problem with anything less than unconditional surrender is you end up fighting another war in 20 years. This is the lesson they should have learned from WWI.  Germany was beaten.  They knew they were beaten. But because the allies let them have an armistice instead of demanding a complete surrender and taking guys like the Kaiser, Ludendorf, Hindeberg and the other war criminals and holding them to account, you instead got the "Stabbed in the Back" myth being perpetrated by these same characters, and that led to Hitler.  

Nope.  Unconditional surrender.  The only thing we did wrong was not hanging enough of the bastards after the war.


----------



## there4eyeM

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was dead by the time the Nuke was even operational... but don't let that stop you.
> 
> The problem with all of Japan's "overtures" for peace is they wanted to keep their ill-gotten goods.
> 
> The problem with anything less than unconditional surrender is you end up fighting another war in 20 years. This is the lesson they should have learned from WWI.  Germany was beaten.  They knew they were beaten. But because the allies let them have an armistice instead of demanding a complete surrender and taking guys like the Kaiser, Ludendorf, Hindeberg and the other war criminals and holding them to account, you instead got the "Stabbed in the Back" myth being perpetrated by these same characters, and that led to Hitler.
> 
> Nope.  Unconditional surrender.  The only thing we did wrong was not hanging enough of the bastards after the war.
Click to expand...

Even if true, that still doesn't make the bombing necessary or moral.


----------



## JoeB131

there4eyeM said:


> Even if true, that still doesn't make the bombing necessary or moral.



Okay, here's the thing. 

The world had been fighting a war for six years.  The Japanese had been fighting China for more than 14 years at that point and had ALREADY KILLED millions of people.  

We look back at this and see the first time a weapon that has horrified us our whole lives was used. 

The people at the time were living real horror for years, and to them, the bomb was just another weapon.  

Just look at how people are right now absolutely panicking over Coronavirus.  Now imagine that 100 times worse, for years and years of rationing, people in uniforms coming to your home telling you to replace that blue star with a gold one, of millions of your loved ones fighting across the world, and you are told it might take another year to defeat Japan through an invasion. Stories coming back of the Concentration camps that had just been liberated in Europe.  

No one at the time was upset that we nuked Japan.  We were desensitized to the horror of it all by that point.  The nuke was just another weapon, and winning the war was necessary and moral from their point of view.


----------



## P@triot

there4eyeM said:


> Even if true, that still doesn't make the bombing necessary or moral.


That's exactly what it does. It makes the use of the nuclear weapon 100% moral and 100% necessary. We *saved* lives by ending the war. The use of the nuclear weapon has prevented a WW III and a WW IV and a WW V. All of which would have happened by now. But nobody wants any part of nukes after we dropped them. And that's the point - you immature idealist. Grow the fuck up already.


----------



## P@triot

Imagine if we had nuked Iran. A lot less innocent people suffering and dying right now. But hey, you're anti-Americans so you're going to root for the enemy _every_ time.

Iran Regime’s Reckless Disregard Made Coronavirus Outbreak Worse


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes. _
> 
> _Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases. 7000 innocent people were murdered by those who call themselves Government, and you're trying to justify it. What the Hell were they doing from across the ocean, in their own homes, to harm anyone on this plot of land?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan did NOT surrender, they offered a CEASEFIRE and return to 1941 start lines EXCEPT in China where they offered NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.
Click to expand...

I have read the intercepts from source documents which I have provided in links several times , at NO time did Japan offer to surrender what they proposed was a ceasefire and return to 1941 start lines no disarmament no occupation and no concessions in China.


----------



## the other mike

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have read the intercepts from source documents which I have provided in links several times , at NO time did Japan offer to surrender what they proposed was a ceasefire and return to 1941 start lines no disarmament no occupation and no concessions in China.


You've been here since 2007 ?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Angelo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the intercepts from source documents which I have provided in links several times , at NO time did Japan offer to surrender what they proposed was a ceasefire and return to 1941 start lines no disarmament no occupation and no concessions in China.
> 
> 
> 
> You've been here since 2007 ?
Click to expand...

Ya why?


----------



## the other mike

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya why?


No special reason. So you have seniority on almost everyone I guess...
.My brother's a retired marine and one of my friends is
also -retired Sgt.....3 tours in Afghan, parachute jumper.
Where his son is now.


----------



## Picaro

P@triot said:


> Imagine if we had nuked Iran. A lot less innocent people suffering and dying right now. But hey, you're anti-Americans so you're going to root for the enemy _every_ time.
> 
> Iran Regime’s Reckless Disregard Made Coronavirus Outbreak Worse



Yes, they are indeed rooting for our enemies, every time.


----------



## the other mike

Picaro said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if we had nuked Iran. A lot less innocent people suffering and dying right now. But hey, you're anti-Americans so you're going to root for the enemy _every_ time.
> 
> Iran Regime’s Reckless Disregard Made Coronavirus Outbreak Worse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are indeed rooting for our enemies, every time.
Click to expand...

I'll play a violin for both of you fake "patriots" later.


----------



## Rambunctious

If only you could place yourself back to December 8th 1941 will you be able to understand the prospective of that day.....and I'm sure no one in these 157 pages can do that....


----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> That's exactly what it does. It makes the use of the nuclear weapon 100% moral and 100% necessary. We *saved* lives by ending the war. The use of the nuclear weapon has prevented a WW III and a WW IV and a WW V. All of which would have happened by now. But nobody wants any part of nukes after we dropped them. And that's the point - you immature idealist. Grow the fuck up already.



Leave it to Poodle to say something crazy. 

Sorry, man, living in fear of nuclear annihilation wasn't a good thing.  You'd know this if you weren't 25 and fetching the big man's coffee.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Imagine if we had nuked Iran. A lot less innocent people suffering and dying right now. But hey, you're anti-Americans so you're going to root for the enemy _every_ time.



You are a retard, aren't you?   Covid-19 is bad, but it's only killed 10K people world wide so far.  

A nuclear war would kill hundreds of thousands.  

Here's a study of the results of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, which would be "limited".  

If India and Pakistan have a nuclear war, scientists say it could trigger Ice-Age temperatures, cause global famine, and kill 125 million people


----------



## JoeB131

Rambunctious said:


> If only you could place yourself back to December 8th 1941 will you be able to understand the prospective of that day.....and I'm sure no one in these 157 pages can do that....



That panic will make you do stupid things?  We know that from 9/11 or Covid-19.


----------



## DOTR

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.
Click to expand...



  Then they provoked us into nuking them. And have ceased their privations ever since.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The demented lunatics with hard-ons for* people* being blown up
> are the lowest life-form on the planet.
> The worst disease ever is war profiteering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes. _
> 
> _Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases. 7000 innocent people were murdered by those who call themselves Government, and you're trying to justify it. What the Hell were they doing from across the ocean, in their own homes, to harm anyone on this plot of land?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan did NOT surrender, they offered a CEASEFIRE and return to 1941 start lines EXCEPT in China where they offered NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the intercepts from source documents which I have provided in links several times.....
Click to expand...



You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.


----------



## Rambunctious

JoeB131 said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could place yourself back to December 8th 1941 will you be able to understand the prospective of that day.....and I'm sure no one in these 157 pages can do that....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That panic will make you do stupid things?  We know that from 9/11 or Covid-19.
Click to expand...

That wasn't panic Joe it was self defense...we placed our nation on a war footing....this is the same thing....we are in a war against an invisible enemy unleashed on to the world by a real enemy...China....things are going to change forever now...China will be essentially dead to us....so any company that refuses to leave China will be left behind by the American people....this includes Apple and Nike.....I am hearing rumbles of Nike returning their manufacturing to the United States...and open border liberals supporting us closing our borders.....yep some big changes are coming...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not people, they were the enemy who were trying to kill Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> _Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes. _
> 
> _Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases. 7000 innocent people were murdered by those who call themselves Government, and you're trying to justify it. What the Hell were they doing from across the ocean, in their own homes, to harm anyone on this plot of land?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan did NOT surrender, they offered a CEASEFIRE and return to 1941 start lines EXCEPT in China where they offered NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the intercepts from source documents which I have provided in links several times.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
Click to expand...

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes. _
> 
> _Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases. 7000 innocent people were murdered by those who call themselves Government, and you're trying to justify it. What the Hell were they doing from across the ocean, in their own homes, to harm anyone on this plot of land?_
> 
> 
> 
> Japan did NOT surrender, they offered a CEASEFIRE and return to 1941 start lines EXCEPT in China where they offered NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the intercepts from source documents which I have provided in links several times.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
Click to expand...


I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan did NOT surrender, they offered a CEASEFIRE and return to 1941 start lines EXCEPT in China where they offered NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read the intercepts from source documents which I have provided in links several times.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
Click to expand...

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the intercepts from source documents which I have provided in links several times.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
Click to expand...


Are you a very good driver?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the intercepts from source documents which I have provided in links several times.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
Click to expand...

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.


----------



## JoeB131

Rambunctious said:


> That wasn't panic Joe it was self defense...we placed our nation on a war footing....this is the same thing....we are in a war against an invisible enemy unleashed on to the world by a real enemy...China....things are going to change forever now...China will be essentially dead to us....so any company that refuses to leave China will be left behind by the American people....this includes Apple and Nike.....I am hearing rumbles of Nike returning their manufacturing to the United States...and open border liberals supporting us closing our borders.....yep some big changes are coming...



Okay, kind of off topic, so I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.  

After this is over, the big corporations, who are going to drop Trump like a bad habit, will be going back to dealing with China like none of this ever happened.  

Yes, some of them will move factories from China to Vietnam, but that's because Chinese workers are too expensive to employ.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't panic Joe it was self defense...we placed our nation on a war footing....this is the same thing....we are in a war against an invisible enemy unleashed on to the world by a real enemy...China....things are going to change forever now...China will be essentially dead to us....so any company that refuses to leave China will be left behind by the American people....this includes Apple and Nike.....I am hearing rumbles of Nike returning their manufacturing to the United States...and open border liberals supporting us closing our borders.....yep some big changes are coming...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, kind of off topic, so I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.
> 
> After this is over, the big corporations, who are going to drop Trump like a bad habit, will be going back to dealing with China like none of this ever happened.
> 
> Yes, some of them will move factories from China to Vietnam, but that's because Chinese workers are too expensive to employ.
Click to expand...



Off topic trolling.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
Click to expand...



One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.


----------



## DOTR

Rambunctious said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only you could place yourself back to December 8th 1941 will you be able to understand the prospective of that day.....and I'm sure no one in these 157 pages can do that....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That panic will make you do stupid things?  We know that from 9/11 or Covid-19.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't panic Joe it was self defense...we placed our nation on a war footing....this is the same thing....we are in a war against an invisible enemy unleashed on to the world by a real enemy...China....things are going to change forever now...China will be essentially dead to us....so any company that refuses to leave China will be left behind by the American people....this includes Apple and Nike.....I am hearing rumbles of Nike returning their manufacturing to the United States...and open border liberals supporting us closing our borders.....yep some big changes are coming...
Click to expand...


  Trump was right all along.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
Click to expand...

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.


----------



## Markle

Once again for the needy whiners.

This is March 23, 2020

We won an unconditional surrender in 1945.  The two nuclear devices proved to Japan that we would stop at nothing to win an unconditional surrender.  The two nuclear devices saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars.

The two victories resulted in 70+ years of peace, prosperity and two of our strongest allies and no more world wars.

Given the incredible results, it was a bargain if we had, and had dropped two or four more nuclear bombs on Japan.  Thank God it wasn't necessary.


----------



## JoeB131

Markle said:


> nce again for the needy whiners.
> 
> This is March 23, 2020
> 
> We won an unconditional surrender in 1945. The two nuclear devices proved to Japan that we would stop at nothing to win an unconditional surrender. The two nuclear devices saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars.



Actually, the Japanese didn't surrender because of the Bomb. They surrendered because the USSR entered the war in the Pacific and they knew they didn't stand a chance.


----------



## CHAZBUKOWSKI

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.
Click to expand...

Completely ignoring the reason those sanctions were in place.  Nice to see you advocate the murder and mass rape of entire cities.


----------



## theHawk

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



That’s because the stubborn Japanese leadership refused to acknowledge the truth, they were losing the war.  To them the atomic bomb wasn’t much different than normal bombing raids.  The Tokyo fire raids destroyed the city and killed more Japs than the atomic bombs ever did.  Plus the US wanted to end the war quickly.  An invasion of the main islands would had cost the lives of a million US soldiers easy.  They finally got the message after the second bomb and surrendered.  If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Japs that refused to surrender earlier.


----------



## Mac-7

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree
> There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.
> 
> While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary
> 
> 
> 
> Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.
Click to expand...

Even after nagasaki there were officers in japan who wanted to continue the war


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> Even after nagasaki there were officers in japan who wanted to continue the war



I'm sure there were.  The bombs weren't the game-changer, the USSR entering the war was.  

Japan found itself facing hundreds of battle-hardened divisions rolling into their main resource centers, and a front they had no troops to protect.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even after nagasaki there were officers in japan who wanted to continue the war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there were.  The bombs weren't the game-changer, the USSR entering the war was.
> 
> Japan found itself facing hundreds of battle-hardened divisions rolling into their main resource centers, and a front they had no troops to protect.
Click to expand...

Sez you

japan didnt surrender when russia entered the bit after we dropped the bomb on them

though I’m sure having to fight russia hastened their decision


----------



## Markle

JoeB131 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> nce again for the needy whiners.
> 
> This is March 23, 2020
> 
> We won an unconditional surrender in 1945. The two nuclear devices proved to Japan that we would stop at nothing to win an unconditional surrender. The two nuclear devices saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Japanese didn't surrender because of the Bomb. They surrendered because the USSR entered the war in the Pacific and they knew they didn't stand a chance.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pumpkin Row

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
Click to expand...

_I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.  

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pumpkin Row said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
Click to expand...

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. People in 1945 knew damn well incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians was wrong. Just because YOU have no morals or values today doesn’t mean no one does or ever did.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
Click to expand...

_
Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it. 

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything. 

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical. 

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. People in 1945 knew damn well incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians was wrong. Just because YOU have no morals or values today doesn’t mean no one does or ever did.
Click to expand...

You are a moron a liar and a retard. It was KNOWN to every Country in the war that mass bombings were occurring now cite for me the riots the moral outrage or movements in Allied Countries to stop it. It was a different age a different time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pumpkin Row said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
Click to expand...

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. People in 1945 knew damn well incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians was wrong. Just because YOU have no morals or values today doesn’t mean no one does or ever did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a moron a liar and a retard. It was KNOWN to every Country in the war that mass bombings were occurring now cite for me the riots the moral outrage or movements in Allied Countries to stop it. It was a different age a different time.
Click to expand...


You have been shown page after page of quotations from AMERICAN political leaders and military commanders OF THAT TIME who recognized the immorality of slaughtering helpless civilians of an already defeated foe. You ignore mountains of evidence because you can't be bothered (or are unable) to think and lack the courage to face your own un-American lack of morality. You are the epitome of a willfully ignorant intellectual coward


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. People in 1945 knew damn well incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians was wrong. Just because YOU have no morals or values today doesn’t mean no one does or ever did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a moron a liar and a retard. It was KNOWN to every Country in the war that mass bombings were occurring now cite for me the riots the moral outrage or movements in Allied Countries to stop it. It was a different age a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been shown page after page of quotations from AMERICAN military commanders OF THAT TIME who recognized the immorality of slaughtering helpless civilians of an already defeated foe. You ignore mountains of evidence because you can't be bothered (or are unable) to think and lack the courage to face your own un-American lack of morality.
Click to expand...

In a defeated foe is it.... remind me what their opinion was from 1941 to 1945?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
Click to expand...

_
That's a complete non sequitur. You COMPLETELY failed to respond to a single solitary thing I said.  Due to that, I'm going to just conclude that you have no arguments against objective ethics. 

Next, in response to your non sequitur, neither of those things matter. At all. Whether or not people riot or form movements doesn't affect whether or not an action is wrong, that's an appeal to popularity, if even that. A group of people don't have to riot to determine whether or not something is ethical, that's actually retarded. 

Oh, you could also be trying to say that it's totally cool to murder innocent people with nukes if they're not rioting. That'd be retarded, too, though._


----------



## RetiredGySgt

EVERYONE knew we were bombing cities and almost no one complained or cared because they felt it was JUSTIFIED. There was no ethical dilemma, no moral outrage and no one gave two shits that bad people died in bombings.  As for your innocent civilians, where EXACTLY do you think soldiers come from? In the case of Japan the Government ORDERED the citizens to prepare to human wave assault the landing beaches with bamboo spears. The evidence of Saipan and Okinawa showed clearly that a MAJORITY of the population would IN FACT do as ordered. Spears were prepared and being stockpiled for that very purpose. In Japan there were no citizens that fought with or disagreed with the  Emperor or his Government.


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> Sez you
> 
> japan didnt surrender when russia entered the bit after we dropped the bomb on them
> 
> though I’m sure having to fight russia hastened their decision



Actually, it was the only factor.  The bombs weren't that big of a deal, we had been bombing Japan for months.  

Knowing they were going to lose Manchuria and Korea to the Russians, that hastened their decision.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Bullshit. People in 1945 knew damn well incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians was wrong. Just because YOU have no morals or values today doesn’t mean no one does or ever did.



Actually, nobody in 1945 really thought incinerating Japs was a bad thing.  They remembered Pearl Harbor and the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March and they had no problem with it.  

TODAY, we wring our hands about it because we've lived generations under the threat of nuclear annihilation.  At the time, not so much.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sez you
> 
> japan didnt surrender when russia entered the bit after we dropped the bomb on them
> 
> though I’m sure having to fight russia hastened their decision
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the only factor.  The bombs weren't that big of a deal, we had been bombing Japan for months.
> 
> Knowing they were going to lose Manchuria and Korea to the Russians, that hastened their decision.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken

what you are giving is revisionist history

the war would not have ended any other way without an invasion of japan with great loss of life


----------



## Pumpkin Row

RetiredGySgt said:


> EVERYONE knew we were bombing cities and almost no one complained or cared because they felt it was JUSTIFIED. There was no ethical dilemma, no moral outrage and no one gave two shits that bad people died in bombings.  As for your innocent civilians, where EXACTLY do you think soldiers come from? In the case of Japan the Government ORDERED the citizens to prepare to human wave assault the landing beaches with bamboo spears. The evidence of Saipan and Okinawa showed clearly that a MAJORITY of the population would IN FACT do as ordered. Spears were prepared and being stockpiled for that very purpose. In Japan there were no citizens that fought with or disagreed with the  Emperor or his Government.


_
OH, you avoided quoting me, hoping I wouldn't notice. Cute.

First, "everyone knew and nobody complained" doesn't mean it's totally fine to incinerate innocent people, that's, again, an appeal to popularity fallacy at best, and popular opinion does not determine ethics. These were dealings between two Governments, both of which commit mass murder. The people left in the cities had nothing to do with that, as I said earlier, they were tax cattle.

Secondly, "where do you think soldiers come from" is just as retarded as everything ELSE you've said here. Where do murderers come from? Well, shit, since they come from the 'general population' and everyone is capable of murder, a potential murderer, then it must be totally fine to just annihilate all of humanity, by your logic. 

Lastly, I'll just assume you're right. I'll assume that all of the people were totally cool with the lying sociopaths in Government ordering them to prepare to defend their homes with bamboo spears provided a military force that has a reputation for murdering civilians was going to show up and attack them instead of the Government and military responsible for the war; Tell me, boot-licker, if a bunch of violent murderers showed up to attack YOUR home, would you just cuck out like you do with your beloved holy Government when it steals money from you, or defend yourself?

If we're not pretending, we can conclude "WELL THEY WERE TOLD TO DO THIS" is pretty meaningless until someone actually hurts someone else. Your argument is essentially that if I told you to go curbstomp your neighbor, you should be outright murdered because you orders to kill someone. So, whether they were actually going to defend themselves or cuck out like you seem to want them to, incinerating thousands of innocent people is not justified. All you're doing is lobbing excuses.

The way I see it, the only real targets for a nuke, even by statist standards, would be the 'enemy' Government, or any number of military bases. Instead, your holy Government incinerated thousands of women and children. As far as I'm concerned, if you advocate for mass murder of innocent people, you're an irredeemable psychopath._


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LOL calling American troops murderers and psychopaths is all I need to hear from you, you loon.


----------



## Picaro

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
Click to expand...


Thanks for those links. I have them somewhere, but lost them long ago, but to a different site that is no longer available.


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> You are mistaken
> 
> what you are giving is revisionist history
> 
> the war would not have ended any other way without an invasion of japan with great loss of life



Actually, the war was over when the USSR entered it.  Japan had hoped to get Stalin to broker a peace with the Americans. Instead, when it was clear Stalin just wanted to grab some of their territory, it was a matter of just negotiating the best deal they could. 

Now, this actually cut both ways.   The other thing that happened was that the US dropped its demand that they decide the fate of Hirohito (A guy who should have ended up on the business end of a noose with the rest of the war criminals).  When the USSR got into it, and it looked like they were going to grab a lot of territory very quickly, the US Suddenly were totally cool with Hirohito keeping his job.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are mistaken
> 
> what you are giving is revisionist history
> 
> the war would not have ended any other way without an invasion of japan with great loss of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the war was over when the USSR entered it.  Japan had hoped to get Stalin to broker a peace with the Americans. Instead, when it was clear Stalin just wanted to grab some of their territory, it was a matter of just negotiating the best deal they could.
> 
> Now, this actually cut both ways.   The other thing that happened was that the US dropped its demand that they decide the fate of Hirohito (A guy who should have ended up on the business end of a noose with the rest of the war criminals).  When the USSR got into it, and it looked like they were going to grab a lot of territory very quickly, the US Suddenly were totally cool with Hirohito keeping his job.
Click to expand...

Thats mostly true

we did compromise on hirohito because of fear of the soviets


----------



## Pumpkin Row

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL calling American troops murderers and psychopaths is all I need to hear from you, you loon.


_Oh, I know, imagine thinking that someone who murders people on behalf of an organization that dismembers thousands of children is a murderer or psychopath, especially given the number of civilian casualties in Government operations. It's such a confusing concept. 

Oh, hey, don't forget to polish that boot you're deepthroating while you refuse to engage with any of my points due to fear of your world view being challenged, Government Cultist. _


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> Thats mostly true
> 
> we did compromise on hirohito because of fear of the soviets



How many people died on all sides while we were dicking around on what to do about Hirohito?  

Yes, the fact that we didn't want the Soviets occupying ALL of Korea, China and Half of Japan was why we knuckled under...


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats mostly true
> 
> we did compromise on hirohito because of fear of the soviets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many people died on all sides while we were dicking around on what to do about Hirohito?
> 
> Yes, the fact that we didn't want the Soviets occupying ALL of Korea, China and Half of Japan was why we knuckled under...
Click to expand...

No many Americans and thats all that counted at the time

we had already taken okinawa and were transporting soldiers from europe to the pacific

the invasion would have caused more deaths, American and japanese, than the atomic bombs killed


----------



## Unkotare

Invasion was NOT the only other option against an already-defeated foe.


----------



## LuckyDuck

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


The military, knowing how tough the battling was on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, didn't want to shed thousands more troops on mainland Japan, so Truman gave the greenlight to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while the US could have delayed an actual invasion of mainland Japan for several days, it did mean more fighting in the meantime.  The first detonation was definitely warranted, although, if I were the president at the time, I would have insisted that they drop the first bomb on the largest military command that was still functioning and wait.  Then, if after two weeks, no word of surrender came, I'd have given the word to drop it on Tokyo to get their attention.


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> No many Americans and thats all that counted at the time
> 
> we had already taken okinawa and were transporting soldiers from europe to the pacific
> 
> the invasion would have caused more deaths, American and japanese, than the atomic bombs killed



Again, the Atomic bombs didn't make Japan surrender, Russia's entry into the war did.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Invasion was NOT the only other option against an already-defeated foe.



Actually, it was if you didn't want some Jap Politician coming back in 20 years with a "Stabbed in the Back Myth", like the Germans did after WWI.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No many Americans and thats all that counted at the time
> 
> we had already taken okinawa and were transporting soldiers from europe to the pacific
> 
> the invasion would have caused more deaths, American and japanese, than the atomic bombs killed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Atomic bombs didn't make Japan surrender, Russia's entry into the war did.
Click to expand...

you are mistaken

it was the bomb that finally shocked hirohito enough to overrule his military government that want to fight to thevdeath


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> you are mistaken
> 
> it was the bomb that finally shocked hirohito enough to overrule his military government that want to fight to thevdeath



No, it really wasn't.  We had already bombed the snot out of Tokyo, killing far more people than we had killed at Hiroshima. 

What changed his mind was that with the USSR entering the war, they didn't want "North Japan" like "East Germany". They heard the stories how the Russians were raping the shit out of the German women, and they really didn't want the Russians doing that to THEIR women.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are mistaken
> 
> it was the bomb that finally shocked hirohito enough to overrule his military government that want to fight to thevdeath
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it really wasn't.  We had already bombed the snot out of Tokyo, killing far more people than we had killed at Hiroshima.
> 
> What changed his mind was that with the USSR entering the war, they didn't want "North Japan" like "East Germany". They heard the stories how the Russians were raping the shit out of the German women, and they really didn't want the Russians doing that to THEIR women.
Click to expand...

Thats revisionist history


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> Thats revisionist history



No, revisionist history is what you've probably been hearing all of your life... how the US was the key player in WWII when we were more of a bit player.  Most of the heavy lifting was done by Russians, Chinese and Indians.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats revisionist history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, revisionist history is what you've probably been hearing all of your life... how the US was the key player in WWII when we were more of a bit player.  Most of the heavy lifting was done by Russians, Chinese and Indians.
Click to expand...

A bit player?

without the US germany would have ruled europe


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> A bit player?
> 
> without the US germany would have ruled europe



Not necessarily.  Probably the war would have dragged on longer, but the Germans had already been stymied by the time we got into it.   The Russians did most of the fighting against the Germans.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bit player?
> 
> without the US germany would have ruled europe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  Probably the war would have dragged on longer, but the Germans had already been stymied by the time we got into it.   The Russians did most of the fighting against the Germans.
Click to expand...

Only because we sent them massive amounts food and weapons of war

and what would have happened if the war lasted longer?

V1, V2 rockets, jet aircraft and who knows what else

Britain would have been helpless


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> Only because we sent them massive amounts food and weapons of war
> 
> and what would have happened if the war lasted longer?
> 
> V1, V2 rockets, jet aircraft and who knows what else
> 
> Britain would have been helpless



V1 and V2's didn't change the basic problem Germany had.  No Navy to do an invasion.  

Once the British established effective convoys, Germany couldn't starve them out with U-boats, either.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because we sent them massive amounts food and weapons of war
> 
> and what would have happened if the war lasted longer?
> 
> V1, V2 rockets, jet aircraft and who knows what else
> 
> Britain would have been helpless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> V1 and V2's didn't change the basic problem Germany had.  No Navy to do an invasion.
> 
> Once the British established effective convoys, Germany couldn't starve them out with U-boats, either.
Click to expand...

Without America all britian could do is prolong the inevitable


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> Without America all britian could do is prolong the inevitable



Nope. Germany had given up on invading Britain by 1940.  All they wanted to do at that point was secure the rest of Europe so he could go to war with Russia.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without America all britian could do is prolong the inevitable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Germany had given up on invading Britain by 1940.  All they wanted to do at that point was secure the rest of Europe so he could go to war with Russia.
Click to expand...

Quite true for 1940

that does not mean germany would never have invaded England

churchill might easily have become head of a government in exile someday if the US were not actively at war with germany


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> Quite true for 1940
> 
> that does not mean germany would never have invaded England
> 
> churchill might easily have become head of a government in exile someday if the US were not actively at war with germany



or he might have just finally sued for peace when the war dragged on with no resolution...  Point remains. No navy, Germany couldn't invade England.   The time that the UK was most vulnerable was Summer of 1940, when they had to abandon all that equipment in France.  By 1941, war production had ramped up there was no way an invasion could have happened.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true for 1940
> 
> that does not mean germany would never have invaded England
> 
> churchill might easily have become head of a government in exile someday if the US were not actively at war with germany
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or he might have just finally sued for peace when the war dragged on with no resolution...  Point remains. No navy, Germany couldn't invade England.   The time that the UK was most vulnerable was Summer of 1940, when they had to abandon all that equipment in France.  By 1941, war production had ramped up there was no way an invasion could have happened.
Click to expand...

Really?

The V2s had no problem reaching England in 1945


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> Really?
> 
> The V2s had no problem reaching England in 1945



A V-2 had a warhead with a 1000 KG of TNT.  By comparison, a B-29 bomber carried 16,000 lbs of payload...  

Um. No, Germany was not really a threat to the UK after 1940.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> The V2s had no problem reaching England in 1945
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A V-2 had a warhead with a 1000 KG of TNT.  By comparison, a B-29 bomber carried 16,000 lbs of payload...
> 
> Um. No, Germany was not really a threat to the UK after 1940.
Click to expand...

The brits did not have B29 bombers


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> The brits did not have B29 bombers



No, they had Lancasters... But I'm sure we'd have sold them B29's if we asked them to.  Funny thing was, American Bankers and Diplomats did what Hitler couldn't.  Bankrupt the British Empire out of existence.


----------



## candycorn

We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brits did not have B29 bombers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they had Lancasters... But I'm sure we'd have sold them B29's if we asked them to.  Funny thing was, American Bankers and Diplomats did what Hitler couldn't.  Bankrupt the British Empire out of existence.
Click to expand...

B29s were not necessary for europe

they were designed for the extreme distances found in the Pacific Theater 

but the Lancasters or B29s would not have survived german jets deployed in quantity


----------



## Mac-7

candycorn said:


> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.


I would not go that far

the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> B29s were not necessary for europe
> 
> they were designed for the extreme distances found in the Pacific Theater
> 
> but the Lancasters or B29s would not have survived german jets deployed in quantity



We had jets, too. So did the British.  





US Aerocomet - 




Gloster Meteor  

What else you got?


----------



## candycorn

Mac-7 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
Click to expand...

Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> B29s were not necessary for europe
> 
> they were designed for the extreme distances found in the Pacific Theater
> 
> but the Lancasters or B29s would not have survived german jets deployed in quantity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had jets, too. So did the British.
> 
> View attachment 316321
> US Aerocomet -
> 
> View attachment 316322
> Gloster Meteor
> 
> What else you got?
Click to expand...

The p-59 flew but it was not accepted for combat by the military  

 the meteor was a practical design and had a better power plant than the me262

but during WWII it never flew outside the UK so how it would have done against the germans is unknown


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.



You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
Click to expand...


We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
Click to expand...

I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
Click to expand...


Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
Click to expand...

Dusting Hiroshima and Nagasaki did avoid us having to invade.  So we did avoid battles.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.
Click to expand...


Sorry to have painted you into a corner like that.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to have painted you into a corner like that.
Click to expand...


Are you afraid to answer my question? I'm not afraid to answer yours.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to have painted you into a corner like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you afraid to answer my question? I'm not afraid to answer yours.
Click to expand...


Its a BS question.  No I don’t want more civilians killed.  But killing them ultimately brought the war to an end quicker.  So nuking the shit out of the Japs—who started it—was a good thing.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
Click to expand...










						Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to have painted you into a corner like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you afraid to answer my question? I'm not afraid to answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a BS question.  No I don’t want more civilians killed.  But killing them ultimately brought the war to an end quicker.  So nuking the shit out of the Japs [sic]—who started it—was a good thing.
Click to expand...


You're contradicting yourself.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
Click to expand...

there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to have painted you into a corner like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you afraid to answer my question? I'm not afraid to answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a BS question.  No I don’t want more civilians killed.  But killing them ultimately brought the war to an end quicker.  So nuking the shit out of the Japs [sic]—who started it—was a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...


nope.

nuking those cities brought the war to an end.  that’s a good thing.   Thinking the japs may have  given up sooner had we dusted Tokyo is a logical.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
Click to expand...

American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
Click to expand...

MacArthur was a general not a diplomat

and a good general too in my opinion

but planning for the biggest invasion  in history was still going on up until the japanese surrendered

and that didnt come till after the bombs were dropped


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to have painted you into a corner like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you afraid to answer my question? I'm not afraid to answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a BS question.  No I don’t want more civilians killed.  But killing them ultimately brought the war to an end quicker.  So nuking the shit out of the Japs [sic]—who started it—was a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're contradicting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.
> 
> nuking those cities brought the war to an end.  that’s a good thing.   Thinking the japs [sic] may have  given up sooner had we dusted Tokyo is a logical [sic].
Click to expand...



The war was near its end regardless of the bomb, we didn't have any more than those two at the moment anyway, and your bloodthirsty glee at the prospect of incinerating even more civilian women and children is utterly UN-AMERICAN. The war could have ended without killing hundreds of thousands more women, children, and the elderly (AND American servicemen); could have ended much sooner if fdr hadn't insisted on killing those civilians. Military leaders of that day recognized this. You are just trying to puff your chest out vicariously because you are personally weak and utterly bankrupt morally. Your character is just as filthy as your fellow democrat abortion-lovers.


----------



## HenryBHough

Look at the bright side:

How many millions of Japs would be around to suffer and die from "the virus" had it been business-as-usual in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

They were spared ALL THAT SUFFERING!


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
Click to expand...


Your imagination is running away with you.

Amazingly, despite all of that, the japs in the field were not surrendering at all.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to have painted you into a corner like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you afraid to answer my question? I'm not afraid to answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a BS question.  No I don’t want more civilians killed.  But killing them ultimately brought the war to an end quicker.  So nuking the shit out of the Japs [sic]—who started it—was a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're contradicting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.
> 
> nuking those cities brought the war to an end.  that’s a good thing.   Thinking the japs [sic] may have  given up sooner had we dusted Tokyo is a logical [sic].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The war was near its end regardless of the bomb, we didn't have any more than those two at the moment anyway, and your bloodthirsty glee at the prospect of incinerating even more civilian women and children is utterly UN-AMERICAN. The war could have ended without killing hundreds of thousands more women, children, and the elderly (AND American servicemen); could have ended much sooner if fdr hadn't insisted on killing those civilians. Military leaders of that day recognized this. You are just trying to puff your chest out vicariously because you are personally weak and utterly bankrupt morally. Your character is just as filthy as your fellow democrat abortion-lovers.
Click to expand...


Strangely, 4 months before we nuked the Japs your surrender happy Japanese killedthousands of Americans at Iwo Jima. ARe you dishonest, ignorant, or both?

PS:  fuck you


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
Click to expand...


I have provided documentation.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to have painted you into a corner like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you afraid to answer my question? I'm not afraid to answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a BS question.  No I don’t want more civilians killed.  But killing them ultimately brought the war to an end quicker.  So nuking the shit out of the Japs [sic]—who started it—was a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're contradicting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.
> 
> nuking those cities brought the war to an end.  that’s a good thing.   Thinking the japs [sic] may have  given up sooner had we dusted Tokyo is a logical [sic].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The war was near its end regardless of the bomb, we didn't have any more than those two at the moment anyway, and your bloodthirsty glee at the prospect of incinerating even more civilian women and children is utterly UN-AMERICAN. The war could have ended without killing hundreds of thousands more women, children, and the elderly (AND American servicemen); could have ended much sooner if fdr hadn't insisted on killing those civilians. Military leaders of that day recognized this. You are just trying to puff your chest out vicariously because you are personally weak and utterly bankrupt morally. Your character is just as filthy as your fellow democrat abortion-lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strangely, 4 months before we nuked the Japs *[sic]* your surrender happy Japanese killedthousands of Americans at Iwo Jima. .....
Click to expand...



Don't ever use the word "logic" again, you idiot.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to have painted you into a corner like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you afraid to answer my question? I'm not afraid to answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a BS question.  No I don’t want more civilians killed.  But killing them ultimately brought the war to an end quicker.  So nuking the shit out of the Japs [sic]—who started it—was a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're contradicting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.
> 
> nuking those cities brought the war to an end.  that’s a good thing.   Thinking the japs [sic] may have  given up sooner had we dusted Tokyo is a logical [sic].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The war was near its end regardless of the bomb, we didn't have any more than those two at the moment anyway, and your bloodthirsty glee at the prospect of incinerating even more civilian women and children is utterly UN-AMERICAN. The war could have ended without killing hundreds of thousands more women, children, and the elderly (AND American servicemen); could have ended much sooner if fdr hadn't insisted on killing those civilians. Military leaders of that day recognized this. You are just trying to puff your chest out vicariously because you are personally weak and utterly bankrupt morally. Your character is just as filthy as your fellow democrat abortion-lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strangely, 4 months before we nuked the Japs *[sic]* your surrender happy Japanese killedthousands of Americans at Iwo Jima. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever use the word "logic" again, you idiot.
Click to expand...


If the japs wanted to surrender, they would have.  That’s logic shit brains.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
Click to expand...


Your cherry picked nonsense is as silly as you are full of shit


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You regret that MORE civilians weren’t killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I regret that so many Americans were killed.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don’t answer a question with a question. I’ll be happy to answer yours after you answer mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to have painted you into a corner like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you afraid to answer my question? I'm not afraid to answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a BS question.  No I don’t want more civilians killed.  But killing them ultimately brought the war to an end quicker.  So nuking the shit out of the Japs [sic]—who started it—was a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're contradicting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope.
> 
> nuking those cities brought the war to an end.  that’s a good thing.   Thinking the japs [sic] may have  given up sooner had we dusted Tokyo is a logical [sic].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The war was near its end regardless of the bomb, we didn't have any more than those two at the moment anyway, and your bloodthirsty glee at the prospect of incinerating even more civilian women and children is utterly UN-AMERICAN. The war could have ended without killing hundreds of thousands more women, children, and the elderly (AND American servicemen); could have ended much sooner if fdr hadn't insisted on killing those civilians. Military leaders of that day recognized this. You are just trying to puff your chest out vicariously because you are personally weak and utterly bankrupt morally. Your character is just as filthy as your fellow democrat abortion-lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strangely, 4 months before we nuked the Japs *[sic]* your surrender happy Japanese killedthousands of Americans at Iwo Jima. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't ever use the word "logic" again, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the japs *[sic]* wanted to surrender, they would have.  That’s logic shit brains.
Click to expand...


No it's not, dimwit.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your cherry picked nonsense is as silly as you are full of shit
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is your own fault.


----------



## Unkotare

Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu
				




"Take, for example, Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." Moreover, Leahy continued, "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."  "


"President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."  "


"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used.  "


"Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."  "


"Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima."  "


----------



## Mac-7

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> 
> Amazingly, despite all of that, the japs in the field were not surrendering at all.
Click to expand...

Or at least not until they heard their emperors voice announcing surrender


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
Click to expand...

You mean opinion

historians disagree with each other all the time

and yours are definite WAYOUT outfielders


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean opinion
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


I mean documentation.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean opinion
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean documentation.
Click to expand...

No thats a crackpot historians opinion


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean opinion
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thats a crackpot historians opinion
Click to expand...

A source is not an opinion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
Click to expand...

Again for the slow and STUPID, all Japan offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China. The Government records PROVE that your claim is bullshit.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
Click to expand...

NO, you have provided opinions, no actual documents support your idiotic claims or you would produce them, you have opinions after the fact by people NOT in the know of the strategic picture in the Pacific. A historians opinion with out ACTUAL documents to back that opinion is worthless and that's all you have. The Government records CLEARLY show what was and was not said by the Japanese Government.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your cherry picked nonsense is as silly as you are full of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is your own fault.
Click to expand...


If the japs wanted to surrender, all they had to do was surrender.  Instead, they continued to fight.  The Killing of  Americans does bother you, doesn’t it?


----------



## Unkotare

"Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945 JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

 Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals 

By Walter Trohan 

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago. Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received* a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.* MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D. The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures. *The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.* 

The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces. Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito. 

General's Communication Dismissed

* President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician." The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta*. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan. This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington TimesHerald shortly after the MacArthur communication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code. Must Explain Delay Now that peace has been concluded on the basis of the terms MacArthur reported, high administration officials prepared to meet expected congressional demands for explanation of the delay. It was considered certain that from various quarters of Congress charges would be hurled that *the delay cost thousands of American lives and casualties, particularly in such costly offensives as Iwo Jima and Okinawa. *It was explained in high official circles that the bid relayed by MacArthur did not constitute an official offer in the same sense as the final offer which was presented through Japanese diplomatic channels at Bern and Stockholm last week for relay to the four major Allied powers. No negotiations were begun on the basis of the bid, it was said, because it was feared that if any were undertaken the Jap war lords, who were presumed to be ignorant of the feelers, would visit swift punishment on those making the offer. It was held possible that the war lords might even assassinate the Emperor and announce the son of heaven had fled the earth in a fury of indignation over the peace bid. 

Defeat Seen Inevitable 

Officials said it was felt by Mr. Roosevelt that the Japs were not ripe for peace, except for a small group, who were powerless to cope with the war lords, and that peace could not come until the Japs had suffered more. The Jap overtures were made on acknowledgment that defeat was inevitable and Japan had to choose the best way out of an unhappy dilemma -- domination of Asia by Russia or by the United States. The unofficial Jap peace brokers said the latter would be preferable by far. 

Jap proposals to Gen. MacArthur contemplated: 
1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries. 
2. Surrender of all arms and munitions. 
3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction. Would Give Up Territory 
4. Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war. 
5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war. 
6. Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals. 
7. Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control. 

After the fall of Germany, the policy of unconditional surrender drew critical fire. In the Senate Senator White (R.) of Maine Capehart (R.) of Indiana took the lead in demanding that precise terms be given Japan and in asking whether peace feelers had not been received from the Nipponese. Terms Drafted in July In July the Tribune reported that a set of terms were being drafted for President Truman to take to Potsdam. Capehart hailed the reported terms on the floor of the Senate as a great contribution to universal peace. These terms, which were embodied in the Potsdam declaration, did not mention the disposition of the Emperor. Otherwise they were almost identical with the proposals contained in the MacArthur memorandum. Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin. Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain. "




			http://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> ...  The Killing of  Americans does bother you, doesn’t it?



Always. The unnecessary slaughter of civilians doesn't bother you, does it? Neither one bothered the fucking scumbag fdr, that's for damn sure.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  The Killing of  Americans does bother you, doesn’t it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always. The unnecessary slaughter of civilians doesn't bother you, does it? Neither one bothered the fucking scumbag fdr, that's for damn sure.
Click to expand...


now you’re just being stupid.  The Japs were never going to surrender—we saw that at IJ.  So you’re full of shit on that front.  We would have had to invade the homeland.  Which would have meant many more Americans dying.  That doesn’t bother you but it does bother most of us.


----------



## Unkotare

"Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945 JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals

By Walter Trohan

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago. Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received* a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.* MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D. The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures. *The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.*

The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces. Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

General's Communication Dismissed

* President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician." The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta*. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan. This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington TimesHerald shortly after the MacArthur communication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code. Must Explain Delay Now that peace has been concluded on the basis of the terms MacArthur reported, high administration officials prepared to meet expected congressional demands for explanation of the delay. It was considered certain that from various quarters of Congress charges would be hurled that *the delay cost thousands of American lives and casualties, particularly in such costly offensives as Iwo Jima and Okinawa. *It was explained in high official circles that the bid relayed by MacArthur did not constitute an official offer in the same sense as the final offer which was presented through Japanese diplomatic channels at Bern and Stockholm last week for relay to the four major Allied powers. No negotiations were begun on the basis of the bid, it was said, because it was feared that if any were undertaken the Jap war lords, who were presumed to be ignorant of the feelers, would visit swift punishment on those making the offer. It was held possible that the war lords might even assassinate the Emperor and announce the son of heaven had fled the earth in a fury of indignation over the peace bid.

Defeat Seen Inevitable

Officials said it was felt by Mr. Roosevelt that the Japs were not ripe for peace, except for a small group, who were powerless to cope with the war lords, and that peace could not come until the Japs had suffered more. The Jap overtures were made on acknowledgment that defeat was inevitable and Japan had to choose the best way out of an unhappy dilemma -- domination of Asia by Russia or by the United States. The unofficial Jap peace brokers said the latter would be preferable by far.

Jap proposals to Gen. MacArthur contemplated:
1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.
2. Surrender of all arms and munitions.
3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction. Would Give Up Territory
4. Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war.
5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.
6. Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals.
7. Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control.

After the fall of Germany, the policy of unconditional surrender drew critical fire. In the Senate Senator White (R.) of Maine Capehart (R.) of Indiana took the lead in demanding that precise terms be given Japan and in asking whether peace feelers had not been received from the Nipponese. Terms Drafted in July In July the Tribune reported that a set of terms were being drafted for President Truman to take to Potsdam. Capehart hailed the reported terms on the floor of the Senate as a great contribution to universal peace. These terms, which were embodied in the Potsdam declaration, did not mention the disposition of the Emperor. Otherwise they were almost identical with the proposals contained in the MacArthur memorandum. Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin. Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain. "




			http://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean opinion
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thats a crackpot historians opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A source is not an opinion.
Click to expand...

Its your source and you are welcome to accept it

but its only an opinion that I do not share


----------



## Unkotare

"Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945 JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals

By Walter Trohan

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago. Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received* a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.* MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D. The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures. *The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.*

The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces. Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

General's Communication Dismissed

* President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician." The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta*. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan.

This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington TimesHerald shortly after the MacArthur communication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code.

Must Explain Delay

Now that peace has been concluded on the basis of the terms MacArthur reported, high administration officials prepared to meet expected congressional demands for explanation of the delay. It was considered certain that from various quarters of Congress charges would be hurled that *the delay cost thousands of American lives and casualties, particularly in such costly offensives as Iwo Jima and Okinawa. *It was explained in high official circles that the bid relayed by MacArthur did not constitute an official offer in the same sense as the final offer which was presented through Japanese diplomatic channels at Bern and Stockholm last week for relay to the four major Allied powers. No negotiations were begun on the basis of the bid, it was said, because it was feared that if any were undertaken the Jap war lords, who were presumed to be ignorant of the feelers, would visit swift punishment on those making the offer. It was held possible that the war lords might even assassinate the Emperor and announce the son of heaven had fled the earth in a fury of indignation over the peace bid.

Defeat Seen Inevitable

Officials said it was felt by Mr. Roosevelt that the Japs were not ripe for peace, except for a small group, who were powerless to cope with the war lords, and that peace could not come until the Japs had suffered more. The Jap overtures were made on acknowledgment that defeat was inevitable and Japan had to choose the best way out of an unhappy dilemma -- domination of Asia by Russia or by the United States. The unofficial Jap peace brokers said the latter would be preferable by far.

Jap proposals to Gen. MacArthur contemplated:
1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.
2. Surrender of all arms and munitions.
3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction. Would Give Up Territory
4. Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war.
5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.
6. Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals.
7. Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control.

After the fall of Germany, the policy of unconditional surrender drew critical fire. In the Senate Senator White (R.) of Maine Capehart (R.) of Indiana took the lead in demanding that precise terms be given Japan and in asking whether peace feelers had not been received from the Nipponese. Terms Drafted in July In July the Tribune reported that a set of terms were being drafted for President Truman to take to Potsdam. Capehart hailed the reported terms on the floor of the Senate as a great contribution to universal peace. These terms, which were embodied in the Potsdam declaration, did not mention the disposition of the Emperor. Otherwise they were almost identical with the proposals contained in the MacArthur memorandum. Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin. Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain. "




			http://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean opinion
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thats a crackpot historians opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A source is not an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its your source and you are welcome to accept it
> 
> but its only an opinion that I do not share
Click to expand...


You lack the courage and intelligence to even consider things may not be the simple narrative you’ve always needed to believe. That’s not being a man, not being an honest person.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean opinion
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thats a crackpot historians opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A source is not an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its your source and you are welcome to accept it
> 
> but its only an opinion that I do not share
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lack the courage and intelligence to even consider things may not be the simple narrative you’ve always needed to believe. That’s not being a man, not being an honest person.
Click to expand...

You are a sore loser

i have considered the history you propose, not just by you but other revisionists, and rejected it


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean opinion
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thats a crackpot historians opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A source is not an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its your source and you are welcome to accept it
> 
> but its only an opinion that I do not share
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lack the courage and intelligence to even consider things may not be the simple narrative you’ve always needed to believe. That’s not being a man, not being an honest person.
Click to expand...


Yawn.

If the Japanese wanted to surrender, all they had to do was lay down their arms.  Instead, in March of 1945--about 5 months before we nuked their sorry asses, they killed thousands of Americans at Iwo Jima. 

Your fantasy doesn't match reality.  You're concocting some moronic and false narrative that soothes some sort of bloodlust you have.  Thats not being a man....thats not being an honest person.


----------



## JoeB131

candycorn said:


> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before. We lost thousands of men there.



Probably not. The reason why we wanted to take it was to have a forward base to bomb Japan from.  The Japanese knew this as well, which is why they fought so viciously to defend it.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.



Okay, reality check.   The problem with any of those "surrender" offers is that they were "Conditional" on Japan keeping their Emperor and own government and retaining territories they had previously conquered in China and Korea.   This was unacceptable to the allies (Not just FDR) for the obvious reasons.   

We gave Germany a "conditional" surrender after WWI, and a few years later, guys like Ludendorf (one of the Co-founders of the Nazi Party) were spreading stories of a "Stabbed in the Back" myth. 

The thing that guys like you don't get is that to the allies, the A-bomb was just another weapon. The thing is, all those "commanders" like Ike (who I normally respect) only voiced their "concerns" a decade after the war, when both sides were building stockpiles and we were teaching kids to "Duck and cover".   (I'd laugh at this notion, but we are in week three of "Social distancing", which people will laugh at in 20 years.)


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> "Take, for example, Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." Moreover, Leahy continued, "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." "



Did he resign in 1945 in protest?  Nope.   Oh, after the war, he had qualms.  



Unkotare said:


> "President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963,



1963.  18 years later.  After he had built a huge nuclear arsenal and people were terrified of nuclear annihilation.  
Here's the thing. The Japanese got a lot more mercy than they deserved.  They went on a genocidal rampage across Asia and are STILL hated in much of Asia today.  More than the western powers are.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> "Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945 JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO
> 
> Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
> 
> By Walter Trohan
> 
> Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago. Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received* a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.* MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D. The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures. *The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.*
> 
> The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces. Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.
> 
> General's Communication Dismissed
> 
> * President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician." The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta*. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan. This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington TimesHerald shortly after the MacArthur communication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code. Must Explain Delay Now that peace has been concluded on the basis of the terms MacArthur reported, high administration officials prepared to meet expected congressional demands for explanation of the delay. It was considered certain that from various quarters of Congress charges would be hurled that *the delay cost thousands of American lives and casualties, particularly in such costly offensives as Iwo Jima and Okinawa. *It was explained in high official circles that the bid relayed by MacArthur did not constitute an official offer in the same sense as the final offer which was presented through Japanese diplomatic channels at Bern and Stockholm last week for relay to the four major Allied powers. No negotiations were begun on the basis of the bid, it was said, because it was feared that if any were undertaken the Jap war lords, who were presumed to be ignorant of the feelers, would visit swift punishment on those making the offer. It was held possible that the war lords might even assassinate the Emperor and announce the son of heaven had fled the earth in a fury of indignation over the peace bid.
> 
> Defeat Seen Inevitable
> 
> Officials said it was felt by Mr. Roosevelt that the Japs were not ripe for peace, except for a small group, who were powerless to cope with the war lords, and that peace could not come until the Japs had suffered more. The Jap overtures were made on acknowledgment that defeat was inevitable and Japan had to choose the best way out of an unhappy dilemma -- domination of Asia by Russia or by the United States. The unofficial Jap peace brokers said the latter would be preferable by far.
> 
> Jap proposals to Gen. MacArthur contemplated:
> 1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.
> 2. Surrender of all arms and munitions.
> 3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction. Would Give Up Territory
> 4. Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war.
> 5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.
> 6. Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals.
> 7. Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control.
> 
> After the fall of Germany, the policy of unconditional surrender drew critical fire. In the Senate Senator White (R.) of Maine Capehart (R.) of Indiana took the lead in demanding that precise terms be given Japan and in asking whether peace feelers had not been received from the Nipponese. Terms Drafted in July In July the Tribune reported that a set of terms were being drafted for President Truman to take to Potsdam. Capehart hailed the reported terms on the floor of the Senate as a great contribution to universal peace. These terms, which were embodied in the Potsdam declaration, did not mention the disposition of the Emperor. Otherwise they were almost identical with the proposals contained in the MacArthur memorandum. Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin. Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf



Yawn...  Let's not forget, MacArthur was the guy who almost started WWIII in Korea, because he thought he knew more than the President and had to be fired.   

MacArthuer was also the guy who ordered invasions of Islands with no strategic value, often with poor intelligence, that were bloodbaths for both sides.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean opinion
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thats a crackpot historians opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A source is not an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its your source and you are welcome to accept it
> 
> but its only an opinion that I do not share
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lack the courage and intelligence to even consider things may not be the simple narrative you’ve always needed to believe. That’s not being a man, not being an honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a sore loser
> 
> i have considered the history you propose, not just by you but other revisionists, and rejected it
Click to expand...


Liar. You haven’t considered anything. You have put your fingers in your ears and cried “LALALA!” Nothing more.


----------



## Unkotare

"Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945 JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals

By Walter Trohan

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago. Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received* a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.* MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D. The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures. *The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.*

The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces. Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

General's Communication Dismissed

* President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician." The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta*. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan.

This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington TimesHerald shortly after the MacArthur communication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code.

Must Explain Delay

Now that peace has been concluded on the basis of the terms MacArthur reported, high administration officials prepared to meet expected congressional demands for explanation of the delay. It was considered certain that from various quarters of Congress charges would be hurled that *the delay cost thousands of American lives and casualties, particularly in such costly offensives as Iwo Jima and Okinawa. *It was explained in high official circles that the bid relayed by MacArthur did not constitute an official offer in the same sense as the final offer which was presented through Japanese diplomatic channels at Bern and Stockholm last week for relay to the four major Allied powers. No negotiations were begun on the basis of the bid, it was said, because it was feared that if any were undertaken the Jap war lords, who were presumed to be ignorant of the feelers, would visit swift punishment on those making the offer. It was held possible that the war lords might even assassinate the Emperor and announce the son of heaven had fled the earth in a fury of indignation over the peace bid.

Defeat Seen Inevitable

Officials said it was felt by Mr. Roosevelt that the Japs were not ripe for peace, except for a small group, who were powerless to cope with the war lords, and that peace could not come until the Japs had suffered more. The Jap overtures were made on acknowledgment that defeat was inevitable and Japan had to choose the best way out of an unhappy dilemma -- domination of Asia by Russia or by the United States. The unofficial Jap peace brokers said the latter would be preferable by far.

Jap proposals to Gen. MacArthur contemplated:
1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.
2. Surrender of all arms and munitions.
3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction. Would Give Up Territory
4. Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war.
5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.
6. Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals.
7. Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control.

After the fall of Germany, the policy of unconditional surrender drew critical fire. In the Senate Senator White (R.) of Maine Capehart (R.) of Indiana took the lead in demanding that precise terms be given Japan and in asking whether peace feelers had not been received from the Nipponese. Terms Drafted in July In July the Tribune reported that a set of terms were being drafted for President Truman to take to Potsdam. Capehart hailed the reported terms on the floor of the Senate as a great contribution to universal peace. These terms, which were embodied in the Potsdam declaration, did not mention the disposition of the Emperor. Otherwise they were almost identical with the proposals contained in the MacArthur memorandum. Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin. Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain. "




			http://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean opinion
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thats a crackpot historians opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A source is not an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its your source and you are welcome to accept it
> 
> but its only an opinion that I do not share
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lack the courage and intelligence to even consider things may not be the simple narrative you’ve always needed to believe. That’s not being a man, not being an honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a sore loser
> 
> i have considered the history you propose, not just by you but other revisionists, and rejected it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar. You haven’t considered anything. You have put your fingers in your ears and cried “LALALA!” Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is unconvincing beside the fact that japan did not surrender till after the bombs were dropped


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were perfectly right in nuking Nagasaki...my only regret is that we didn’t dust Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not go that far
> 
> the japs were not bad people underneath the bushido bs and I’m glad we didnt kill more than we had to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hind sight is 20/20 but one wonders if we could have avoided the battle of Iwo Jima which was just a few months before.  We lost thousands of men there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could have avoided that battle, but fdr didn’t want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are plenty of historians who disagree with the ones you offer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American military commanders of that time recognized the unnecessary, immoral nature of the weapon that truman used to slaughter civilians just as fdr wanted. MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your imagination is running away with you.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean opinion
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No thats a crackpot historians opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A source is not an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its your source and you are welcome to accept it
> 
> but its only an opinion that I do not share
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lack the courage and intelligence to even consider things may not be the simple narrative you’ve always needed to believe. That’s not being a man, not being an honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a sore loser
> 
> i have considered the history you propose, not just by you but other revisionists, and rejected it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar. You haven’t considered anything. You have put your fingers in your ears and cried “LALALA!” Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion is unconvincing beside the fact that japan did not surrender till after the bombs were dropped
Click to expand...

I have provided documentation. YOU have only the “opinion” of an intellectual coward.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945 JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO
> 
> Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
> 
> By Walter Trohan
> 
> Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago. Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received* a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.* MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D. The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures. *The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.*
> 
> The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces. Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.
> 
> General's Communication Dismissed
> 
> * President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician." The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta*. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan. This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington TimesHerald shortly after the MacArthur communication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code. Must Explain Delay Now that peace has been concluded on the basis of the terms MacArthur reported, high administration officials prepared to meet expected congressional demands for explanation of the delay. It was considered certain that from various quarters of Congress charges would be hurled that *the delay cost thousands of American lives and casualties, particularly in such costly offensives as Iwo Jima and Okinawa. *It was explained in high official circles that the bid relayed by MacArthur did not constitute an official offer in the same sense as the final offer which was presented through Japanese diplomatic channels at Bern and Stockholm last week for relay to the four major Allied powers. No negotiations were begun on the basis of the bid, it was said, because it was feared that if any were undertaken the Jap war lords, who were presumed to be ignorant of the feelers, would visit swift punishment on those making the offer. It was held possible that the war lords might even assassinate the Emperor and announce the son of heaven had fled the earth in a fury of indignation over the peace bid.
> 
> Defeat Seen Inevitable
> 
> Officials said it was felt by Mr. Roosevelt that the Japs were not ripe for peace, except for a small group, who were powerless to cope with the war lords, and that peace could not come until the Japs had suffered more. The Jap overtures were made on acknowledgment that defeat was inevitable and Japan had to choose the best way out of an unhappy dilemma -- domination of Asia by Russia or by the United States. The unofficial Jap peace brokers said the latter would be preferable by far.
> 
> Jap proposals to Gen. MacArthur contemplated:
> 1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.
> 2. Surrender of all arms and munitions.
> 3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction. Would Give Up Territory
> 4. Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war.
> 5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.
> 6. Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals.
> 7. Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control.
> 
> After the fall of Germany, the policy of unconditional surrender drew critical fire. In the Senate Senator White (R.) of Maine Capehart (R.) of Indiana took the lead in demanding that precise terms be given Japan and in asking whether peace feelers had not been received from the Nipponese. Terms Drafted in July In July the Tribune reported that a set of terms were being drafted for President Truman to take to Potsdam. Capehart hailed the reported terms on the floor of the Senate as a great contribution to universal peace. These terms, which were embodied in the Potsdam declaration, did not mention the disposition of the Emperor. Otherwise they were almost identical with the proposals contained in the MacArthur memorandum. Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin. Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf


And yet in 1945 near the end all they offered was a cease fire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China...... I suspect your newspaper article is a lie by that paper or perhaps you can cite for us the OFFICIAL report by Mac Arther  I have source documents from the ACTUAL Government of what was proposed by Japan to the Soviets and to the Americans. At no time was it an abject surrender. However the peace party in the Japanese Government was trying to do that, the problem being they did NOT control the Government the ARMY did and the ARMY had no intention of surrender. Produce an actual Government record or I will even accept a letter FROM Mac Arther, otherwise it is a smoke trail. The reality is that the American press was of two camps. One sup[ported the President and Nimitz, the other supported Mac Arther. The Mac Arther camp routinely downplayed any success by the Navy or Marines and claimed any success by Mac was a stunning victory. They lied routinely to make Mac look better. I took a history class on this very subject and I bet you haven't.


----------



## keepitreal

I think China is going to wage a second attack against us
and weakened our allies first


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sensible explanation of the alternatives that were available to Truman in August 1945, alternatives that did not involve killing over 200,000 civilians and seriously injuring thousands of others with two atomic bombs
> 
> 
> 
> But those “alternatives” didn’t include _ending the war_. ....
Click to expand...

The war could have ended in any number of ways with a surrender and without the incineration of hundreds of thousands of women, children, and the elderly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The only way it ended was the way it did. The Japanese Army controlled the Government and absolutely refused to surrender. Even after 2 nukes and the Soviet attack. The Emperor intervened and ordered thre surrender and even THEN the Army staged a Coup to stop that. You are simply being lied to when you are told Japan was going to surrender on their own.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> The war could have ended in any number of ways with a surrender and without the incineration of hundreds of thousands of women, children, and the elderly.



True, but that falls as much on the Japanese for not surrendering in 1943 or 1944 as it does on us for just using a bomb.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> True, but that falls as much on the Japanese for not surrendering in 1943 or 1944 as it does on us for just using a bomb.


Jerkoff Joey still bitter that more Americans didn't die.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Always. The unnecessary slaughter of civilians doesn't bother you, does it? Neither one bothered the fucking scumbag fdr, that's for damn sure.


Like Jerkoff Joey, Sensei Snowflake still pissed off more Americans weren't killed. They anti-Americans *hate* that bombs ended the war instantly.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> ....more Americans weren't killed.......


A great many more American servicemen would not have died if the war had ended sooner, as it might have if the scumbag fdr didn't want otherwise.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....more Americans weren't killed.......
> 
> 
> 
> A great many more American servicemen would not have died if the war had ended sooner, as it might have if the scumbag fdr didn't want otherwise.
Click to expand...

Again you LYING TOOL, I have the ACTUAL Government documents in the link. All Japanese Government offered was a CEASEFIRE and return to 41 start lines except in China NO concessions there. You claim General Mac Aurther had something else, PROVE IT. I want eitther the offical Government documents showing what he told the Government or an official statement from HIM that says they offered something more than ANY of the official channels. You can not provide them they don't exist because all the Army that Controlled the Japanese Government ever offered was a cease fire as I have proof of. Even after 2 Atomic Bombs and the entry of the Soviets into the war the Army that CONTROLLED the Government refused to surrender and when the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender the ARMY STAGED A COUP to stop him.

What you have is the attempts by the Navy, a junior member of the Government, to surrender on some other terms. No matter what they wanted they couldn't do it because they were NOT in control of the Government the ARMY was.  And that is what your IGNORANT historians that claim they would have surrendered have. IT SIMPLE WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Jerkoff Joey still bitter that more Americans didn't die.



Well, funny old thing.  We let the Russians do all the heavy lifting, and then whined when they took an unfair share of the rewards.  



P@triot said:


> Like Jerkoff Joey, Sensei Snowflake still pissed off more Americans weren't killed. They anti-Americans *hate* that bombs ended the war instantly.



Except the bombs had nothing to do with Japan's surrender.  We had been bombing them for months.  What caused them to surrender was the USSR entering the war, opening a whole new front they weren't ready to fight on.  

Remember, the ENTIRE goal of Japan in the war was to hold onto their territories in China and Korea.  Once the USSR got into the war, and their armies in Manchuria were being rolled up like a rug, that became a moot point and the only option they had was to surrender unconditionally and hope their country didn't get partitioned like Germany. 



Unkotare said:


> A great many more American servicemen would not have died if the war had ended sooner, as it might have if the scumbag fdr didn't want otherwise.



Again, Dripping Poop, here was the problem. The one thing we didn't want was Japan to be able to develop it's own version of the "Stabbed in the Back" myth that the Germans did in World War I.  You certainly didn't want to leave all those territories under Japanese dominance.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....more Americans weren't killed.......
> 
> 
> 
> A great many more American servicemen would not have died if the war had ended sooner, as it might have if the scumbag fdr didn't want otherwise.
Click to expand...

While FDR is absolutely one of the worst in U.S. history, he dropped two fucking nukes, you imbecile. He clearly wanted the war to end. It did. And you’re pissed off because it prevented more Americans from dying.


----------



## P@triot

*The Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Even better today than it was yesterday!*


----------



## P@triot

> ”Most regular people would say it's hard...And any streetwise son of a bitch knows: *Don't fuck with this*”


----------



## P@triot

Not only did the bombings _immediately_ end the war - but they proactively prevented any and all attacks on the U.S. Not a single nation has attacked the U.S. since we dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. Not one.

That’s something the simpletons like mikegriffith1 and Sensei Snowflake Unkotare don’t think about. Millions and millions of American lives saved. Our only mistake was not dropping a third.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerkoff Joey still bitter that more Americans didn't die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, funny old thing.  We let the Russians do all the heavy lifting, and then whined when they took an unfair share of the rewards.
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Jerkoff Joey, Sensei Snowflake still pissed off more Americans weren't killed. They anti-Americans *hate* that bombs ended the war instantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the bombs had nothing to do with Japan's surrender.  We had been bombing them for months.  What caused them to surrender was the USSR entering the war, opening a whole new front they weren't ready to fight on.
> 
> Remember, the ENTIRE goal of Japan in the war was to hold onto their territories in China and Korea.  Once the USSR got into the war, and their armies in Manchuria were being rolled up like a rug, that became a moot point and the only option they had was to surrender unconditionally and hope their country didn't get partitioned like Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A great many more American servicemen would not have died if the war had ended sooner, as it might have if the scumbag fdr didn't want otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Dripping Poop, here was the problem. The one thing we didn't want was Japan to be able to develop it's own version of the "Stabbed in the Back" myth that the Germans did in World War I.  You certainly didn't want to leave all those territories under Japanese dominance.
Click to expand...

The Army that controlled the Japanese Governent did not surrender because of the Soviets, they did not surrender at all. After  Atomic Bombs and the Soviet attack the Army REFUSED to surrender and when the Emperor ordered the surrender that same Army attempted a Coup to stop the surrender. I seriously doubt the Emperor surrendered because of the Soviets.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....more Americans weren't killed.......
> 
> 
> 
> A great many more American servicemen would not have died if the war had ended sooner, as it might have if the scumbag fdr didn't want otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While FDR is absolutely one of the worst in U.S. history, he dropped two fucking nukes...
Click to expand...



Did he? Do you have to work at being this stupid?


----------



## Unkotare

A great many more American servicemen would not have died if the war had ended sooner, as it might have if the scumbag fdr didn't want otherwise.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> While FDR is absolutely one of the worst in U.S. history, *he dropped two fucking nukes,* you imbecile. He clearly wanted the war to end. It did. And you’re pissed off because it prevented more Americans from dying.



FDR was already dead when the Nukes were dropped....   Truman made the decision to use the bombs.  

I find it funny that someone who calls himself a "Patriot" hates our greatest presidents- FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt. 



P@triot said:


> Not only did the bombings _immediately_ end the war - but they proactively prevented any and all attacks on the U.S. Not a single nation has attacked the U.S. since we dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. Not one.



Actually, the bombs had little to do with ending the war.  Japan realized that they were without allies, and with the USSR entering the war, they had no other options but surrender.  

Remember, the Jap Goal was to hold on to some of the territories they had gained in Asia.  Once the Russians were in it, that wasn't going to happen, and they best thing they had to hope for was not getting partitioned like Germany and having a bunch of half-Russian mongrels running around.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Army that controlled the Japanese Governent did not surrender because of the Soviets, they did not surrender at all. After Atomic Bombs and the Soviet attack the Army REFUSED to surrender and when the Emperor ordered the surrender that same Army attempted a Coup to stop the surrender. I seriously doubt the Emperor surrendered because of the Soviets.



The point was, the coup failed because most of the Army knew that with the USSR in the mix, the Japanese had no other options.  

Heck, there was probably some guy on some Island who didn't surrender until the 1970's, but most of them knew they didn't have a chance when the USSR got into it. 

The bombs weren't that big of a deal.  We were already bombing the snot our of Japan with conventional bombs, leveling most of their major cities.  It was the prospect of invading Russian Armies, with the horror stories of what they were doing in Germany, that got Japan to realize that being occupied by the Americans was the best deal. 

Then you had the OTHER end of it. The last sticking point was the status of the Emperor.  Up until that point, the US wanted to treat him as the war criminal he was.  Once the Russians got into it and we realized we might have to share the spoils of war with them, we suddenly decided we were totally cool with letting Hirohito off.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> I find it funny that someone who calls himself a "Patriot" hates our greatest presidents- FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt.


See, I find it tragic that you're so uneducated, you actually _think_ FDR is one of our "greatest presidents". He pissed all over the U.S. Constitution and then wiped his ass with what was left of it, he ran for more than two terms because he was obsessed with power (typical leftist), and he ran one of the most corrupt administrations of all time.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> I find it funny that someone who calls himself a "Patriot" hates our greatest presidents- FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt.


What do those three have in common? They took a match to the U.S. Constitution and reveled in it. Which is exactly why Joey likes them. Sad.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> See, I find it tragic that you're so uneducated, you actually _think_ FDR is one of our "greatest presidents". He pissed all over the U.S. Constitution and then wiped his ass with what was left of it, he ran for more than two terms because he was obsessed with power (typical leftist), and he ran one of the most corrupt administrations of all time.



Okay, let's look at that. 

Nearly every survey of historians puts FDR in the top three presidents. 









						Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




There was no rule that said he couldn't run for more than two terms. 
He got us through the Great Depression and World War II
Unlike nearly every other country that sank into some kind of dictatorship, he did it within the confines of the constitution. 

But, of course, he realized you couldn't run a modern state with the thinking of dead slave rapists, so I guess there's that.

I also noticed you avoided that you think FDR dropped the bomb when he had been dead for five months when they were dropped. 










P@triot said:


> What do those three have in common? They took a match to the U.S. Constitution and reveled in it. Which is exactly why Joey likes them. Sad.



Honestly, I don't give a crap about the constitution, we should have written a new one decades ago like any other state.


----------



## Mushroom

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​


​
Oh nonsense.  They knew exactly what damage it had done, and still resolved to fight on no matter what.

Remember. the month before when the Allies released the Potsdam Declaration, they expressly warned Japan that they would be utterly destroyed if they did not surrender. n The Japanese response?  They treated it with utter contempt, the Prime Minister used the phrase "Mokusatsu", which translated to "Kill with silence" (it was not worth responding to).

Then fast forward to August.  Prior to the dropping of the first bomb, the entire Privy Council was unanimous in that the war should be continued no matter what.  Then on 6 August when the news of Hiroshima arrived, they took another vote.  And they voted 7-1 to continue the war.

The Navy assured them that the Americans could have no more than 1 bomb, and they would still sweep them from the seas if they tried to invade.  Then on 9 August came both the Soviet Invasion and the second bomb.  And the warning that another bomb would be dropped in no more than a week if they did not capitulate.

And after an all night long debate, the Privy Council was ultimately deadlocked at 4-4.  At that time we all know Emperor Showa threw in the towel and they decided to accept a modified surrender.  Of course, then you had a coup attempt by Army diehards that still wanted to go down swinging.

If anybody thinks that Japan was about to surrender, they do not understand the nation or culture.  This was a nation where death before surrender was part of their religion, and they set the pattern for suicide bombers to follow.  Except instead of handfuls of fanatics, this was almost an entire nation willing to die if needed.

If the Emperor had voted the other way (after all the Council was deadlocked even after 2 bombs and another invasion), then we likely would have had to drop a 3rd, or 4th bomb.  Of course by that time odds are that one of them would have been on Tokyo, and would have destroyed the Council and Emperor.  At that point it literally would have been a bloodbath of epic scale.

This was a nation and culture that literally did not know the concept of "surrender".


----------



## Mushroom

JoeB131 said:


> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.



Common misbelief, but wrong.

Japan was not seeking peace, they were not interested in any kind of surrender.  What they wanted as an armistace.

In other words, what ended WWI.  Both sides stop fighting, and return to their positions prior to December 1941.  No war crime trials, no occupation, basically pretend that the previous 4 years never happened.  In fact, all the islands recently captured with death and blood from the Japanese would be returned to them.  Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, Tarawa, Guadalcanal, all of them.  The only one they were willing to release was Chosin (Korea), as they knew they would never be able to get the Soviets to agree to leave, and many were thinking that territory was more trouble than it was worth.

_Status quo ante bellum._

There was absolutely no way that the Allies would have ever agreed to that.  That was how WWI ended, and they were not about to allow that to happen ever again.

An armistice is not "Peace", it is simply a halt to the fighting.  Korea is not at peace, it is a decades long armistice.  WWI only ended with an armistice because half of the nations involved broke down into revolution and anarchy so quite literally there was nobody left to really organize a peace with in the first place.  Italy, Germany, Russia, all were gone or on the way out.

Oh, the Allies knew full well that without a firm and binding peace treaty, Japan would not have learned it's lesson and like Germany would rise again, more beligerant and agressive than it had been before.


----------



## Mushroom

JoeB131 said:


> Except that the bombs didn't end the war.  The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.



Not really.  The entry of the Soviets was more like hyenas rushing in to tear the haunch off of a lion kill.  The Japanese knew that at most the Soviets would gobble up their holdings in Asia, and a few outlying islands, but that was it.  And even taking over the Kuril islands taxed their capabilities to the extreme.

No, Japan could survive without Manchuko and Chosin, that actually meant little to them.  And one of the reasons they rushed to end the war was that they did not want more of their soldiers killed.  Soldiers that they had already been moving from the mainland back to Japan as fast as they could.

They were already considering the mainland lost by that time.  Their forces were largely abandoning China and Manchuko, because it was believed they were needed at home.  But the shock of finding out that there was not just 1 but 2 bombs, and that they would be dropped once a week on a major city was enough to convince exactly half of the highest level of leadership that the war was over.

And there was even more involved.  One of the POWs they had recently captured Lieutenant Marcus McDilda had been asked about this new bomb, and under torture he said the US had "hundreds of them", and would drop them more and more if the Japanese did not surrender.

Also interesting to note that of the Imperial Council, it was primarily the military members who were advocating surrender.  It was the civilian leadership part that was most adamant about fighting on.  Against any opposition, until everybody on Japan was dead if that was needed.


----------



## Unkotare

A great many more American servicemen would not have died if the war had ended sooner, as it might have if the scumbag fdr didn't want otherwise.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common misbelief, but wrong.
> 
> Japan was not seeking peace, they were not interested in any kind of surrender.  ...
> 
> There was absolutely no way that the Allies would have ever agreed to that.  ....
Click to expand...


The terms of surrender being floated - terms that MacArthur informed fdr about in a 40 page letter before that old son of a bitch left for Yalta - outlined terms for surrender that turned out to be exactly the same terms that truman ultimately accepted after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians. This was well before Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Just think how many American servicemen might not have had to die in those terrible battles.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> The terms of surrender being floated - terms that MacArthur informed fdr about in a 40 page letter before that old son of a bitch left for Yalta - outlined terms for surrender that turned out to be exactly the same terms that truman ultimately accepted after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians. This was well before Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Just think how many American servicemen might not have had to die in those terrible battles.



But that was not what Japan was trying to propose.

They had been trying to get a nation to approach the US for them for over a year, trying to arrange an armistice.  Exactly in the terms I already listed.  The Swiss refused to mediate, and the Soviet Ambassador pretty much laughed at him and said he would pass it up to Stalin.

Both nations rejected the attempt by Japan, because both knew that the other party (the Allied Powers) would never accept them.  Just as they rejected Potsdam weeks before the first bomb was dropped.

The terms that Mac suggested were nothing like what Japan accepted.  The only thing really similar is that the Emperor would remain in office and not be tried.  But every single attempt by Japan prior had outright rejected occupation, disarmament, war crime trials, and was adamant on the return of all captured territory back to Japan.

What Japan wanted was a return to November 1941.  That was absolutely nothing like what Mac suggested.

But please, tell us more about these Japanese terms that accepted disarmament, occupation, and war crime trials.  You are the one that made the claim that is what Japan would have accepted prior to the bombs, now prove it.  Because the Imperial Privy Council meetings say otherwise.


----------



## Unkotare

Read the whole thread, lazy ass.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common misbelief, but wrong.
> 
> Japan was not seeking peace, they were not interested in any kind of surrender.  ...
> 
> There was absolutely no way that the Allies would have ever agreed to that.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The terms of surrender being floated - terms that MacArthur informed fdr about in a 40 page letter before that old son of a bitch left for Yalta - outlined terms for surrender that turned out to be exactly the same terms that truman ultimately accepted after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians. This was well before Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Just think how many American servicemen might not have had to die in those terrible battles.
Click to expand...

And yet you can not LINK to a single shred of evidence that the Japanese offered that to Mac Arthur. I can link to every intercept and every procedural vote by the Japanese Government. And all they offered was a ceasefire.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Read the whole thread, lazy ass.


You have NEVER once linked to any document saying that. NOT once. You have linked to historians after the fact touting the peace members of the Privy council trying to surrender and claiming this meant the whole Government would.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Read the whole thread, lazy ass.



"Lazy ass".  Very informed rebuttal.

I really have no reason or interest in reading 87 pages of people mostly participating in mental masturbation.  To put it simply, anybody believing that Japan was about to surrender is to put it in technical terms "a complete and utter dumbass".

Now do not get me wrong, I have great respect for the nation and people of Japan.  I lived there myself for over a year, and have been studying the Pacific War for over 35 years.  But the people living in Japan and the culture of today is nothing like that of 75 years ago.

Hence, why I look at things like the Taisei Yokusankai and the Privy Council itself.  And please, feel free to provide a single reference where I am wrong.  Show me where the Privy Council had said before 9 August they were willing to surrender.

Hell, you can not even provide any proof of that on 10 August, because that is when they finally realized they were so deadlocked that for the first time ever the final decision was passed to Emperor Showa himself.  Instead, you call me "lazy".  No, I am not lazy.  I simply have no patience to entertain people who twist and distort reality to serve their own beliefs.

It is amazing how most who believe that false myth that Japan was about to surrender almost completely fail to recognize the importance of such words as Shinto, Bushido, Yamato, and what they said about the early Shows period.


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have NEVER once linked to any document saying that. NOT once. You have linked to historians after the fact touting the peace members of the Privy council trying to surrender and claiming this meant the whole Government would.



Gunny, most have absolutely no idea how the top levels of government of Japan even worked.

They think of the Emperor as some kind of Queen Victoria, who would lop off the head with anybody that did not agree.  In reality, the Emperor had about as much power as the Vice President does in the Senate.  He mostly sits and does and says nothing.  The only time the VP is ever allowed to actually do anything is in the rare event that the Senate is deadlocked.  Then and only then can he (or she) actually do something, and that is to break the tie.

That is what the Emperor was in his own Privy Council.  He literally sat on the other side of a screen, completely out of sight of the actual officials holding the meeting.  Saying nothing.  And only in the event that they went to him and announced they were deadlocked could they then ask for his input.

And this happened exactly 1 time, ever.  In the early morning of 10 August 1945.

I however am constantly dumbfounded at the extreme ignorance of people, who feel like they have to interject their own personal beliefs into something in which they actually know very little about.  They think of the Japanese and think of a country that makes electronics and cars (and really good cameras before they went digital).  I see one of the most xenophobic nations on earth, but also one with some of the most formidable warriors in the history of the planet.

And woe onto any nation that would ever earn their wrath in the future.  I think if China was ever foolish enough to actually attack Japan, they would find their head spinning in how they would react.  The WWII Peace Treaty, Japan would quickly tear it up (and the US and other nations would likely ignore their doing so), and you would see a nation mobilize so quickly for war it would shock almost anybody.

It must be remembered, one of their most popular cartoons for decades (they keep bringing it back) literally has Japan as the last nation holding out after an overwhelming alien force takes over the Earth.  Then raising the WWII Battleship Yamato and using it to drive the aliens off of the planet.

Only "Squirrel and Hedgehog" come closer to pure martial force fed to children as a form of entertainment than the Japanese do regularly.  Familiar of Zero, Girls und Panzer, even today their popular culture is crammed full of tales of their military ferocity.

And yea, that is really a series, Girls und Panzer ("Girls and Tanks").  In the future, where girls are sent to learn and study on huge "Academy Ships", and the main intermural competition between schools is having the girls from one school fight the girls of other schools in WWII era tanks. It is seen as a "light comedy".

Could you imagine that in the US?  If the network even allowed it, the uproar would get it stopped before even the first episode aired.

"Stay tuned, next week we will have Scooby and the rest of the Mysteries Inc. gang in ME-262s squaring off against Josie and the Pussycats in P-51 Mustangs!"


----------



## Mushroom

Mushroom said:


> They think of the Emperor as some kind of Queen Victoria, who would lop off the head with anybody that did not agree.  In reality, the Emperor had about as much power as the Vice President does in the Senate.  He mostly sits and does and says nothing.  The only time the VP is ever allowed to actually do anything is in the rare event that the Senate is deadlocked.  Then and only then can he (or she) actually do something, and that is to break the tie.



And to give an idea how often this has happened, it is actually very rare.

Our current VP is number 7 on the list of VPs that have voted in the senate, at 13 (6 of which just to forward various nominees for offices).  The largest of any number in modern history.  The next closest one in number is the VP under Martin van Buren (14 in total, 1837-1841).  All the rest with more were between 1789 and 1873.  12 Vice Presidents spent their entire time in the Senate and never voted a single time.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread, lazy ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Lazy ass".  Very informed rebuttal.
> 
> I really have no reason or interest in reading 87 pages ......
Click to expand...


If you're too lazy to read the significant amount of evidence posted on this thread before shooting your mouth off on the same thread, why should your prejudice be given any consideration? 

How about just reading the document I attached on _this page_?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...the importance of such words as Shinto, Bushido, Yamato, and what they said about the early *Shows* [sic] period.



 People who read a book jacket and think they have become experts...

  People who reference _cartoons_ as "proof" of some half-assed, superficial "analysis" of culture or history...

 People who can't be bothered to correctly spell the terms they are _trying_ to use. How about "Showa," professor?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the importance of such words as Shinto, Bushido, Yamato, and what they said about the early *Shows* [sic] period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who read a book jacket and think they have become experts...
> 
> People who reference _cartoons_ as "proof" of some half-assed, superficial "analysis" of culture or history...
> 
> People who can't be bothered to correctly spell the terms they are _trying_ to use. How about "Showa," professor?
Click to expand...

Again you have posted NO LINK to actual documents from either Mac Arthur  or the Japanese Government. You cite Historians that make the claim and no where in their books is a shred of evidence to support the claim. Yes there was a peace group in the Government but it was out voted and had no authority to act. EVERY single communique to their Embassy said the same thing, ask for a ceasefire return to 41 start lines no occupation no surrender no concessions in China. Even after the Atomic Bomb they REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor did surrender the Army staged a COUP to stop it.


----------



## JoeB131

Mushroom said:


> Not really. The entry of the Soviets was more like hyenas rushing in to tear the haunch off of a lion kill. The Japanese knew that at most the Soviets would gobble up their holdings in Asia, and a few outlying islands, but that was it. And even taking over the Kuril islands taxed their capabilities to the extreme.



Okay, kind of agreed with your first two posts, but this one you've gone off the rails.  No, the entry of the USSR was a game changer because they weren't ready for it.   In Hokkaido, they only had two reserve divisions for the entire island.   The Russians had hundreds of divisions, battle hardened from fighting the Germans, and getting a few of them to Hokkaido wouldn't have been that big of a problem.   Japan had no naval assets left (nearly all their aircraft carriers and battleships having been sunk.) 

The concept that Japan herself might be partitioned like Germany was, with Japanese women getting the kind of treatment that German women had been subjected to in the Soviet Zone, was more horrifying to the very racist Japanese than merely losing Manchuria.   Fuck you, PuYI, you are on your own, buddy! 



Mushroom said:


> No, Japan could survive without Manchuko and Chosin, that actually meant little to them. And one of the reasons they rushed to end the war was that they did not want more of their soldiers killed. Soldiers that they had already been moving from the mainland back to Japan as fast as they could.



I think that was exactly my point.  They realized they couldn't hold those territories, but again- now they were fighting a two front war.  Most of those returned troops were being deployed in Honshu and Kyushu.   Everyone assumed that the invastion of Kyushu wouldn't happen until November, and the followup invasion of Honshu wasn't going to happen until the following March.  

With the USSR in it, if the Japanese hadn't surrendered, they would have had plenty of time to not only take over Japan's holdings in Asia, but launch an invasion of Hokkaido as well.   Heck, they might even let the Chinese occupy a chunk of Japan just to make they feel better.  (Why not, they let France occupy a chunk of Germany?)


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...
> 
> And yea, that is really a series, Girls und Panzer ("Girls and Tanks").  In the future, where girls are sent to learn and study on huge "Academy Ships", and the main intermural competition between schools is having the girls from one school fight the girls of other schools in WWII era tanks. It is seen as a "light comedy".
> 
> Could you imagine that in the US?  If the network even allowed it, the uproar would get it stopped before even the first episode aired.
> ...




You mean the cartoon that is available on netflix, hulu, itunes, and amazon prime in the US? The cartoon that first aired on American TV in 2012? "Could you imagine that"? Um, yes.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...  I see one of the most xenophobic nations on earth, ....
> 
> ...



One of the most popular TV shows in Japan right now follows B-list celebrities as they travel the world to find and interview Japanese people who are now living in various nations in every corner of the earth. Another popular show follows the progress of a well-known Japanese celebrity living in Argentina to learn Spanish and about the culture there. Another show follows the same premise but in France. A very popular childrens' TV program is all about teaching kids about cultures, languages and places all around the world.

You can go almost anywhere in Japan and find signs, maps, and various forms of assistance in English and other languages to help out foreign visitors.

So xenophobic...


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> One of the most popular TV shows in Japan right now follows B-list celebrities as they travel the world to find and interview Japanese people who are now living in various nations in every corner of the earth. Another popular show follows the progress of a well-known Japanese celebrity living in Argentina to learn Spanish and about the culture there. Another show follows the same premise but in France. A very popular childrens' TV program is all about teaching kids about cultures, languages and places all around the world.
> 
> You can go almost anywhere in Japan and find signs, maps, and various forms of assistance in English and other languages to help out foreign visitors.
> 
> So xenophobic...



Um, yeah, they still are.  The popularity of shows really doesn't mean a whole lot. 









						Why is racism so big in Japan?
					

It’s not just some Japanese shops that try to bar foreigners – schools and landlords can be equally unwelcoming. So maybe it’s not surprising a government adviser has called for apartheid, South Africa style.




					www.scmp.com
				




_That seeming lack of interest doesn’t surprise Debito Arudou, a human-rights activist who was born David Schofill in California and became a naturalised Japanese citizen in 2000. Discrimination is a sad fact of life in Japan, according to Arudou, and if anything, it is becoming more frequent – and more blatant. 

For Arudou, the most significant nail in the coffin of internationalisation was hammered in by Shintaro Ishihara, soon after he was elected governor of Tokyo in 1999. In a speech to members of Japan’s Self-Defence Forces on April 9, 2000, Ishihara said “atrocious crimes” had been repeatedly committed by illegal residents that he referred to as sangokujin, a derogatory term that literally means third-country nationals. Ishihara said if a natural disaster struck Tokyo, foreigners would cause civil disorder. _

Now, admitably, they aren't going on Genocidal Rampages against Asia like they did in the 1940's, but that's like saying America has solved it's racism problem because we haven't lynched anyone in years.


----------



## Mushroom

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, kind of agreed with your first two posts, but this one you've gone off the rails.  No, the entry of the USSR was a game changer because they weren't ready for it.   In Hokkaido, they only had two reserve divisions for the entire island.   The Russians had hundreds of divisions, battle hardened from fighting the Germans, and getting a few of them to Hokkaido wouldn't have been that big of a problem.   Japan had no naval assets left (nearly all their aircraft carriers and battleships having been sunk.)



And here we go back to one of the least liked attributes of Japan of the era.  Xenophobia and belief in their Racial Superiority.

Hokkaido was kinda like Okinawa and Korea, in that they were both added in the mid 1800's to the Empire, and at that point were still not really seen as "Japanese".  These had been completely different countries prior to that, and to most of Japan it was just another conquered territory.  And one that they had absolutely no problem offering up if needed, so long as it keeps the Main Island safe.

You know, kinda like Okinawa where they had their own military kill civilians rather than let them surrender.  Or Saipan, where they had no problem convincing a huge percentage of the population to kill themselves and their children.  Even including famously jumping off of cliffs.

You are making a common mistake, and believing that Japan of today (including those islands) is the Japan of the era.  Heck, Japan today is not even close to how it was then.  Even when I was first on Okinawa in the 1980s, I was told very clearly to not refer to the older generation as "Japanese".  A great many of those who lived through the WWII era hated the Japanese.  They were Okinawans, and many got upset if you did not recognize that.  Now today, that is almost entirely gone as that generation has largely died off.  And Okinawa has seen a great deal of both migration from the main island, as well as becoming essentially their version of Hawaii.

Only 2 Divisions on Hokkaido?  Of course, who cares about them, they were barely Japanese anyways.  Let the civilians suck up as many bullets as they can, we need the forces on the home island!



JoeB131 said:


> The concept that Japan herself might be partitioned like Germany was, with Japanese women getting the kind of treatment that German women had been subjected to in the Soviet Zone, was more horrifying to the very racist Japanese than merely losing Manchuria.   Fuck you, PuYI, you are on your own, buddy!



You have to remember, the entire "GEACPS" was actually not all that different from what Germany had been doing.  As the "Asian Master Race", they would jump in and kick out all those "White Foreigners", and "liberate" those nations.  Which of course being little but "stupid wogs" would worship the Japanese as their liberators, and recognize their superiority and follow whatever they say.

Naturally.

Myself, I have long wondered if there was some kind of message in their sending Puyi to Manchuria.  For those that do not know, Puyi is also known as "The Last Emperor" of China.  And he was the last member of the Qing Dynasty.

A Dynasty that is also often thought of by another name, the Manchu Dynasty.  Somebody in their Foreign Office thinking "Hey, this guy is an Emperor and descended from Khans in Manchuria.  Why not send him to be their new Emperor under our control?"

But no, to Japan the entire rest of their Empire was disposable, so long as the home island remained.  And if you change history so there are no Atomic Bombs at all, then all you have is Japan being utterly destroyed by a combined Allied onslaught.  Something they were more than happy to have, as they were already teaching children to attack the invaders with spears for goodness sakes.



JoeB131 said:


> I think that was exactly my point.  They realized they couldn't hold those territories, but again- now they were fighting a two front war.  Most of those returned troops were being deployed in Honshu and Kyushu.   Everyone assumed that the invastion of Kyushu wouldn't happen until November, and the followup invasion of Honshu wasn't going to happen until the following March.



They already had been!  You had 3 main theaters already, and they were being badly beaten in all of them.  They had lost in the Pacific, South Pacific, and were being rolled back all over Mainland Asia.  So opening yet another front by that point was about as important as attacking Germany from Greece while the Soviets were storming in from the East, and the rest of the Allies from the West.

Two front war, they were already being beaten in 3 fronts (4 if you include their failed attempt in Alaska).



JoeB131 said:


> With the USSR in it, if the Japanese hadn't surrendered, they would have had plenty of time to not only take over Japan's holdings in Asia, but launch an invasion of Hokkaido as well.   Heck, they might even let the Chinese occupy a chunk of Japan just to make they feel better.  (Why not, they let France occupy a chunk of Germany?)



No, that would never have happened.  To start with, China was already involved in it's own Civil War.  And they had absolutely no interest in doing any kind of occupation anywhere. 

With the exception of Taipei, which Japan had annexed from China in 1895.  The Republic of China did occupy that from 1945 until 1952, when the island was returned in one of the strangest treaties I have seen when Japan finally formally returned Formosa (Taiwan, Taipei) to Chinese control.  Other than reclaiming this lost territory, the Chinese had absolutely no interest in participating in any "Chinese Occupation" of Japan.

If there is one thing that would have destroyed Japan and possibly have led to another war, it might have been an occupation like had been done in Germany.  Japan had been a homogenous nation and culture for well over a thousand years, with a single dynasty that literally goes back to biblical times.

Germany on the other hand was a fairly modern hodgepodge that had been kludged together from 39 separate states after the fall of Napoleon.  And not unlike Antebellum United States, they thought of themselves by their former names almost as much as they recognized themselves as "German".  They were Prussians, Bavarians, Hanoverians, the list goes on and on.  So finding them split up yet again under another occupation was nothing new to them.

And we saw what happens when such a conglomeration nation falls apart, just look no farther than Yugoslavia.

In Japan, that would never have happened.  Short of turning over their other islands to various nations and leaving the mainland to the US (or at most a US-UK alliance).

Thankfully, MacArthur knew and understood that, and was one of the strongest to fight for a single occupying power.  Trying to treat Japan as Germany with multiple occupation zones would have been a disaster.  What was done was their former "Mainland Empire" was dissolved, and the Soviets got North Korea to watch over.  Since technically Manchuko was a different country, it's occupation was treated as such, not as a part of Japan.

And the occupation of the Japanese islands in the last days?  In reality, this was the reverse, and the Soviets were trying to once again grab what they could before the war ended.  Earlier at the Yalta Conference, the Soviets had been "invited" to join the war within 3 months of the Surrender of Germany.  And they were offered the Northernmost islands in exchange for allowing the US to base bombers in the Soviet Union.

And the Soviets were sure that once the Atom Bombs started dropping that Japan would not remain in the fight for long.  So it was jump and grab them as quickly as possible after the first bomb dropped, or forever loose them as the US would not allow them to be separated off after a surrender.

So that is exactly what they did.


----------



## jwoodie

miketx said:


> Strange how the Japs surrendered very shortly after we set them on fire



Strange how the Japs did not surrender after we set Tokyo on fire (and killed 100,000).


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> One of the most popular TV shows in Japan right now follows B-list celebrities as they travel the world to find and interview Japanese people who are now living in various nations in every corner of the earth. Another popular show follows the progress of a well-known Japanese celebrity living in Argentina to learn Spanish and about the culture there. Another show follows the same premise but in France. A very popular childrens' TV program is all about teaching kids about cultures, languages and places all around the world.
> 
> You can go almost anywhere in Japan and find signs, maps, and various forms of assistance in English and other languages to help out foreign visitors.
> 
> So xenophobic...



Japan has long had a fascination with American culture.  Baseball had become their national sport even before WWII.  And yes, I am well aware of their use of English in advertising.  "I Feel Coke" is still one of my favorite advertising slogans, and the weird quirky drink called "Pocari Sweat".

No, I am not talking about culture, but about the people.  Bloodlines.

Japan is one of the most homogenous nations on the planet even today, with the total immigrant population at less than 2%.  And most of those are repatriated Japanese from the exodus of the 1800s.

To give an idea, in 2018 they had over 10,000 applications for asylum.  They accepted 42.  And that is a record number, normally the number granted was around 20.  And that statistic ended in 2018, when Japan closed the loophole in their law which allowed such asylum immigration, and for 2019 and so far in 2020 the number granted is 0 and 0.

And remember, this is also a nation that barely recognizes even those who are full blooded Japanese born in other nations.  They even have specific terms for the 4th generation Japanese born overseas.  Many know the term Nisei, it literally translates to somebody born of Japanese born parents overseas (which are also no longer Japanese themselves but Issei).  Then you have Sansei, Yonsei, Gosei, at which point the individual is not even considered Japanese at all.

Now realize I am *not *a "birther", I thought the entire thing was moronic.  But if our last President was Japanese, he would not be recognized as a Japanese citizen, he would be Nisei.  A foreigner who happened to have at least one Japanese parent.  She left the country, and went to another one and married a guy from there.  At that point pretty much all Japanese connections would have been severed.

I served with a Sansei Officer, who's Nisei father married his soon to become Issei mother.  He grew up speaking both English and Japanese, and was looking forward to being stationed in Japan.  And was saddened on how nobody there would accept him.  He was only a single generation removed, but they saw him as an "American", and he gave up trying to associate with the locals after a month or so.

Oh, they will readily adopt areas of culture.  But actual outsiders?  Nope, to be tolerated and that is about it.

And the signs, it is less "English" as it is simply "Romanized" spellings of Japanese words.  That way anybody can find say Tokyo, Sapporo, or Fuji, no matter if they are from the US, France, Germany, or Italy.  I remember seeing a sign for "Kaigan Motobu" at one of my favorite dive spots.  And as a diver, one of the words I did learn was Kaigan, their word for "Beach".

If it was really in English, it would have said "Motobu Beach", not "Kaigan Motobu".  That is Romanization for the letters, not Anglicization by making the sign in English.


----------



## Mushroom

jwoodie said:


> Strange how the Japs did not surrender after we set Tokyo on fire (and killed 100,000).



Hell, a lot of people dying in a fire in most of Japan was no big deal.  In 1923 well over 100,000 fied in Tokyo after a combination of earthquake, tsunami, and fire leveled the city.

But those were coordinated attacks requiring huge numbers of aircraft.  It is something else altogether to learn that your enemy can do that level of destruction with a single bomb from a single airplane.  That is a level of horror that stunned Japan when they learned that not only was it true it was done by a single bomb, it was repeatable and not some kind of weird lucky attack.

And they had what they thought was "excellent intelligence" that the US had 100 more bombs like that ready to go.

There is a reason why I call nuclear weapons "Political Terror Weapons".  They have almost no real military use, they are designed entirely to crush the will of the opponent politically through threat of use rather than actual use.  Japan had absolutely no problem sending off millions of their own citizens with sticks and knives to fight off battle hardened soldiers.  And they knew they would take a lot of the Gaigin out with them.

But seeing hundreds of thousands killed with absolutely nothing to show for it?  That is futility.  Like the classic cartoon where the mouse flips the finger to the eagle as it stoops on it.  Futile, pointless, an exercise in futility.  They would not even get a chance to "Die for the defense of the Emperor", they would just... die.

Half of the Privy Council recognized that, and the other half did not and still wanted to fight on.


----------



## jwoodie

Mushroom said:


> Half of the Privy Council recognized that, and the other half did not and still wanted to fight on.



Exactly.  Even after we dropped the bombs, the Japs wouldn't agree to an unconditional surrender. Do you feel the same guilt over bombing Germany? Was the fire bombing of Hamburg and Dresden any less horrific because it was accomplished with thousands of airplanes instead of just two?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ... I remember seeing a sign for "Kaigan Motobu" at one of my favorite dive spots.  And as a diver, one of the words I did learn was Kaigan, their word for "Beach".
> 
> If it was really in English, it would have said "Motobu Beach", not "Kaigan Motobu".  That is Romanization for the letters, not Anglicization by making the sign in English.




You mean something like this?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...
> 
> No, I am not talking about culture, but about the people.  ...
> 
> ...




Culture is the reproduced ways and means of the lived experiences of a given people at a given time, so you are talking about both.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...
> 
> And the signs, it is less "English" as it is simply "Romanized" spellings of Japanese words.  That way anybody can find say Tokyo, Sapporo, or Fuji, no matter if they are from the US, France, Germany, or Italy. ...



And that strikes you as "xenophobic"?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...
> 
> Oh, they will readily adopt areas of culture.  But actual outsiders?  Nope, to be tolerated and that is about it.
> 
> ...



Sounds like you spent a year on a military base and formed generalizations based on a view from the distant outside. Even at that, it sounds like generalizations from some time in the 1980s.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most popular TV shows in Japan right now follows B-list celebrities as they travel the world to find and interview Japanese people who are now living in various nations in every corner of the earth. Another popular show follows the progress of a well-known Japanese celebrity living in Argentina to learn Spanish and about the culture there. Another show follows the same premise but in France. A very popular childrens' TV program is all about teaching kids about cultures, languages and places all around the world.
> 
> You can go almost anywhere in Japan and find signs, maps, and various forms of assistance in English and other languages to help out foreign visitors.
> 
> So xenophobic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Japan is one of the most homogenous [sic] nations on the planet even today, with the total immigrant population at less than 2%. ...
Click to expand...


Perhaps you are unaware that laws have been passed in recent years (and recent months) allowing for increased levels of immigration.


----------



## JoeB131

Mushroom said:


> You are making a common mistake, and believing that Japan of today (including those islands) is the Japan of the era. Heck, Japan today is not even close to how it was then. Even when I was first on Okinawa in the 1980s, I was told very clearly to not refer to the older generation as "Japanese". A great many of those who lived through the WWII era hated the Japanese. They were Okinawans, and many got upset if you did not recognize that. Now today, that is almost entirely gone as that generation has largely died off. And Okinawa has seen a great deal of both migration from the main island, as well as becoming essentially their version of Hawaii.
> 
> Only 2 Divisions on Hokkaido? Of course, who cares about them, they were barely Japanese anyways. Let the civilians suck up as many bullets as they can, we need the forces on the home island!



I think you are missing my entire point, not that Hokaido was considered "not Japanese", but that the Japanese thought they had a treaty with Russia, thought that they could maybe even get Stalin to broker a peace with the Allies (as Russia was not at war with Japan after their non-aggression pact of 1941).  

Instead, they found out that not only were the Russians in the war, but they had a whole new front to fight that they weren't ready to fight on.  If the Russians took Hokkaido, it was only a matter of time to they got to Honshu, maybe they'd get to Tokyo before the Allies did.  

My point remains. The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War was a bigger factor in their surrender than the bombs were. 



Mushroom said:


> If there is one thing that would have destroyed Japan and possibly have led to another war, it might have been an occupation like had been done in Germany. Japan had been a homogenous nation and culture for well over a thousand years, with a single dynasty that literally goes back to biblical times.



Do you really think that anyone was that concerned about destroying Japan.  Now, here's the thing.  US propaganda divided Germans into "Good Germans" and "Nazis".   Of course, a lot of Germans were "Good people" just waiting for the allies to liberate them.  The Japanese, on the other hand, were portrayed as sub-human monsters.  Part of that was racism, part of that was that Americans were geniunely pissed off by Pearl Harbor, Bataan, etc.  



Mushroom said:


> And the occupation of the Japanese islands in the last days? In reality, this was the reverse, and the Soviets were trying to once again grab what they could before the war ended. Earlier at the Yalta Conference, the Soviets had been "invited" to join the war within 3 months of the Surrender of Germany. And they were offered the Northernmost islands in exchange for allowing the US to base bombers in the Soviet Union.



Um, okay, why worry about a bunch of little Islands when you can have Eastern Europe.  The point was, it took about three months between VE Day to move enough units from Europe to Asia to make a difference. (Just like the 1941 treaty freed up Zhukov and a lot of divisions to head west.)


----------



## Mushroom

jwoodie said:


> Exactly.  Even after we dropped the bombs, the Japs wouldn't agree to an unconditional surrender. Do you feel the same guilt over bombing Germany? Was the fire bombing of Hamburg and Dresden any less horrific because it was accomplished with thousands of airplanes instead of just two?



Myself?  Not a single bit.  This was as the saying goes "Total War".  Germany and Japan started the war of aggression and expansion, and their actions during that war give sme absolutely no reason to feel sympathy for them.

But to an enemy, it raises the level of futility.  If they could do that much with just one bomb, imagine a fleet the size of that used against Dresden or Tokyo where all of them had bombs like that.



Unkotare said:


> You mean something like this?
> View attachment 324975



Oh, Okuma Beach.  Been there many times.

You are aware are you not that that beach is located *on* an American Military Installation, are you not?  That is run by the MWR of Kadena Air Force Base, so that sign would never really be seen by the Japanese.  It was purely put up by the Americans, for the Americans.

Wow, what a glorious failure that is.  And guess what, you will find similar signs on the beach I dived at a lot, Orawan Beach. That was located on Camp Schwab - Camp Henoko.  In order to try to prove me wrong, you actually go and find a sign that is actually located on and inside of a US military installation.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Sounds like you spent a year on a military base and formed generalizations based on a view from the distant outside. Even at that, it sounds like generalizations from some time in the 1980s.



Yet more failures because you are projecting.

I was actually unusual during my time there, I spent as much time away from the "Military Districts" as I could.  I learned how to navigate the local bus system, and spent most of my time not diving far away from the bases.  And a surprising amount of people there know English, as AFRTS has radio and TV stations that are popular with the Japanese as well as Americans there.

When I needed diving gear for example, I went to Nago, where after showing a note written by a translator I knew I was shown to a second hand store that sold me what I wanted for a great price.  In fact, I made a nice profit in buying all they had, and selling it to a profit to others that rarely left the base to so go the local bars.

I already said it many times, but I was a diver.  Which means I spent a lot of weekends out in the community, visiting popular dive locations on the island.  Often with 100 Japanese to every 1 American.  And being a rabid history buff, I even helped organize a tour of the island by none other than Tomiko Higa.






But nice to see that once again, you are not actually trying to debate me on the facts, but somehow try to insult me or put me down, as if that would make what I say any less correct.  You never do seem to debate based on the subject, but attack any that does not agree with you and you can not actually give a good response.

I can actually give you directions to a very good local restaurant if you are ever in Okinawa City.  However, they are a bit of a walk if you do not have a car.  About 3 miles from Gate 2 of Kadena, and they only accept Yen and not Dollars.  But they are still there, owned by the daughter of the owner that I knew when I was there.  They make what is unquestionably the finest shrimp fried rice I have ever had in my life.

And I know the bowling alley I frequented is still there, as is the Pachinko Parlor next door.  But the skating rink I spent a great many weekends at (almost always the only American on the floor) is long gone, it is a strip mall now.

Now, are you going to try and actually discuss the topic, or are you going to try and insult me?  This is why I keep leaving this forum, I get sick of how you and so many others never really actually discuss the topic.  You pontificate on your own beliefs, and attempt to dismiss-belittle-insult anybody that you do not agree with.

And I see in the last year or so things here have not changed a single bit.  Can not defend your claims, so attack the messenger.  I was tired of that crap from you a year ago, and 2 years ago, and 5 years ago.  And I see in all that time the person who actually uses a name about shit and piss is still at it.

You at least have not changed.  And true to your name you just shit and piss everywhere, offering nothing of real substance.

And for others, that is literally what "Unkotare" is.  It is a sexual fetish involving bodily waste, generally "dripping" off of the female performer.  Not unlike a more well known fetish that literally translate as "to splash heavily".  I have long considered him nothing but a troll, and I see some things never change.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Even after we dropped the bombs, the Japs wouldn't agree to an unconditional surrender. Do you feel the same guilt over bombing Germany? Was the fire bombing of Hamburg and Dresden any less horrific because it was accomplished with thousands of airplanes instead of just two?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myself?  Not a single bit.  This was as the saying goes "Total War".  Germany and Japan started the war of aggression and expansion, and their actions during that war give sme absolutely no reason to feel sympathy for them.
> 
> But to an enemy, it raises the level of futility.  If they could do that much with just one bomb, imagine a fleet the size of that used against Dresden or Tokyo where all of them had bombs like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean something like this?
> View attachment 324975
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Okuma Beach.  Been there many times.
> 
> You are aware are you not that that beach is located *on* an American Military Installation, are you not?  That is run by the MWR of Kadena Air Force Base....
Click to expand...


Partly. It is also a private resort owned by JAL. Again, you are out of date, Michael J Fox.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you spent a year on a military base and formed generalizations based on a view from the distant outside. Even at that, it sounds like generalizations from some time in the 1980s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more failures because you are projecting.
> 
> I was actually unusual during my time there, I spent as much time away from the "Military Districts" as I could. ...
Click to expand...



...said everyone who ever served on a military base but wants to sound like William Adams.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> And the signs, it is less "English" as it is simply "Romanized" spellings of Japanese words.  That way anybody can find say Tokyo, Sapporo, or Fuji, no matter if they are from the US, France, Germany, or Italy. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that strikes you as "xenophobic"?
Click to expand...

For someone who whines about addressing the topic, you seem to avoid direct questions when it suits you.


----------



## P@triot

Mushroom said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward.
> 
> 
> 
> Common misbelief, but wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not a "misbelief". It's called _propaganda_. The left lives for it and Joey loves to spread it. Even he doesn't believe it.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Sounds like you spent a year on a military base and formed generalizations based on a view from the distant outside.


Sounds like you spent a lifetime as an anti-American, pacifist asshole and formed uneducated opinions based on the propaganda spoon-fed to you.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that strikes you as "xenophobic"?
> 
> 
> 
> For someone who whines about addressing the topic, *you seem to avoid direct questions when it suits you*.
Click to expand...

The irony here is so sweet, one could instantly become a diabetic from reading it. Sensei Snowflake posed that question to _himself_. This is what is known as "Freudian Slip".


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you spent a year on a military base and formed generalizations based on a view from the distant outside.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you spent a lifetime as an anti-American, pacifist ...and formed uneducated opinions based on the propaganda spoon-fed to you.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts, of course.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you spent a year on a military base and formed generalizations based on a view from the distant outside.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you spent a lifetime as an anti-American, pacifist ...and formed uneducated opinions based on the propaganda spoon-fed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong on all counts, of course.
Click to expand...

I have asked you several times to link to any official document or statement that proves your point, you have not done so because they don;t exist. If Mac Aurther was offered a peace treaty other then just as I have said then LINK to a document that proves it.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward.
> 
> 
> 
> Common misbelief, but wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a "misbelief". It's called _propaganda_. The left lives for it and Joey loves to spread it. Even he doesn't believe it.
Click to expand...


Uh, Poodle, try to pick up a history book.  Shit, I'll make it easier for you.. here's something from Faux News. 









						Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs
					

or possibly more than — the A-bombs in ending the war.




					www.foxnews.com
				




_"The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation," said Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, whose recently published "Racing the Enemy" examines the conclusion of the Pacific war and is based on recently declassified Soviet archives as well as U.S. and Japanese documents..

"The emperor and the peace party (within the government) hastened to end the war expecting that the Americans would deal with Japan more generously than the Soviets," Hasegawa, a Russian-speaking American scholar, said in an interview.

Despite the death toll from the atomic bombings — 140,000 in Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki the Imperial Military Command believed it could hold out against an Allied invasion if it retained control of Manchuria and Korea, which provided Japan with the resources for war, according to Hasegawa and Terry Charman, a historian of World War II at London's Imperial War Museum.

"The Soviet attack changed all that," Charman said. "The leadership in Tokyo realized they had no hope now, and in that sense August Storm did have a greater effect on the Japanese decision to surrender than the dropping of the A-bombs."_


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you spent a year on a military base and formed generalizations based on a view from the distant outside.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you spent a lifetime as an anti-American, pacifist ...and formed uneducated opinions based on the propaganda spoon-fed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong on all counts, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you several times to link to any official document or statement that proves your point, you have not done so because they don;t exist. If Mac Aurther was offered a peace treaty other then just as I have said then LINK to a document that proves it.
Click to expand...


Evidence has been shown to you dozens of times, old fool. You just squeeze your eyes shut real tight and cry “see? Nothing!”

Your act has grown as old as you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward.
> 
> 
> 
> Common misbelief, but wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a "misbelief". It's called _propaganda_. The left lives for it and Joey loves to spread it. Even he doesn't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, Poodle, try to pick up a history book.  Shit, I'll make it easier for you.. here's something from Faux News.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs
> 
> 
> or possibly more than — the A-bombs in ending the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation," said Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, whose recently published "Racing the Enemy" examines the conclusion of the Pacific war and is based on recently declassified Soviet archives as well as U.S. and Japanese documents..
> 
> "The emperor and the peace party (within the government) hastened to end the war expecting that the Americans would deal with Japan more generously than the Soviets," Hasegawa, a Russian-speaking American scholar, said in an interview.
> 
> Despite the death toll from the atomic bombings — 140,000 in Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki the Imperial Military Command believed it could hold out against an Allied invasion if it retained control of Manchuria and Korea, which provided Japan with the resources for war, according to Hasegawa and Terry Charman, a historian of World War II at London's Imperial War Museum.
> 
> "The Soviet attack changed all that," Charman said. "The leadership in Tokyo realized they had no hope now, and in that sense August Storm did have a greater effect on the Japanese decision to surrender than the dropping of the A-bombs."_
Click to expand...

Except the war party voted NOT to surrender and when the Emperor took it out of their hands they staged a failed Coup to try and stop THAT. Your historian is full of wishful thinking the FACTS as demonstrated by linked documents PROVE the majority of the Government was OPPOSED to surrender after 2 atomic bombs AND the Soviet Invasion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you spent a year on a military base and formed generalizations based on a view from the distant outside.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you spent a lifetime as an anti-American, pacifist ...and formed uneducated opinions based on the propaganda spoon-fed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong on all counts, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have asked you several times to link to any official document or statement that proves your point, you have not done so because they don;t exist. If Mac Aurther was offered a peace treaty other then just as I have said then LINK to a document that proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence has been shown to you dozens of times, old fool. You just squeeze your eyes shut real tight and cry “see? Nothing!”
> 
> Your act has grown as old as you.
Click to expand...

You HAVE NEVER linked to any document or actual statement from Mac. You have cited books that do NOT source the claim at all.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except the war party voted NOT to surrender and when the Emperor took it out of their hands they staged a failed Coup to try and stop THAT. Your historian is full of wishful thinking the FACTS as demonstrated by linked documents PROVE the majority of the Government was OPPOSED to surrender after 2 atomic bombs AND the Soviet Invasion.



I think you really don't understand Japanese culture. All parties knew the war was lost by 1944.  It was just a matter of how to end the war and still save face.


----------



## Silver Cat

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.


Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way. 
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.


----------



## JoeB131

Silver Cat said:


> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.



Uh, guy, if there was a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia or China, it would end civilization as we know it.   They've estimated that even if Pakistan and India had a nuclear war with their relatively small arsenals,  it would result in 2 billion deaths and the collapse of the world economy.  

We are now seeing how a MERE virus can bring the world economy to its knees.  

Not sure what "Killing Japans" is.  Is there more than one Japan?  No, it was very unfortunate so many people died in WWII.  I'm sorry you lack the understanding or humanity to understand that.


----------



## Silver Cat

JoeB131 said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, if there was a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia or China, it would end civilization as we know it.
Click to expand...

Really? May be, it would end Russia (China) and/or the US. May be not. Depends on how many Russian and/or Chinese nukes we can destroy before start, how many will be intercepted, how effective will be evacuation, mobilisation and retaliation. In fact we can try to kill them all and lost only half of our own population. But clearly it can do nothing about the whole civilisation. 



> They've estimated that even if Pakistan and India had a nuclear war with their relatively small arsenals,  it would result in 2 billion deaths and the collapse of the world economy.


Bla-bla-bla. Just a stupid environmentalistic crap.



> We are now seeing how a MERE virus can bring the world economy to its knees.


Really? Where do you see it? In your leftist newspapers?


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
Click to expand...

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
Click to expand...

Yes. If you mean Japan civilians, of course.
BTW, do you know, that Japanese leaders called their new "Light carrier", Izuma-class DDH-184, as "Kaga"?
Looks like, two nukes were not enough to imprint pacifism into the Japanese mentality.
If they want to repeat - somebody will repeat this lesson.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. If you mean Japan civilians, of course.
> ...
Click to expand...

Then you’re a scumbag.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

They can eat shit. Those Nips fucked with the wrong gang.


----------



## Unkotare

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> They can eat shit. Those ... fucked with the wrong gang.


You can eat shit. You're not an American.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Unkotare said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can eat shit. Those ... fucked with the wrong gang.
> 
> 
> 
> You can eat shit. You're not an American.
Click to expand...

I am...and you're just a pussy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
Click to expand...

Remind me of your thread on Germany and the fire bombing and overall bombing campaign there?


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remind me of your thread on Germany and the fire bombing and overall bombing campaign there?
Click to expand...

Oh he is too self hating for any of that Gunny.


----------



## Unkotare

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can eat shit. Those ... fucked with the wrong gang.
> 
> 
> 
> You can eat shit. You're not an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am...and you're just a pussy.
Click to expand...

No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.

"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."










						Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Unkotare said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can eat shit. Those ... fucked with the wrong gang.
> 
> 
> 
> You can eat shit. You're not an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am...and you're just a pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
Click to expand...

Oh God! WAAAAAAAAAHHHH! All those pooor poor Japs! WAAAAAAHHHHHH!
My original statement stands.


----------



## Unkotare

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can eat shit. Those ... fucked with the wrong gang.
> 
> 
> 
> You can eat shit. You're not an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am...and you're just a pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh God! WAAAAAAAAAHHHH! All those pooor poor Japs! WAAAAAAHHHHHH!
> My original statement stands.
Click to expand...

You're NOT an American, couch potato.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Unkotare said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can eat shit. Those ... fucked with the wrong gang.
> 
> 
> 
> You can eat shit. You're not an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am...and you're just a pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh God! WAAAAAAAAAHHHH! All those pooor poor Japs! WAAAAAAHHHHHH!
> My original statement stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're NOT an American, couch potato.
Click to expand...

What about the air crew who zapped those nips? Were they American? What about the generals who ordered them?


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

JoeB131 said:


> All parties knew the war was lost by 1944.


That's a stupid statement...that's just retarded.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. If you mean Japan civilians, of course.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you’re a scumbag.
Click to expand...

No. Japan was rather democratical state, and they had civilian government who started the war, and civilian society, profited by the robbery and mass-murders. 
If you accept profit from the war, you must be ready to accept war risks, too. Army is just a part of society. 
But it is too complicated for a man of a different culture. Nips must understand only one thing - any attempt of uncontrolled (by the USA) usage of military power - means another nuking. 
Is it simple enough?


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
Click to expand...


Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.


----------



## Silver Cat

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
Click to expand...

Compared to their immediate surrender? 
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?


----------



## candycorn

Silver Cat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
Click to expand...


They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.  

But the tables remained upright.  

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.


----------



## Silver Cat

candycorn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?



> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.


Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.








						Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## candycorn

Silver Cat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.


----------



## Silver Cat

candycorn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
Click to expand...

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?


----------



## candycorn

Silver Cat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
Click to expand...


I was talking about 1945.


----------



## Silver Cat

candycorn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
Click to expand...

And what about 2025? 
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "


----------



## Silver Cat

Nips name their new carrier "Kaga". What does it mean? I think, they just spit in our faces and say "We can repeat Pearl Harbour attack".
How can we answer? I think, we can name our first B-21 "Enola Gay" and say: "We can repeat, too".


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ...


No. Try again in English.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> ...Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans........


False premise.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ... new carrier "Kaga". What does it mean? ...


It was the name of a place in Japan that is today known as Ishikawa Prefecture.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> ...We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.


As a matter of fact, we did not.


----------



## gipper

candycorn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
Click to expand...

They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> No. Try again in English.
Click to expand...

  Ha! Just continue your way and we'll repeat this lesson.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.
Click to expand...

He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.
Click to expand...

Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can eat shit. Those ... fucked with the wrong gang.
> 
> 
> 
> You can eat shit. You're not an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am...and you're just a pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
Click to expand...

WE HAVE the approach and what the Japanese offered for the Soviets to do, A cease fire return to 41 start lines and no surrender and no concessions in China.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.
Click to expand...

 They were not "defenseless". Their husbands and fathers were fighting against both soldiers and civilians. 








						Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## candycorn

Silver Cat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
Click to expand...


Let me know when we get to 2025. 

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans........
> 
> 
> 
> False premise.
Click to expand...


Actual premise.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, we did not.
Click to expand...


History disagrees with you.


----------



## Silver Cat

candycorn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
Click to expand...

May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pretty simple stuff we have the intercepts and the minutes from the Japanese Government meetings. At NO TIME did Japan offer to surrender. All they offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. No concessions in China and no occupation no dismantling the military no foreigners in Japan at all. That is what they ask the Soviets to convey to the allies and that is what they offered before the nukes.


----------



## candycorn

Silver Cat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.
Click to expand...


It got the job done.  I think nuking Tokyo would have sent a message to the Soviet Union.  You hit one of our bases and we come back with total disaster on your capitol.  
The half-measure of taking out their industrial hubs was effective for 1945. However, in the bigger picture, wiping out Tokyo would had a very loud and log echo.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It got the job done.  I think nuking Tokyo would have sent a message to the Soviet Union.  You hit one of our bases and we come back with total disaster on your capitol.
> The half-measure of taking out their industrial hubs was effective for 1945. However, in the bigger picture, wiping out Tokyo would had a very loud and log echo.
Click to expand...

Tokyo had already been destroyed, you ignorant douche bag.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.
Click to expand...

Only two atom bombs existed at the time, you ignorant douche bag.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, we did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans........
> 
> 
> 
> False premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actual premise.
Click to expand...

False.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It got the job done.  I think nuking Tokyo would have sent a message to the Soviet Union.  You hit one of our bases and we come back with total disaster on your capitol.
> The half-measure of taking out their industrial hubs was effective for 1945. However, in the bigger picture, wiping out Tokyo would had a very loud and log echo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo had already been destroyed, you ignorant douche bag.
Click to expand...




Wow shitbrains; You're missing the point; on purpose I'm afraid. 

The reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known worldwide was because they were dusted with unconventional weapons.  And, oh by the way, has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945?  No.  

Of course the dynamic between what happens with Japan and the USSR are quite different. But in the back of the mind of Kruschev, Breznehev (sp?), Andropov, Chernyenko, etc... going forward would be what happened to Tokyo whenever they were thinking about tangling with the US.  In the mind of a dictator/emperor having a city wiped out is one thing; having their palace wiped out is quite different; having their wives, sons, daughters, and pet cat reduced to dust in a microsecond is a bit of a different kettle of fish than nameless faceless people hundreds of miles away.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, we did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


The history that everyone else reads does.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans........
> 
> 
> 
> False premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actual premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.
Click to expand...


Actual premise. Nuking Japan saved American lives.  Whether you want to believe reality is your business.


----------



## JoeB131

Silver Cat said:


> Really? May be, it would end Russia (China) and/or the US. May be not. Depends on how many Russian and/or Chinese nukes we can destroy before start, how many will be intercepted, how effective will be evacuation, mobilisation and retaliation. In fact we can try to kill them all and lost only half of our own population. But clearly it can do nothing about the whole civilisation.



Quite the contrary, even if a certain percentage survived, the civilization would be over.  Food distribution would end, central government would end.  



Silver Cat said:


> Bla-bla-bla. Just a stupid environmentalistic crap.



Funny thing about Science, just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it stops being a thing.  




Silver Cat said:


> Really? Where do you see it? In your leftist newspapers?



Um, no, I see it in the economy around me with most of the stores closed, most people working from home, 33 million unemployed, international trade coming to a stop.   This is from a VIRUS. Not having hundreds of cities leveled to the ground and rendered as radioactive wastelands.  



Silver Cat said:


> Yes. If you mean Japan civilians, of course.
> BTW, do you know, that Japanese leaders called their new "Light carrier", Izuma-class DDH-184, as "Kaga"?
> Looks like, two nukes were not enough to imprint pacifism into the Japanese mentality.
> If they want to repeat - somebody will repeat this lesson.



Kaga is the name of a province in Japan.   The Izuma Class has nowhere near the capabilities of the Nimitz or Ford class carriers we have.   They only carry 28 aircraft compared to 75 for the Fords or 85 for the Nimitzes 

Oh, yeah, and they have to get the fighters from us... so there's that.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."



But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.  

One more time.  Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized.  In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs.  Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.  

At the time it was used, it was just another weapon.   60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII.  Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only two atom bombs existed at the time, you ignorant douche bag.
Click to expand...

Yes, but only because "The Gadget" was tested in New Mexico, not in Kyoto.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not "defenseless". Their husbands and fathers were fighting against both soldiers and civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

By summer 1945, they were defenseless. This is why the US air forces could daylight bomb with impunity. They had no air defenses. This means they were defenseless


----------



## Silver Cat

JoeB131 said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? May be, it would end Russia (China) and/or the US. May be not. Depends on how many Russian and/or Chinese nukes we can destroy before start, how many will be intercepted, how effective will be evacuation, mobilisation and retaliation. In fact we can try to kill them all and lost only half of our own population. But clearly it can do nothing about the whole civilisation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary, even if a certain percentage survived, the civilization would be over.  Food distribution would end, central government would end.
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bla-bla-bla. Just a stupid environmentalistic crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing about Science, just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it stops being a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Where do you see it? In your leftist newspapers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, I see it in the economy around me with most of the stores closed, most people working from home, 33 million unemployed, international trade coming to a stop.   This is from a VIRUS. Not having hundreds of cities leveled to the ground and rendered as radioactive wastelands.
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. If you mean Japan civilians, of course.
> BTW, do you know, that Japanese leaders called their new "Light carrier", Izuma-class DDH-184, as "Kaga"?
> Looks like, two nukes were not enough to imprint pacifism into the Japanese mentality.
> If they want to repeat - somebody will repeat this lesson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaga is the name of a province in Japan.
Click to expand...

And a name of a Japan carrier, attacked Pearl Harbour. 
I mean, if Germans name one of their "pocket carriers" "Bismarch" Brits may be upset. 
Creatures with the effective survival instinct must avoid such names.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.
> 
> One more time.  Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized.  In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs.  Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.
> 
> At the time it was used, it was just another weapon.   60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII.  Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not "defenseless". Their husbands and fathers were fighting against both soldiers and civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By summer 1945, they were defenseless. This is why the US air forces could daylight bomb with impunity. They had no air defenses. This means they were defenseless
Click to expand...

It was only their problem and their responsibility. When they started war they were sure that they can win.


----------



## JoeB131

Silver Cat said:


> And a name of a Japan carrier, attacked Pearl Harbour.
> I mean, if Germans name one of their "pocket carriers" "Bismarch" Brits may be upset.
> Creatures with the effective survival instinct must avoid such names.



The Germans don't have carriers...  

Considering that Bismarck was the father of modern Germany, naming a ship after him isn't a big deal.  In fact, there were THREE German ships named after him, and a couple of American ships. 





__





						Bismarck - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




No one is getting worked up that they are calling their new carrier "Kaga".


----------



## JoeB131

Silver Cat said:


> It was only their problem and their responsibility. When they started war they were sure that they can win.



You mean like our leaders did with Iraq and Vietnam?


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.
> 
> One more time.  Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized.  In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs.  Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.
> 
> At the time it was used, it was just another weapon.   60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII.  Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.
Click to expand...

May be, it was our mistake. May be, it would be better to hang him (and the rest of the government).


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not "defenseless". Their husbands and fathers were fighting against both soldiers and civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By summer 1945, they were defenseless. This is why the US air forces could daylight bomb with impunity. They had no air defenses. This means they were defenseless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was only their problem and their responsibility. When they started war they were sure that they can win.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Many leading Japanese knew they had awakened a sleeping giant. I don’t think most of their leadership thought they could beat the US.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.
> 
> One more time.  Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized.  In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs.  Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.
> 
> At the time it was used, it was just another weapon.   60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII.  Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May be, it was our mistake. May be, it would be better to hang him (and the rest of the government).
Click to expand...

You mean hang Truman right?


----------



## Street Juice

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.


----------



## Silver Cat

JoeB131 said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only their problem and their responsibility. When they started war they were sure that they can win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like our leaders did with Iraq and Vietnam?
Click to expand...

Yes. We were fighting for our interest. They were fighting for their interests.


----------



## gipper

Street Juice said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.
Click to expand...

The old English bulldog. He too should have been hung.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> ... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945?  No.
> ...




5th most powerful military in the world.






__





						2022 Military Strength Ranking
					

Ranking the total available active military manpower by country, from highest to lowest.



					www.globalfirepower.com


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> The history that everyone else reads does.


You should try reading some, not just parroting 75 year old propaganda.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> ...Nuking Japan saved American lives. ....



That is mere speculation. However, ending the war sooner than even the Battle of Iwo Jima certainly would have.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The history that everyone else reads does.
> 
> 
> 
> You should try reading some, not just parroting 75 year old propaganda.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the chuckle.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Nuking Japan saved American lives. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is mere speculation. However, ending the war sooner than even the Battle of Iwo Jima certainly would have.
Click to expand...


I agree.  I wished we would have nuked IJ too and killed every last Jap on the island


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945?  No.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5th most powerful military in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2022 Military Strength Ranking
> 
> 
> Ranking the total available active military manpower by country, from highest to lowest.
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalfirepower.com
Click to expand...


And totally benign.  They remember the ass whooping.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Nuking Japan saved American lives. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is mere speculation. However, ending the war sooner than even the Battle of Iwo Jima certainly would have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  I wished we would have nuked IJ too and killed every last ... on the island
Click to expand...

We didn't have the bomb at that time, idiot. Way to miss the point. You haven't even read all the posts on this thread, have you?


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945?  No.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5th most powerful military in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2022 Military Strength Ranking
> 
> 
> Ranking the total available active military manpower by country, from highest to lowest.
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalfirepower.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And totally benign.  They remember the ass whooping.
Click to expand...

Oh look, another 98lb weakling trying to thump his chest on the internet.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The history that everyone else reads does.
> 
> 
> 
> You should try reading some, not just parroting 75 year old propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the chuckle.
Click to expand...

If you find your ignorance amusing, that's your problem.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The history that everyone else reads does.
> 
> 
> 
> You should try reading some, not just parroting 75 year old propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the chuckle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you find your ignorance amusing, that's your problem.
Click to expand...


Nah, that you think the poor Japs would have surrendered is hilarious.  Does Hiroshima still glow in the dark?


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945?  No.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5th most powerful military in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2022 Military Strength Ranking
> 
> 
> Ranking the total available active military manpower by country, from highest to lowest.
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalfirepower.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And totally benign.  They remember the ass whooping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look, another 98lb weakling trying to thump his chest on the internet.
Click to expand...

Better than you playing with your man boobs.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Nuking Japan saved American lives. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is mere speculation. However, ending the war sooner than even the Battle of Iwo Jima certainly would have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  I wished we would have nuked IJ too and killed every last ... on the island
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We didn't have the bomb at that time, idiot. Way to miss the point. You haven't even read all the posts on this thread, have you?
Click to expand...

Perhaps We could have waited to invade.  Then exterminated the cockroaches on IJ.  Perhaps we should have.  Hindsight is 20/20


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The history that everyone else reads does.
> 
> 
> 
> You should try reading some, not just parroting 75 year old propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the chuckle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you find your ignorance amusing, that's your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, that you think the poor ... would have surrendered is hilarious.  ...
Click to expand...

You haven't read the whole thread, have you kid?


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945?  No.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5th most powerful military in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2022 Military Strength Ranking
> 
> 
> Ranking the total available active military manpower by country, from highest to lowest.
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalfirepower.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And totally benign.  They remember the ass whooping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look, another 98lb weakling trying to thump his chest on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better than you playing with your man boobs.
Click to expand...

No one asked you to talk about your fantasies, kid.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> .... Does Hiroshima still glow in the dark?


Only a little punk bitch finds the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians 'funny.'


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.
> 
> One more time.  Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized.  In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs.  Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.
> 
> At the time it was used, it was just another weapon.   60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII.  Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.
Click to expand...

Look dumb ass I have repeatedly linked to the documents the Japanese never offered to surrender, all they offered was a ceasefire return to 41 lines and NO concessions in China.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Does Hiroshima still glow in the dark?
> 
> 
> 
> Only a little punk bitch finds the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians 'funny.'
Click to expand...

Elimination of America's enemies is good, so why we can't enjoy it?
They wanted to die for their Impy, we just gave them this opportunity.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Does Hiroshima still glow in the dark?
> 
> 
> 
> Only a little punk bitch finds the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians 'funny.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elimination of America's enemies is good, ....
Click to expand...

We were fighting a foreign military, not women, children and the elderly; not unarmed civilians. Real American military leaders - real MEN - of that time and this understood the distinction.


----------



## Flash

The Japs sealed their fate of being nuked with Okinawa.  

They decided that they would fight to the last man and make the Americans pay dearly for taking the island.

The lesson that the Americans learned was that it was better to nuke the bastards than to suffer heavy losses.

It is their own damn fault.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Does Hiroshima still glow in the dark?
> 
> 
> 
> Only a little punk bitch finds the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians 'funny.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elimination of America's enemies is good, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were fighting a foreign military, not women, children and the elderly; not unarmed civilians. Real American military leaders - real MEN - of that time and this understood the distinction.
Click to expand...

We were fighting enemy state, with its civilian leaders, their industry, their infrastructure, and, of course, their military too. 
Soldiers (in modern armies) are useless without munitions, so bombing of plants can unarm them. What is better - 
1) at the first turn kill unarmed civilians and stop their military production and at the second turn kill already unarmed "soldiers", or
2) at the first turn try to kill well armed soldiers (with heavy losses), and then - try to kill remains of well armed former civilians conscripted to the Army (with much heavier losses)?


----------



## Unkotare

“The use of this barbarous weapon…was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.” —Adm. William Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff


----------



## Unkotare

“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey


----------



## Unkotare

"William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.” "









						The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
					

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?




					www.thenation.com


----------



## Unkotare

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "


----------



## Unkotare

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf


----------



## candycorn

You never answered. Does Hiroshima still glow in the dark?


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> You never answered. Does Hiroshima still glow in the dark?


No, stupid, it doesn't. Go see for yourself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "


Again we HAVE the intercepts all Japan offered was a return to 41 start lines no dismantling of military no occupation and NO concessions in China. That is NOT a surrender.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.
> 
> One more time.  Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized.  In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs.  Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.
> 
> At the time it was used, it was just another weapon.   60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII.  Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb ass I have repeatedly linked to the documents the Japanese never offered to surrender, all they offered was a ceasefire return to 41 lines and NO concessions in China.
Click to expand...

Hey jug head I’ve tried educating you for a fucking decade, to no avail. You only know the lies you were told in grade school, and haven’t advanced from there. Get informed.


----------



## gipper

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945?  No.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5th most powerful military in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2022 Military Strength Ranking
> 
> 
> Ranking the total available active military manpower by country, from highest to lowest.
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalfirepower.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And totally benign.  They remember the ass whooping.
Click to expand...

You’re proud of massacring defenseless women and children. You’re one sick fuck.


----------



## Levant

mikegriffith1 said:


> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



I'm not going to catch up page-by-page but I am going to respond to the OP.

What was obscene was for the Emperor of Japan to leverage the religious nature of his role in order to cause his soldiers to never surrender, fight to the death and create the environment where it was necessary to take all possible alternatives to avoid having to invade Japan.  It was obscene for the Emperor of Japan, after seeing what happened in Hiroshima, to not surrender.  

On every level, the bombing of Nagasaki was the fault and choice of the Emperor of Japan.  One might argue against Hiroshima and the use of the atomic bomb in the first place but, once that was done, Nagasaki is 100% on the Emperor.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> "William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.” "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> 
> Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thenation.com



If they were ready to surrender, then why, after Hiroshima, didn't they surrender?


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to catch up page-by-page but I am going to respond to the OP.
> 
> What was obscene was for the Emperor of Japan to leverage the religious nature of his role in order to cause his soldiers to never surrender, fight to the death and create the environment where it was necessary to take all possible alternatives to avoid having to invade Japan.  It was obscene for the Emperor of Japan, after seeing what happened in Hiroshima, to not surrender.
> 
> On every level, the bombing of Nagasaki was the fault and choice of the Emperor of Japan.  One might argue against Hiroshima and the use of the atomic bomb in the first place but, once that was done, Nagasaki is 100% on the Emperor.
Click to expand...

The bombs never should have been dropped. Just accept their surrender and go home. Imagine the thousands of lives saved on both sides,  had that been done.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.” "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> 
> Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thenation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they were ready to surrender, then why, after Hiroshima, didn't they surrender?
Click to expand...

They tried to surrender many times. The US just refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender. This foolish idiotic requirement made by Stalin’s Stooge (FDR), caused thousands of needless deaths.

You seem to think the Japanese leadership knew what happened at Hiroshima immediately after the war crime was committed. This is foolish. The nation was in ruins and communications almost nonexistent. They didn’t know details.


----------



## Levant

Street Juice said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.
Click to expand...


It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win.  As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war.  Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons.  Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care.  When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object.  When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.  

When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible.  Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.” "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> 
> Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thenation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they were ready to surrender, then why, after Hiroshima, didn't they surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender many times. The US just refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender. This foolish idiotic requirement made by Stalin’s Stooge (FDR), caused thousands of needless deaths.
> 
> You seem to think the Japanese leadership knew what happened at Hiroshima immediately after the war crime was committed. This is foolish. The nation was in ruins and communications almost nonexistent. They didn’t know details.
Click to expand...


That is an asinine idea and you can't back it up.  Of course the word got to Tokyo within minutes to  hours.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> They tried to surrender many times. The US just refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender. This foolish idiotic requirement made by Stalin’s Stooge (FDR), caused thousands of needless deaths.
> 
> You seem to think the Japanese leadership knew what happened at Hiroshima immediately after the war crime was committed. This is foolish. The nation was in ruins and communications almost nonexistent. They didn’t know details.



And why in the world would we consider anything less than unconditional surrender?


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They tried to surrender many times. The US just refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender. This foolish idiotic requirement made by Stalin’s Stooge (FDR), caused thousands of needless deaths.
> 
> You seem to think the Japanese leadership knew what happened at Hiroshima immediately after the war crime was committed. This is foolish. The nation was in ruins and communications almost nonexistent. They didn’t know details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why in the world would we consider anything less than unconditional surrender?
Click to expand...

To stop the wanton slaughter and end the war.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to catch up page-by-page but I am going to respond to the OP.
> 
> What was obscene was for the Emperor of Japan to leverage the religious nature of his role in order to cause his soldiers to never surrender, fight to the death and create the environment where it was necessary to take all possible alternatives to avoid having to invade Japan.  It was obscene for the Emperor of Japan, after seeing what happened in Hiroshima, to not surrender.
> 
> On every level, the bombing of Nagasaki was the fault and choice of the Emperor of Japan.  One might argue against Hiroshima and the use of the atomic bomb in the first place but, once that was done, Nagasaki is 100% on the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bombs never should have been dropped. Just accept their surrender and go home. Imagine the thousands of lives saved on both sides,  had that been done.
Click to expand...


Imagine the hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost had they not done it - American lives.  Japan shouldn't have attacked the United States.  A thousand American lives versus a hundred thousand of an enemy who attacked us?  Which would you choose?  For me, any military attack against the United States should spell the end of the regime that attacked if not the end of the nation that attacked.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They tried to surrender many times. The US just refused to accept anything but unconditional surrender. This foolish idiotic requirement made by Stalin’s Stooge (FDR), caused thousands of needless deaths.
> 
> You seem to think the Japanese leadership knew what happened at Hiroshima immediately after the war crime was committed. This is foolish. The nation was in ruins and communications almost nonexistent. They didn’t know details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why in the world would we consider anything less than unconditional surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To stop the wanton slaughter and end the war.
Click to expand...


Again, why would we do that?  The slaughter was started by Japan.  The war was started by Japan.  If unconditional surrender would stop the slaughter and stop the war, why aren't you asking Japan these questions?  Oh, I know.   America bad.. America haters disgust me.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to catch up page-by-page but I am going to respond to the OP.
> 
> What was obscene was for the Emperor of Japan to leverage the religious nature of his role in order to cause his soldiers to never surrender, fight to the death and create the environment where it was necessary to take all possible alternatives to avoid having to invade Japan.  It was obscene for the Emperor of Japan, after seeing what happened in Hiroshima, to not surrender.
> 
> On every level, the bombing of Nagasaki was the fault and choice of the Emperor of Japan.  One might argue against Hiroshima and the use of the atomic bomb in the first place but, once that was done, Nagasaki is 100% on the Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bombs never should have been dropped. Just accept their surrender and go home. Imagine the thousands of lives saved on both sides,  had that been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine the hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost had they not done it - American lives.  Japan shouldn't have attacked the United States.  A thousand American lives versus a hundred thousand of an enemy who attacked us?  Which would you choose?  For me, any military attack against the United States should spell the end of the regime that attacked if not the end of the nation that attacked.
Click to expand...

Lies. Propaganda.

You seem to think the Japanese people deserved it for the minor event that was Pearl Harbor. Most warlike of you.


----------



## Unkotare

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.” "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> 
> Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thenation.com


.


----------



## Unkotare

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Lies. Propaganda.
> 
> You seem to think the Japanese people deserved it for the minor event that was Pearl Harbor. Most warlike of you.



Sure, I'll take that.  More than 2000 men, women, and children killed at Pearl Harbor.

And then there's the other 6 million killed by the Japanese.. So, Hiroshima for Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki for 6 million others. 

The problem here is that there are Americans that think Pearl Harbor was a minor event and that the Japanese were otherwise wonderful people.

I lived a few years in Japan as a kid and went back again for a tour when I was in the Navy.  I loved Japan as it was in the early 60s and again in the late 70s.  I'm not so sure now; a lot of their tradition has been lost - but a lot still remains.

But 1937 to 1945 Japan got just what they had coming to them.. .well, not completely; it should have been even harder on them.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ... More than 2000 men, women, and children killed at Pearl Harbor.
> ...


Sounds like you are outraged at the needless deaths of women and children. Are you?


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ...So, Hiroshima for Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki for 6 million others.
> ...


So, over 100,000 civilians in a civilian city was 'revenge' for a military attack on a military base that wasn't even in the United States? Can you find a military or political leader of the day who expressed the notion that it was an act of revenge? As for dropping a second atom bomb on behalf of other nations, good luck finding any shred of evidence that our motivation was thus?


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ... a lot of their tradition has been lost -...


Like what?


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf



Are you trying to demonstrate the Japanese' willingness to surrender?  I don't get it.  This only talks about partnership/surrender between Russia and Japan and nothing about unconditional surrender to the US.   The US had the right to demand unconditional surrender.  The Japanese knew that was the price and chose to not give it.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... a lot of their tradition has been lost -...
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
Click to expand...

pop culture, clothing,  politeness, bowing, etc.  A lot more fast food - American style.  Even their view toward the west.

I can't count how many days I went from the base to right across the street for katsudon or ramen (real ramen, not dried crap).  Now it's more likely to be McDonalds.

Their young are just like ours.  They've moved on and left a lot of our traditions behind as well.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to demonstrate the Japanese' willingness to surrender?  I don't get it.  This only talks about partnership/surrender between Russia and Japan and nothing about unconditional surrender to the US.   The US had the right to demand unconditional surrender.  The Japanese knew that was the price and chose to not give it.
Click to expand...

This ^^^ is what happens when weak reading skills combine with a barely superficial understanding of history.


----------



## Silver Cat

Ok, guys. Year 2025. China (already annexed Taiwan in 2022) invade Australia (for their Uranium), attack US Forces and we have to eliminate them. There are two basic ways:
1) Long conventional war in Australia without attack against continental China. 
It will cost at least one million lives of American soldiers and twenty millions lives of Chinese soldiers, almost without civilian loses. 
2) Short but cruel nuclear attack against continental China. It will cost near 500 nuclear warheads and 200 millions of Chinese lives (most of them - civilians) and only then - elimination of almost unarmed PNA's forces in Australia with minimal losses. 

What should we choose? Why?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.
> 
> One more time.  Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized.  In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs.  Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.
> 
> At the time it was used, it was just another weapon.   60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII.  Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb ass I have repeatedly linked to the documents the Japanese never offered to surrender, all they offered was a ceasefire return to 41 lines and NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey jug head I’ve tried educating you for a fucking decade, to no avail. You only know the lies you were told in grade school, and haven’t advanced from there. Get informed.
Click to expand...

Hey MORON I have a LINK to the ACTUAL INTERCEPTS you know what the Japanese Government told their people what to offer and what to say.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "


We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> Street Juice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win.  As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war.  Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons.  Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care.  When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object.  When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.
> 
> When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible.  Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.
Click to expand...

No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war. The wanton massacring of civilians is a war crime. Stop believing propaganda.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Street Juice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win.  As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war.  Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons.  Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care.  When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object.  When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.
> 
> When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible.  Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war. The wanton massacring of civilians is a war crime. Stop believing propaganda.
Click to expand...

Ok. One more time. 

Year 2025. China (already annexed Taiwan in 2022) invade Australia (for their Uranium), attack US Forces and we have to eliminate them. There are two basic ways:
1) Long conventional war in Australia without attack against continental China.
It will cost at least one million lives of American soldiers and twenty millions lives of Chinese soldiers, almost without civilian loses.
2) Short but cruel nuclear attack against continental China. It will cost near 500 nuclear warheads and 200 millions of Chinese lives (most of them - civilians) and only then - elimination of almost unarmed PNA's forces in Australia with minimal losses.

What should we choose? Why?


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "
> 
> 
> 
> We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.
Click to expand...

No dumb shit. By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor. Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Try learning for once grunt.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Street Juice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win.  As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war.  Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons.  Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care.  When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object.  When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.
> 
> When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible.  Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war.
Click to expand...

Who should have? Only foreign leaders?


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "
> 
> 
> 
> We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb shit. By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor.
Click to expand...

Any proves? 


> Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Oh, this little demonstration gave us 75 years of peace and prosperity.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "
> 
> 
> 
> We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb shit. By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proves?
> 
> 
> 
> Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, this little demonstration gave us 75 years of peace and prosperity.
Click to expand...

So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Street Juice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win.  As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war.  Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons.  Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care.  When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object.  When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.
> 
> When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible.  Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who should have? Only foreign leaders?
Click to expand...

No one.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Street Juice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win.  As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war.  Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons.  Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care.  When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object.  When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.
> 
> When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible.  Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who should have? Only foreign leaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one.
Click to expand...

It is impossible.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "
> 
> 
> 
> We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb shit. By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proves?
> 
> 
> 
> Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, this little demonstration gave us 75 years of peace and prosperity.
Click to expand...

Let’s nuke all the Empire’s enemies. Then we can have peace for 75 years.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Street Juice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win.  As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war.  Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons.  Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care.  When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object.  When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.
> 
> When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible.  Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who should have? Only foreign leaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is impossible.
Click to expand...

Silly. Wars were often fought throughout history, without resorting to total war.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.
> 
> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.
> 
> One more time.  Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized.  In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs.  Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.
> 
> At the time it was used, it was just another weapon.   60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII.  Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look dumb ass I have repeatedly linked to the documents the Japanese never offered to surrender, all they offered was a ceasefire return to 41 lines and NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey jug head I’ve tried educating you for a fucking decade, to no avail. You only know the lies you were told in grade school, and haven’t advanced from there. Get informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey MORON I have a LINK to the ACTUAL INTERCEPTS you know what the Japanese Government told their people what to offer and what to say.....
Click to expand...

Blockhead keeps saying I GOT A LINK. LOL. 

What a dumb pussy.


----------



## JoeB131

Silver Cat said:


> Yes. We were fighting for our interest. They were fighting for their interests.



Are you like, fucking retarded?  Are you waiting for the short bus right now?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945?  No.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5th most powerful military in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2022 Military Strength Ranking
> 
> 
> Ranking the total available active military manpower by country, from highest to lowest.
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalfirepower.com
Click to expand...


Yes, just look at them in action!


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> We were fighting a foreign military, not women, children and the elderly; not unarmed civilians. Real American military leaders - real MEN - of that time and this understood the distinction.



The Axis powers made no such distinction, and neither did we after a certain point. 



Unkotare said:


> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "



Again, the problem was, they were trying to negotiate a favorable surrender on their terms.   The world had already learned what a mistake that was with Germany in 1918, when a "Stabbed in the Back Myth" led to Hitler and another war.   Nothing less than complete defeat and unconditional surrender was acceptable.  

The fact is, unlike Germany, which still can't stop apologizing for what it did in World War II, Japan really hasn't accepted full responsibility, still tries to claim their actions weren't so bad, and scratch their heads wondering why the rest of Asia is terrified that they are building aircraft carriers.


----------



## JoeB131

Silver Cat said:


> Ok, guys. Year 2025. China (already annexed Taiwan in 2022) invade Australia (for their Uranium), attack US Forces and we have to eliminate them. There are two basic ways:
> 1) Long conventional war in Australia without attack against continental China.
> It will cost at least one million lives of American soldiers and twenty millions lives of Chinese soldiers, almost without civilian loses.
> 2) Short but cruel nuclear attack against continental China. It will cost near 500 nuclear warheads and 200 millions of Chinese lives (most of them - civilians) and only then - elimination of almost unarmed PNA's forces in Australia with minimal losses.
> 
> What should we choose? Why?



Use our naval superiority to keep them from resupplying their troops in Australia, they give up in a couple of weeks. 

The reality- The Chinese Army isn't really that good.  They haven't been in the field in an active war since 1979, against Vietnam, where they Vietnamese fought them to a standstill and they had to withdraw after a few months.   

They lack the naval logistics to invade Taiwan, much less Australia. (The real threat to Australia is actually Indonesia, which has too many people and nowhere to put them, and there's Australia, right there.)  

But as stated, even a limited nuclear war would end civilization as we know it.  It would cause nuclear winter, causing crops to fail, billions would suffer the effects of radioactive fallout, international trade would be disrupted to the point that a lot of American companies that depend on Chinese components would stop production.   

Again, look at the disruption that Covid-19 is causing, then multiply that by 1000, and you get the picture.


----------



## Silver Cat

JoeB131 said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, guys. Year 2025. China (already annexed Taiwan in 2022) invade Australia (for their Uranium), attack US Forces and we have to eliminate them. There are two basic ways:
> 1) Long conventional war in Australia without attack against continental China.
> It will cost at least one million lives of American soldiers and twenty millions lives of Chinese soldiers, almost without civilian loses.
> 2) Short but cruel nuclear attack against continental China. It will cost near 500 nuclear warheads and 200 millions of Chinese lives (most of them - civilians) and only then - elimination of almost unarmed PNA's forces in Australia with minimal losses.
> 
> What should we choose? Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use our naval superiority to keep them from resupplying their troops in Australia, they give up in a couple of weeks.
> 
> The reality- The Chinese Army isn't really that good.  They haven't been in the field in an active war since 1979, against Vietnam, where they Vietnamese fought them to a standstill and they had to withdraw after a few months.
> 
> They lack the naval logistics to invade Taiwan, much less Australia. (The real threat to Australia is actually Indonesia, which has too many people and nowhere to put them, and there's Australia, right there.)
Click to expand...

May be. May be not. May be it will be not only China, but bigger Alliance (including Indonesia). 



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/think-we-have-military-primacy-over-china-think-again/2020/05/12/268e1bba-948b-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html
		




> But as stated, even a limited nuclear war would end civilization as we know it.  It would cause nuclear winter, causing crops to fail, billions would suffer the effects of radioactive fallout, international trade would be disrupted to the point that a lot of American companies that depend on Chinese components would stop production.


International trade would be disrupted as result of any type of China-American war (nuclear or conventional - no difference). Nonsense about "end of civilisation" is just another part of environmentalistic mythology. 
Actually question is simple - what is better:
1) to kill 500 millions of Chinese (may be Indonesian, too) civilians or
2) to loose one million of American soldiers.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "
> 
> 
> 
> We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dumb shit. By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor. Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Try learning for once grunt.
Click to expand...

Look you blazing MORON we have both the intercepts AND the meeting notes of the Government of Japan all they offered was a stop to hostilities a return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.


----------



## Levant

Silver Cat said:


> Ok, guys. Year 2025. China (already annexed Taiwan in 2022) invade Australia (for their Uranium), attack US Forces and we have to eliminate them. There are two basic ways:
> 1) Long conventional war in Australia without attack against continental China.
> It will cost at least one million lives of American soldiers and twenty millions lives of Chinese soldiers, almost without civilian loses.
> 2) Short but cruel nuclear attack against continental China. It will cost near 500 nuclear warheads and 200 millions of Chinese lives (most of them - civilians) and only then - elimination of almost unarmed PNA's forces in Australia with minimal losses.
> 
> What should we choose? Why?



If we get into a war with China, the first thing we need to do is to eliminate their nuclear capability even if that requires use of nukes to do it.  China has no morals and no scruples.  Their use of the Wuhan virus against the world shows that they don't care a bit about human life outside of China.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!



I should have answered every post in this thread simply with: December 7, 1941.

End of discussion.  If the Japanese did not want attacked, don't wake the sleeping bear.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have answered every post in this thread simply with: December 7, 1941.
> 
> End of discussion.  If the Japanese did not want attacked, don't wake the sleeping bear.
Click to expand...

That’s as I thought. Americans like you believe mass murdering Japanese civilians by the hundreds of thousands was warranted because the Imperial Japanese government, of which the Japanese people had no control, attacked Pearl Harbor killing about 2000 US servicemen.

Illogical and pathological.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have answered every post in this thread simply with: December 7, 1941.
> 
> End of discussion.  If the Japanese did not want attacked, don't wake the sleeping bear.
Click to expand...



Succinct is not my style....but I compliment your use of same, here.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have answered every post in this thread simply with: December 7, 1941.
> 
> End of discussion.  If the Japanese did not want attacked, don't wake the sleeping bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s as I thought. Americans like you believe mass murdering Japanese civilians by the hundreds of thousands was warranted because the Imperial Japanese government, of which the Japanese people had no control, attacked Pearl Harbor killing about 2000 US servicemen.
Click to expand...

Oh, man. Government is a part of a nation. Tojo Hideki was elected by Japan people.


----------



## Unkotare

"William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.*” "









						The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
					

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?




					www.thenation.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.*” "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> 
> Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thenation.com


They were not going to surrender, after 2 nukes and a soviet invasion they STILL did not surrender, and when the Emperor made the decision to surrender the Army staged a Coup to stop him.


----------



## Unkotare

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf


----------



## Unkotare

...


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> ...


 Did you see the word "surrender" in those documents?


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have answered every post in this thread simply with: December 7, 1941.
> 
> End of discussion.  If the Japanese did not want attacked, don't wake the sleeping bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s as I thought. Americans like you believe mass murdering Japanese civilians by the hundreds of thousands was warranted because the Imperial Japanese government, of which the Japanese people had no control, attacked Pearl Harbor killing about 2000 US servicemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, man. Government is a part of a nation. Tojo Hideki was elected by Japan people.
Click to expand...

That’s absurd. If you’re claiming the people of a nation are responsible for the actions of their leaders and can be wantonly murdered because their leader started a war, makes you a fool.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the word "surrender" in those documents?
Click to expand...

Your online ESL class isn’t helping you.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the word "surrender" in those documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your online ESL class isn’t helping you.
Click to expand...

It means "No", isn't it? 
Q. E. D.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have answered every post in this thread simply with: December 7, 1941.
> 
> End of discussion.  If the Japanese did not want attacked, don't wake the sleeping bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s as I thought. Americans like you believe mass murdering Japanese civilians by the hundreds of thousands was warranted because the Imperial Japanese government, of which the Japanese people had no control, attacked Pearl Harbor killing about 2000 US servicemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, man. Government is a part of a nation. Tojo Hideki was elected by Japan people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s absurd. If you’re claiming the people of a nation are responsible for the actions of their leaders and can be wantonly murdered because their leader started a war, makes you a fool.
Click to expand...

Denying it makes you a liberal  moron. 
War is war. It's a clash of states, nations or other groups, not just a sportive competition between armed men.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf


Nothing in that intercept says that Japan will surrender all it says is they want the Russians to talk to the allies about ending the war and returning to 41 start lines like I have said repeatedly.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.*” "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> 
> Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thenation.com


.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... More than 2000 men, women, and children killed at Pearl Harbor.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are outraged at the needless deaths of women and children. Are you?
Click to expand...


I'm most certainly outraged at the needless deaths of the 6 million killed by the Japanese.  If killing a couple hundred thousand of their own to make them see and feel just how bad it is to have your countrymen massacred, then, yes, because I am against the needless deaths of women and children, I fully support the attack on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!



No; mass murder brought war.  2000 killed in Pearl Harbor.  Don't kill 2000 Americans brings peace.  There was peace.  Don't kill 6,000,000 brings peace.  Killing 6,000,000 brings mass destruction.  

Japan murdered literally MILLIONS of innocent women and children including using germ warfare, bombing civilian populations, mass shootings, and just about every way a person could be killed.  And you question the couple hundred thousand that put a stop to it?


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have answered every post in this thread simply with: December 7, 1941.
> 
> End of discussion.  If the Japanese did not want attacked, don't wake the sleeping bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s as I thought. Americans like you believe mass murdering Japanese civilians by the hundreds of thousands was warranted because the Imperial Japanese government, of which the Japanese people had no control, attacked Pearl Harbor killing about 2000 US servicemen.
> 
> Illogical and pathological.
Click to expand...


The people always have control.  Did the people have control of the USSR?  Did the people have control of the GDR?   Did the American colonists have control over the King of England?  

Yes, actually, they did; they simply refused to exercise the control that they had.  When pushed enough, the people will exercise the control that they always had.

And it wasn't 2000 servicemen alone.  It was also innocent women and children that died in Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... More than 2000 men, women, and children killed at Pearl Harbor.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are outraged at the needless deaths of women and children. Are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm most certainly outraged at the needless deaths of the 6 million killed by the Japanese.  If killing a couple hundred thousand of their own to make them see and feel just how bad it is to have your countrymen massacred, then, yes, because I am against the needless deaths of women and children, I fully support the attack on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...

You’re a morally confused hypocrite.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... More than 2000 men, women, and children killed at Pearl Harbor.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are outraged at the needless deaths of women and children. Are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm most certainly outraged at the needless deaths of the 6 million killed by the Japanese.  If killing a couple hundred thousand of their own to make them see and feel just how bad it is to have your countrymen massacred, then, yes, because I am against the needless deaths of women and children, I fully support the attack on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re a morally confused hypocrite.
Click to expand...

And you are either a bald faced liar or stupid. NOT one of your links says what you claim they say and you can not link to any actual document or intercept that does.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... More than 2000 men, women, and children killed at Pearl Harbor.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are outraged at the needless deaths of women and children. Are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm most certainly outraged at the needless deaths of the 6 million killed by the Japanese.  If killing a couple hundred thousand of their own to make them see and feel just how bad it is to have your countrymen massacred, then, yes, because I am against the needless deaths of women and children, I fully support the attack on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re a morally confused hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Really?  You accept the death of MILLIONS of innocent women and children but the deaths to end the deaths are bad.  There's no logic that can support your view.  I am beginning to wonder if it's hatred for America that drives your view because common sense it can't be.

Your account picture is Asian.  Are you?  Your name is definitely Japanese in form and sound but I googled to see if it has meaning and it appears to be related to scat porn.  I don't hold your sexual perversions against you but it does seem that you're full of what you love.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have answered every post in this thread simply with: December 7, 1941.
> 
> End of discussion.  If the Japanese did not want attacked, don't wake the sleeping bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s as I thought. Americans like you believe mass murdering Japanese civilians by the hundreds of thousands was warranted because the Imperial Japanese government, of which the Japanese people had no control, attacked Pearl Harbor killing about 2000 US servicemen.
> 
> Illogical and pathological.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people always have control.  Did the people have control of the USSR?  Did the people have control of the GDR?   Did the American colonists have control over the King of England?
> 
> Yes, actually, they did; they simply refused to exercise the control that they had.  When pushed enough, the people will exercise the control that they always had.
> 
> And it wasn't 2000 servicemen alone.  It was also innocent women and children that died in Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...

The people almost never have control. If you think the people have control in this country, you’re deluding yourself.


----------



## Unkotare

"President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."  "









						Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu


----------



## Unkotare

"_*Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war*_, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." _*The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used*_.  "


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ... You accept the death of MILLIONS of innocent women and children...


No, I don't.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ...
> 
> Your account picture is Asian.  Are you?  ....


Why would that matter?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "_*Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war*_, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." _*The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used*_.  "


And yet you can not LINK to a single one and the stuff you link to says what I said NO SURRENDER, cessation of hostilities return to 41 start line and NO CONCESSIONS in China.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ... I am beginning to wonder if it's hatred for America that drives your view because common sense it can't be.
> 
> ....


Inevitably, you turn to emo-bullshit because you cannot defend your immoral hypocrisy and are ignorant of the history in question.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I am beginning to wonder if it's hatred for America that drives your view because common sense it can't be.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitably, you turn to emo-bullshit because you cannot defend your immoral hypocrisy and are ignorant of the history in question.
Click to expand...

You can NOT link to a SINGLE missive from Japan offering to surrender. NOT ONE. The links you put up all go to the soviet camp and the Japanese never offered to surrender at all. They said return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.


----------



## Unkotare

"Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."  "


----------



## Unkotare

"Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima."  "


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ... I am beginning to wonder if it's hatred for America that drives your view because common sense it can't be.
> 
> ....


Inevitably, you turn to emo-bullshit because you cannot defend your immoral hypocrisy and are ignorant of the history in question.

"it creates a fog of patriotic orthodoxy that makes it hard for Americans to have an honest debate and disagreement about this contentious issue. Criticism of the atomic bomb should not be interpreted as disrespect for World War II veterans. Americans once knew better.  "


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I am beginning to wonder if it's hatred for America that drives your view because common sense it can't be.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitably, you turn to emo-bullshit because you cannot defend your immoral hypocrisy and are ignorant of the history in question.
> 
> "it creates a fog of patriotic orthodoxy that makes it hard for Americans to have an honest debate and disagreement about this contentious issue. Criticism of the atomic bomb should not be interpreted as disrespect for World War II veterans. Americans once knew better.  "
Click to expand...

And yet you can not LINK to a single piece of ACTUAL evidence that proves any of what you say, you keep linking to OPINIONS. Guess what moron, everyone has one. I on the other hand have and continue to link to FACTS, hard evidence that proves MY point.


----------



## Unkotare

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/039b.pdf


----------



## Unkotare

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/041.pdf


----------



## Unkotare

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/042.pdf


----------



## Silver Cat

They said they don't want to surrender.
Q. E. D.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/042.pdf


NOT one of those links says what you claim, again the SPECIFIC offer veriffied with intercepts you ignore specifically tells the representative NOT to offer surrender and to only offer a ceasefire return to 41 lines No occupation no demobilizing and NO CONCESSIONS in China.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ...They said they don't want to surrender....



No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor. The "conditions" were _*exactly*_ those that Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians and subjecting many, many more to radiation poisoning. If the scumbag fdr weren't dead set on basking in the sea of civilian blood he had so long dreamed of, an end to the war might have been negotiated before the loss of American life at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the slaughter of an unconscionable number of civilians.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_*Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war*_, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." _*The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used*_.  "
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you can not LINK to a single one and the stuff you link to says what I said NO SURRENDER, cessation of hostilities return to 41 start line and NO CONCESSIONS in China.
Click to expand...

I GOT A LINK. 


LMFAO


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...They said they don't want to surrender....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor. The "conditions" were _*exactly*_ those that Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians and subjecting many, many more to radiation poisoning. If the scumbag fdr weren't dead set on basking in the sea of civilian blood he had so long dreamed of, an end to the war might have been negotiated before the loss of American life at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the slaughter of an unconscionable number of civilians.
Click to expand...

This is something most Americans just can’t accept, even though it’s true.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...They said they don't want to surrender....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Did they suggest Russians to return half of Sakhalin and Kuril islands? Did they suggest to withdraw their forces from China, Korea, Vietnam? No. So, it was not proposal of the unconditional or even one-conditional surrender.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...They said they don't want to surrender....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. Did they suggest Russians to return half of Sakhalin and Kuril islands? Did they suggest to withdraw their forces from China, Korea, Vietnam? No. So, it was not proposal of the unconditional or even one-conditional surrender.
Click to expand...

It’s been proven a thousand times, but you aren’t man enough to accept it. I get it.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...They said they don't want to surrender....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. Did they suggest Russians to return half of Sakhalin and Kuril islands? Did they suggest to withdraw their forces from China, Korea, Vietnam? No. So, it was not proposal of the unconditional or even one-conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s been proven a thousand times, but you aren’t man enough to accept it. I get it.
Click to expand...

May be it's been "proven" for faithful anti-americans, liberals and xenophyles, but clearly it's not been proven for the normal people.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources All in here be so kind as to search the link and provide ANY intercept or document that says that Japan would surrender under ANY condition. All they said was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines no concessions in China.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Your account picture is Asian.  Are you?  ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that matter?
Click to expand...


Because if you're Japanese, it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead and focusing on the 200 thousand dead.  It wouldn't make you right but it would help me to understand why you're insisting on ignoring their democide while focusing on the steps the United States took to end the war..


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> The people almost never have control. If you think the people have control in this country, you’re deluding yourself.



Of course we have control.  The country is in the mess that it is because the people voted the Congress people that they voted - both left and right.  If they wanted change, they'd vote change.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I am beginning to wonder if it's hatred for America that drives your view because common sense it can't be.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitably, you turn to emo-bullshit because you cannot defend your immoral hypocrisy and are ignorant of the history in question.
Click to expand...


I'm not ignorant of the history; you're quoting revisionist history.  The history was that on every island we took, the Japanese fought to the death.  The history is that years after the war was over, the Japanese found lost on islands fought to the death.  They were very dedicated to their Emperor and their country.  They were ferocious fights and we would have lost many Americans for every mile of Japan homeland we tried to take.  

After two atomic bombs, the Japanese still had not surrendered until 6 days later.  It was thought that we'd have to bomb a third time and we were prepared for up to 12.  Even knowing their country and their people could be annihilated, they continued to fight and refused to surrender.  

Revisionist historians would like to convince you (and apparently have) that it wasn't the bombs at all, that ended the war; it was the Soviets marching into Manchuria and killing a few thousand soldiers..   Because all of the hundreds of thousands that the Allies had killed didn't matter; the conventional and atomic bombing of Japanese cities and hundreds of thousands dead didn't matter but a few Russians killing a few Japanese in a foreign land brought Japan to its knees.  8 years of war against China and the west didn't convince them but 6 days of war against the Russians scared Japan so badly that they surrendered unconditionally.   Yeah, right.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> "Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."  "



Because Marine Corps sergeants are the strategy experts and have all the facts that President Truman didn't have...


----------



## Levant

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet you can not LINK to a single piece of ACTUAL evidence that proves any of what you say, you keep linking to OPINIONS. Guess what moron, everyone has one. I on the other hand have and continue to link to FACTS, hard evidence that proves MY point.



And none of those whose after-the-fact opinions he keeps quoting had all of the knowledge and all of the responsibility that Truman and the Allied leaders had when they had to make the decisions.  They weren't easy decisions and I imagine many second-guessed themselves for the rest of their lives.  The doubt and guilt must have been terrible but that doesn't change the necessity and the right of the decision they had to make and did correctly make.


----------



## JoeB131

Silver Cat said:


> May be. May be not. May be it will be not only China, but bigger Alliance (including Indonesia).



Oh, noes, those white people might have to go back where they came from!



Silver Cat said:


> International trade would be disrupted as result of any type of China-American war (nuclear or conventional - no difference). Nonsense about "end of civilisation" is just another part of environmentalistic mythology.
> Actually question is simple - what is better:
> 1) to kill 500 millions of Chinese (may be Indonesian, too) civilians or
> 2) to loose one million of American soldiers.



Actually, they would both be bad.  

But it won't ever happen, and if it did NOT OUR PROBLEM.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> "William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.*” "



Again, everyone felt really bad about it years later, when the implications of nukes became clear.  

At the time, it was just another weapon.   70 million people had already died, what was the big deal about 60K more?


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...They said they don't want to surrender....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. Did they suggest Russians to return half of Sakhalin and Kuril islands? Did they suggest to withdraw their forces from China, Korea, Vietnam? No. So, it was not proposal of the unconditional or even one-conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s been proven a thousand times, but you aren’t man enough to accept it. I get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May be it's been "proven" for faithful anti-americans, liberals and xenophyles, but clearly it's not been proven for the normal people.
Click to expand...

The truth is hardly anti American. Besides why are you proud of your government for.commiting history’s greatest war crime?  Why would you support the mass murdering of defenseless civilians?  

You are the epitome of anti-American.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people almost never have control. If you think the people have control in this country, you’re deluding yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we have control.  The country is in the mess that it is because the people voted the Congress people that they voted - both left and right.  If they wanted change, they'd vote change.
Click to expand...

You’re very naive. Maybe some day you will grow up and realize the people have little say in their government.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Your account picture is Asian.  Are you?  ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if you're Japanese, it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead and focusing on the 200 thousand dead.  It wouldn't make you right but it would help me to understand why you're insisting on ignoring their democide while focusing on the steps the United States took to end the war..
Click to expand...

I’m not Japanese. I’m an American, just much smarter than you.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> "President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." "



Again- look at the date.  1963.  Right after the Cuban Missile Crisis and everyone was terrified that the world was about to end.  

YES- EVERYONE FELT AWFUL ABOUT IT YEARS LATER!   But I put that up with the regret about that one night stand you had..  At the time, it seemed like an awfully good idea, given the fact that the war had already been dragging on for years and tens of millions were already dead.  

Invading would have killed tens of thousands more.   Waiting Japan out would have killed tens of thousands more.  Continuing to conventionally bomb them would have killed tens of thousands more.  

At the time, it was just another weapon.



Unkotare said:


> No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor. The "conditions" were _*exactly*_ those that Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians and subjecting many, many more to radiation poisoning. If the scumbag fdr weren't dead set on basking in the sea of civilian blood he had so long dreamed of, an end to the war might have been negotiated before the loss of American life at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the slaughter of an unconscionable number of civilians.



You, see, this is where you are confused, Dripping Poop.  The game changer was not letting the War Criminal Hirohito off the hook, it was that the US didn't want to agree to a partition of Japan with the USSR, given that they USSR was already pretty much feeling their oats in Europe and didn't seem all that keen on just restoring a pre-war status quo there.  When it became clear the Soviets were mopping up the Japs in Korea and Manchuria, suddenly the US wasn't so keen on seeing Hirohito at the end of that rope he so richly fucking deserved.  

The Scumbags were the Jap leaders who insisted on continuing the war when it was pretty clear they couldn't win after 1944. 



Unkotare said:


> "Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." "



A peace agreement that meant keeping their stolen territories and letting their leaders off the hook.  Hard Pass.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...They said they don't want to surrender....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. Did they suggest Russians to return half of Sakhalin and Kuril islands? Did they suggest to withdraw their forces from China, Korea, Vietnam? No. So, it was not proposal of the unconditional or even one-conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s been proven a thousand times, but you aren’t man enough to accept it. I get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May be it's been "proven" for faithful anti-americans, liberals and xenophyles, but clearly it's not been proven for the normal people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth is hardly anti American. Besides why are you proud of your government for.commiting history’s greatest war crime?  Why would you support the mass murdering of defenseless civilians?
> 
> You are the epitome of anti-American.
Click to expand...

I'm pro-American. Our government must protect our lives and our wealth, alien "interests" does not matter at all. 
So, "mass murder" of 500 millions of foreign civilians is much better than loosing of 1 million of our soldiers. Isn't it?


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Your account picture is Asian.  Are you?  ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if you're Japanese, it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead and focusing on the 200 thousand dead.  It wouldn't make you right but it would help me to understand why you're insisting on ignoring their democide while focusing on the steps the United States took to end the war..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not Japanese. I’m an American, just much smarter than you.
Click to expand...

If so, what president would you prefer - the one, who will protect our lives, or who will defend our enemies and allow them continue to kill Americans?


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Your account picture is Asian.  Are you?  ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if you're Japanese, it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead and focusing on the 200 thousand dead.  It wouldn't make you right but it would help me to understand why you're insisting on ignoring their democide while focusing on the steps the United States took to end the war..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not Japanese. I’m an American, just much smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If so, what president would you prefer - the one, who will protect our lives, or who will defend our enemies and allow them continue to kill Americans?
Click to expand...

Yes Americans must have enemies to support massive war budgets, to enrich the rich and impose imperialism.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...They said they don't want to surrender....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't. You are painfully obtuse. The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. ...
Click to expand...

Illogical.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ... it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead .....



I'm not. You are being illogical and dishonest in claiming so.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I am beginning to wonder if it's hatred for America that drives your view because common sense it can't be.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitably, you turn to emo-bullshit because you cannot defend your immoral hypocrisy and are ignorant of the history in question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not ignorant of the history; ...
Click to expand...

It is very clear that you are. You seem to be eager to maintain that condition.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ...
> 
> Revisionist historians would like to convince you (and apparently have) that it wasn't the bombs at all, that ended the war; ....


I have quoted (many times) prominent US military leaders _of that time_ who said that the bomb was unnecessary and immaterial to ending the war. Are they "revisionist historians"?


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ...what president would you prefer - the one, who will protect our lives, or who will defend our enemies and allow them continue to kill Americans?


Your transparent appeal to emotion fails. If fdr were interested in protecting American lives he would have pursued the possibility of ending the war much sooner rather than ignoring MacArthur's 40-page communique informing him of Japanese overtures toward ending the war (again, under the exact same terms that Truman eventually accepted anyway).


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you can not LINK to a single piece of ACTUAL evidence that proves any of what you say, you keep linking to OPINIONS. Guess what moron, everyone has one. I on the other hand have and continue to link to FACTS, hard evidence that proves MY point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And none of those whose after-the-fact opinions he keeps quoting had all of the knowledge and all of the responsibility that Truman and the Allied leaders had when they had to make the decisions.  They weren't easy decisions and I imagine many second-guessed themselves for the rest of their lives.  The doubt and guilt must have been terrible but that doesn't change the necessity and the right of the decision they had to make and did correctly make.
Click to expand...

"
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.
That was _*a conclusion of the 1946  U.S. Bombing Survey ordered by President Harry Truman*_ in the wake of World War II.

*Gen. Dwight Eisenhower *said in 1963, “ *the Japanese were ready to surrender* and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"









						‘It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing’ --- Why dropping the A-Bombs was wrong
					

That was a conclusion of the 1946 U.S. Bombing Survey ordered by President Harry Truman in the wake of World War II.




					www.washingtonexaminer.com
				




"*That wasn’t merely hindsight. Eisenhower made the same argument in 1945*. "


----------



## Unkotare

"In his memoirs, Ike recalled a visit from War Secretary Henry Stimson:



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.”

Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote:



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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "In his memoirs, Ike recalled a visit from War Secretary Henry Stimson:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.”
> 
> Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."


Ike has no credibility AT ALL. He ran the systematic bombing and destruction of European cities for 3 years in Europe, He killed a hell of a lot more people then any atomic bomb.And at no time during that bombing campaign did he suggest a way to lessen the death rate or destruction. He was NOT in the Pacific he did not have any first hand experience with the Japanese.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In his memoirs, Ike recalled a visit from War Secretary Henry Stimson:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.”
> 
> Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
> 
> 
> 
> Ike has no credibility AT ALL. He ran the systematic bombing and destruction of European cities for 3 years in Europe, He killed a hell of a lot more people then any atomic bomb.And at no time during that bombing campaign did he suggest a way to lessen the death rate or destruction. He was NOT in the Pacific he did not have any first hand experience with the Japanese.
Click to expand...

Why do you post obvious lies?  First, the Brits controlled about half the bombing missions in Europe. So dummy, Ike had no control over them. Secondly, Ike wasn’t involved in air forces until Spring 1944 and he delegated command. 

_On 27 March 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued orders granting control of all the Allied air forces in Europe, including strategic bombers, to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, who delegated command to his deputy in SHAEF Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder.
Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia_

To think Ike needed to be in the Pacific to understand things, is typical stupidity of a dumb grunt.

STOP POSTING.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In his memoirs, Ike recalled a visit from War Secretary Henry Stimson:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.”
> 
> Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
> 
> 
> 
> Ike has no credibility AT ALL. He ran the systematic bombing and destruction of European cities for 3 years in Europe, He killed a hell of a lot more people then any atomic bomb.And at no time during that bombing campaign did he suggest a way to lessen the death rate or destruction. He was NOT in the Pacific he did not have any first hand experience with the Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you post obvious lies?  First, the Brits controlled about half the bombing missions in Europe. So dummy, Ike had no control over them. Secondly, Ike wasn’t involved in air forces until Spring 1944 and he delegated command.
> 
> _On 27 March 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued orders granting control of all the Allied air forces in Europe, including strategic bombers, to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, who delegated command to his deputy in SHAEF Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder.
> Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia_
> 
> To think Ike needed to be in the Pacific to understand things, is typical stupidity of a dumb grunt.
> 
> STOP POSTING.
Click to expand...

LOL you are TRULY CHALLENGED on Military and History. In the Military whether you delegate command or not the supreme Commander is TOTALLY responsible for what is subordinate commanders DO. As for History the fighting in Europe was NOTHING like the fighting in the Pacific, NOTHING LIKE. The Germans did not suicide to avoid surrender or mount human wave assaults, they did not order their civilians to commit suicide rather then surrender and they did NOT fight to the death on every battle. Saipan and Okinawa taught the US commanders on the ground EXACTLY what they were up against if they invaded Japan. The Japanese ordered their civilians to form in a human wave attack on landing beaches with bamboo spears.On the Main Islands. The Germans surrendered when beaten the Japanese did NOT.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In his memoirs, Ike recalled a visit from War Secretary Henry Stimson:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.”
> 
> Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
> 
> 
> 
> Ike has no credibility AT ALL. He ran the systematic bombing and destruction of European cities for 3 years in Europe, He killed a hell of a lot more people then any atomic bomb.And at no time during that bombing campaign did he suggest a way to lessen the death rate or destruction. He was NOT in the Pacific he did not have any first hand experience with the Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you post obvious lies?  First, the Brits controlled about half the bombing missions in Europe. So dummy, Ike had no control over them. Secondly, Ike wasn’t involved in air forces until Spring 1944 and he delegated command.
> 
> _On 27 March 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued orders granting control of all the Allied air forces in Europe, including strategic bombers, to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, who delegated command to his deputy in SHAEF Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder.
> Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia_
> 
> To think Ike needed to be in the Pacific to understand things, is typical stupidity of a dumb grunt.
> 
> STOP POSTING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you are TRULY CHALLENGED on Military and History. In the Military whether you delegate command or not the supreme Commander is TOTALLY responsible for what is subordinate commanders DO. As for History the fighting in Europe was NOTHING like the fighting in the Pacific, NOTHING LIKE. The Germans did not suicide to avoid surrender or mount human wave assaults, they did not order their civilians to commit suicide rather then surrender and they did NOT fight to the death on every battle. Saipan and Okinawa taught the US commanders on the ground EXACTLY what they were up against if they invaded Japan. The Japanese ordered their civilians to form in a human wave attack on landing beaches with bamboo spears.On the Main Islands. The Germans surrendered when beaten the Japanese did NOT.
Click to expand...

So now you try to change the argument. 

You claimed Ike directed the bombing of Germany. You did this to denigrate him for disagreeing with Truman’s war crime. You claim Ike systemically bombed Germany so he has no credibility on disagreeing with the bombing of Japan. I have proven you wrong once again. YOU LIED ONCE AGAIN.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In his memoirs, Ike recalled a visit from War Secretary Henry Stimson:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.”
> 
> Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
> 
> 
> 
> Ike has no credibility AT ALL. He ran the systematic bombing and destruction of European cities for 3 years in Europe, He killed a hell of a lot more people then any atomic bomb.And at no time during that bombing campaign did he suggest a way to lessen the death rate or destruction. He was NOT in the Pacific he did not have any first hand experience with the Japanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you post obvious lies?  First, the Brits controlled about half the bombing missions in Europe. So dummy, Ike had no control over them. Secondly, Ike wasn’t involved in air forces until Spring 1944 and he delegated command.
> 
> _On 27 March 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued orders granting control of all the Allied air forces in Europe, including strategic bombers, to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, who delegated command to his deputy in SHAEF Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder.
> Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia_
> 
> To think Ike needed to be in the Pacific to understand things, is typical stupidity of a dumb grunt.
> 
> STOP POSTING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you are TRULY CHALLENGED on Military and History. In the Military whether you delegate command or not the supreme Commander is TOTALLY responsible for what is subordinate commanders DO. As for History the fighting in Europe was NOTHING like the fighting in the Pacific, NOTHING LIKE. The Germans did not suicide to avoid surrender or mount human wave assaults, they did not order their civilians to commit suicide rather then surrender and they did NOT fight to the death on every battle. Saipan and Okinawa taught the US commanders on the ground EXACTLY what they were up against if they invaded Japan. The Japanese ordered their civilians to form in a human wave attack on landing beaches with bamboo spears.On the Main Islands. The Germans surrendered when beaten the Japanese did NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you try to change the argument.
> 
> You claimed Ike directed the bombing of Germany. You did this to denigrate him for disagreeing with Truman’s war crime. You claim Ike systemically bombed Germany so he has no credibility on disagreeing with the bombing of Japan. I have proven you wrong once again. YOU LIED ONCE AGAIN.
Click to expand...

He IS directly responsible for the decisions and actions of anyone UNDER HIM. Which if you knew the military you would know. HE CHOSE not to do anything about HIS role in the decision to fire Bomb Germany to systematically bomb cities. Which from 1944 to 1945 killed a hell of a lot more CIVILIANS then the two Atom Bombs.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> Actually Truman's own cabinet publicly stated the bomb would put us on par with the German genocide at the time,  and the dept of defense stifled all Truman's top generals , insisting all comments be vetted first
> 
> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals
> 
> ~S~


As always,mudwhistle gets his. Ass handed to him on a platter just like everyday of the entire year.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.
Click to expand...

 indeed
Fdr and Ike were both motherfuckers who betrayed America,both buddies with mass murderer of innocent civilians Stalin.all three of them are burning and suffering in hell right now


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> The truth is hardly anti American. Besides why are you proud of your government for.commiting history’s greatest war crime?  Why would you support the mass murdering of defenseless civilians?
> 
> You are the epitome of anti-American.


Really?  The bombings that stopped the killers of 6 MILLION people, over half of that - over 3 MILLION of them, innocent women, children, and non-militant old men, is worse than the 6 million they killed?  Stopping the Japanese was worse than Hitler's Final Solution that killed 6 million Jews?

So, you're an anti-semite, pro-Nazi, holocaust denier along with just generally hating the United States.

*edit* But you're right; the truth is not Anti-American.  The problem is that you keep lying.  There's no truth in anything you've written.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is hardly anti American. Besides why are you proud of your government for.commiting history’s greatest war crime?  Why would you support the mass murdering of defenseless civilians?
> 
> You are the epitome of anti-American.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The bombings that stopped the killers of 6 MILLION people, over half of that - over 3 MILLION of them, innocent women, children, and non-militant old men, is worse than the 6 million they killed?  Stopping the Japanese was worse than Hitler's Final Solution that killed 6 million Jews?
> 
> So, you're an anti-semite, pro-Nazi, holocaust denier along with just generally hating the United States.
> 
> *edit* But you're right; the truth is not Anti-American.  The problem is that you keep lying.  There's no truth in anything you've written.
Click to expand...

You entire premise is wrong. The a bombs didn’t end the war. The war was over well before Truman’s war crime.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Your account picture is Asian.  Are you?  ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if you're Japanese, it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead and focusing on the 200 thousand dead.  It wouldn't make you right but it would help me to understand why you're insisting on ignoring their democide while focusing on the steps the United States took to end the war..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not Japanese. I’m an American, just much smarter than you.
Click to expand...


No; apparently you're not smarter than me.  Did I ask if you were Japanese?  Did I imply it?  Suggest it?  Insinuate it? Apparently you can't read.  Have your nurse read a bit more slowly so you can understand what she's saying to you.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Your account picture is Asian.  Are you?  ....
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if you're Japanese, it would be understandable why you're ignoring the 6 million dead and focusing on the 200 thousand dead.  It wouldn't make you right but it would help me to understand why you're insisting on ignoring their democide while focusing on the steps the United States took to end the war..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not Japanese. I’m an American, just much smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No; apparently you're not smarter than me.  Did I ask if you were Japanese?  Did I imply it?  Suggest it?  Insinuate it? Apparently you can't read.  Have your nurse read a bit more slowly so you can understand what she's saying to you.
Click to expand...

I accept the truth. You are man enough to accept it.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The bombings that stopped the killers of 6 MILLION people, over half of that - over 3 MILLION of them, innocent women, children, and non-militant old men, is worse than the 6 million they killed?  Stopping the Japanese was worse than Hitler's Final Solution that killed 6 million Jews?
> 
> So, you're an anti-semite, pro-Nazi, holocaust denier along with just generally hating the United States.
> 
> *edit* But you're right; the truth is not Anti-American.  The problem is that you keep lying.  There's no truth in anything you've written.
> 
> 
> 
> You entire premise is wrong. The a bombs didn’t end the war. The war was over well before Truman’s war crime.
Click to expand...


Well, in the post you replied to (there's that reading thing again) the premise was that you're an anti-semite, Nazi-loving, holocaust denier that hates the United States. I understand you not denying that because you were trying to be truthful but if you want to make the claim that the war was over *well *before the bombs were dropped, please provide any story from any paper, in Japan, China, or the US, that the war was ended.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No; apparently you're not smarter than me.  Did I ask if you were Japanese?  Did I imply it?  Suggest it?  Insinuate it? Apparently you can't read.  Have your nurse read a bit more slowly so you can understand what she's saying to you.
> 
> 
> 
> I accept the truth. You are man enough to accept it.
Click to expand...

There you go again, reading comprehension.  Your reply has nothing to do with my post.  Let me say it a little slower for you.    D..i..d......I......a..s..k......i..f......y..o..u......w..e..r..e......J..a..p..a..n..e..s..e..?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

DGS49 said:


> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.


Comedy gold from you as always  you have been brainwashed by hollywood and our corporate controlled media as well as having your only research confined to our textbooks from our corrupt school system,but that’s normal foryou. Our real history and the real truth is that fdr provoked the Japanese to attack us.you need to look in the mirror when telling someone they have an ignorant life


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No; apparently you're not smarter than me.  Did I ask if you were Japanese?  Did I imply it?  Suggest it?  Insinuate it? Apparently you can't read.  Have your nurse read a bit more slowly so you can understand what she's saying to you.
> 
> 
> 
> I accept the truth. You are man enough to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again, reading comprehension.  Your reply has nothing to do with my post.  Let me say it a little slower for you.    D..i..d......I......a..s..k......i..f......y..o..u......w..e..r..e......J..a..p..a..n..e..s..e..?
Click to expand...

Matters not.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness.  "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
> 
> I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
> 
> AFTER the war.  After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
> 
> But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people?  Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended on July 16, 1945
> That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
> 
> The trade off has never been.....
> Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
> 
> The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
> 
> Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option?  No, it wasn’t.
> 
> We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
> 
> Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
> If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?
> 
> To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.
> 
> Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.
> 
> The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:
> 
> 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. (USSBS 26)​
Click to expand...

    
Yeah i think you are right,has to be an imposter posting as wrongwinger,the real wrongwinger would never in a million years be agreeing with your on something so much important to our history as this,must have been his wife posting while he wasn’t looking,this for sure is not the real wrongwinger


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people almost never have control. If you think the people have control in this country, you’re deluding yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we have control.  The country is in the mess that it is because the people voted the Congress people that they voted - both left and right.  If they wanted change, they'd vote change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re very naive. Maybe some day you will grow up and realize the people have little say in their government.
Click to expand...


Because the USSR and GDR are still in power?  Because we're now the Fifty Colonies?   The problem is that there are too many fake anarchists in the world that actually love the most authoritarian, murderous governments in the history of humanity.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> Wow, the myths being rolled out here are unreal. A few points:
> 
> * Anyone who thinks Japan's move in China was pure aggression has only read one side of the story.
> 
> * By April 1945, if not earlier, Japan posed no threat to us. By that time, Japan had no ability to carry out offensive operations against us.
> 
> * By April 1945, the Japanese people were nearing the point of starvation. Their calorie intake was already well below the level needed to maintain basic health.
> 
> * By April 1945, we were bombing Japan at will and suffering virtually no aircraft losses in the process, because Japan was practically defenseless against air attack.
> 
> * Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, etc., was mild compared to Chinese Communist rule, Soviet rule, and Nazi rule.
> 
> * Yes, the Japanese focused more on the Nationalists than the Communists because the Nationalists, at that point, were much stronger and posed a greater threat, and because the Nationalists had decided to side with the Communists. So, *of course* the Japanese focused on the Nationalists, but they also fought the Communists.
> 
> * WEEKS before Hiroshima, we knew--we absolutely knew--from numerous Japanese intercepts and human sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, and even many senior military leaders, were willing to surrender if we would just clarify the "unconditional surrender" terms to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in such a surrender.
> 
> * Instead, Truman seemed intent on doing all he could to help the Japanese hardliners who were opposing surrender, at every single turn.
> 
> * The events surrounding Japan's surrender offer prove that if we had stipulated weeks earlier that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese moderates could have overcome the hardliners and enabled the emperor to order a surrender weeks earlier.
> 
> * Truth be told, we ignored the clear evidence that Japan was willing to surrender weeks earlier on acceptable terms because many folks in our government were determined to test the atomic bomb on live targets in Japan. That is the shameful truth.


     Best damn post on this thread,bar none in fact,everything else after this threa in the 99 pages since then is all irrelevent because this is the complete truth


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical.
Click to expand...

Yes, to an America-hater... completely illogical to actually document their lies.  In addition to illogical, it's impossible.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it,  Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.
> 
> It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
> Our choice was how to use the bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?
> And then prolong the war???
> 
> I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
> You are, however, an expert on losing.
Click to expand...

Not defending wrongwinger in the least,biggest shill to ever penetrate this site,but oh my the irony,pot meet kettle,two peas in a pod


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist historians would like to convince you (and apparently have) that it wasn't the bombs at all, that ended the war; ....
> 
> 
> 
> I have quoted (many times) prominent US military leaders _of that time_ who said that the bomb was unnecessary and immaterial to ending the war. Are they "revisionist historians"?
Click to expand...


They're armchair, Monday-morning, quarterbacks, thinking their hindsight is 20-20 when, in fact, they're blind as bats - all of them.  Not a single one of them had the weight of the decision on their shoulders.  Not any of them had the responsibility to stop the killing of Americans and allies.  In fact, not any of them had the full set of knowledge that Truman and Churchill had in front of them.  The opinions of random underlings in the armed forces mean nothing at all.

Those who were involved with the program were simply trying to ease their conscious.  Most you mentioned  had zero to do with anything - like a mess-cook Marine sergeant.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower *said in 1963, “ *the Japanese were ready to surrender* and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"


If they had only surrendered, we wouldn't have had to dust them. Instead thousands of Americans were killed at Guadalcanal,Perilu, Iwo Jima, etc...  

As a result, nobody in Nagasaki or Hiroshima needs a night light.


----------



## candycorn

LA RAM FAN said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Comedy gold from you as always  you have been brainwashed by hollywood and our corporate controlled media as well as having your only research confined to our textbooks from our corrupt school system,but that’s normal foryou. Our real history and the real truth is that fdr provoked the Japanese to attack us.you need to look in the mirror when telling someone they have an ignorant life
Click to expand...


You thought it would give you more credibility if you were to change your user name from "911 was an inside job" to LA RAM FAG?  You have none because of your moronic posts; not your user name.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you can not LINK to a single piece of ACTUAL evidence that proves any of what you say, you keep linking to OPINIONS. Guess what moron, everyone has one. I on the other hand have and continue to link to FACTS, hard evidence that proves MY point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And none of those whose after-the-fact opinions he keeps quoting had all of the knowledge and all of the responsibility that Truman and the Allied leaders had when they had to make the decisions.  They weren't easy decisions and I imagine many second-guessed themselves for the rest of their lives.  The doubt and guilt must have been terrible but that doesn't change the necessity and the right of the decision they had to make and did correctly make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "
> 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.
> That was _*a conclusion of the 1946  U.S. Bombing Survey ordered by President Harry Truman*_ in the wake of World War II.
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower *said in 1963, “ *the Japanese were ready to surrender* and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing’ --- Why dropping the A-Bombs was wrong
> 
> 
> That was a conclusion of the 1946 U.S. Bombing Survey ordered by President Harry Truman in the wake of World War II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*That wasn’t merely hindsight. Eisenhower made the same argument in 1945*. "
Click to expand...


2020 hindsight.  And that the Japanese "might" have surrendered 3 to 4 months later just proves that the bombs saved many thousand American lives.  There was actually zero actual evidence that the Japanese were prepared to unconditionally surrender.  What we do know is that on August 15 they did surrender.  Bombs dropped on August 6 and August 9.  Surrender on August 15.  Those are indisputable facts.  Everyone else can give their opinions all they want but they can't back them up with a single piece of intelligence or evidence.



			
				The article ScatMan linked said:
			
		

> 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



Imagine that.  The Japanese thought we shouldn't have bombed them.  



			
				more from the article ScatMan linked said:
			
		

> To justify the bombing, you need to scuttle this principle in exchange for consequentialist thinking. With a* principle as strong as “don’t murder kids” *I think you’d need a lot more certainty than Truman could have had.


History proves that the Japanese killed kids - well over a million of them.  but the statement quoted proves that the author of the article's goal is a feel-good, emotional, goal and not militarily defensible.  In fact, the attacks probably saved far more children that it killed.  The bombs and the body counts actually should be considered separately anyway.  The Japanese should have surrendered after the first one.  As I said before, having seen the destruction in Hiroshima, the Japanese should have stopped fighting before Nagasaki.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Why do you post obvious lies?  First, the Brits controlled about half the bombing missions in Europe. So dummy, Ike had no control over them. Secondly, Ike wasn’t involved in air forces until Spring 1944 and he delegated command.
> 
> _On 27 March 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued orders granting control of all the Allied air forces in Europe, including strategic bombers, to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, who delegated command to his deputy in SHAEF Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder.
> Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia_
> 
> To think Ike needed to be in the Pacific to understand things, is typical stupidity of a dumb grunt.


Hitler delegated  killing the Jews as well.  I guess he was innocent.


----------



## Levant

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed Ike directed the bombing of Germany. You did this to denigrate him for disagreeing with Truman’s war crime. You claim Ike systemically bombed Germany so he has no credibility on disagreeing with the bombing of Japan. I have proven you wrong once again. YOU LIED ONCE AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> He IS directly responsible for the decisions and actions of anyone UNDER HIM. Which if you knew the military you would know. HE CHOSE not to do anything about HIS role in the decision to fire Bomb Germany to systematically bomb cities. Which from 1944 to 1945 killed a hell of a lot more CIVILIANS then the two Atom Bombs.
Click to expand...

And the bombing went on for 3+ years in Europe.  It's not like Eisenhower has any claim to not knowing about the several hundred thousand he killed in Europe - and rightfully so.  

Anything Eisenhower said or did must be framed in the context that he wanted to be president and, later, was an ex-president.  He was a politician.  I love the guy but I never forget that he was a politician.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LA RAM FAN said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> 
> 
> Comedy gold from you as always  you have been brainwashed by hollywood and our corporate controlled media as well as having your only research confined to our textbooks from our corrupt school system,but that’s normal foryou. Our real history and the real truth is that fdr provoked the Japanese to attack us.you need to look in the mirror when telling someone they have an ignorant life
Click to expand...

LOL so let me get this right.... we wanted Japan to stop its war in China, but were not willing to attack them over it, so the Country quit selling scrap metal and oil to a country we wanted to end a war and THAT is what forced Japan to attack us? Please be very specific now and tell me why we should keep supporting a Government waging a war we disagree with cause that is what you are claiming.


----------



## Picaro

Levant said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed Ike directed the bombing of Germany. You did this to denigrate him for disagreeing with Truman’s war crime. You claim Ike systemically bombed Germany so he has no credibility on disagreeing with the bombing of Japan. I have proven you wrong once again. YOU LIED ONCE AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> He IS directly responsible for the decisions and actions of anyone UNDER HIM. Which if you knew the military you would know. HE CHOSE not to do anything about HIS role in the decision to fire Bomb Germany to systematically bomb cities. Which from 1944 to 1945 killed a hell of a lot more CIVILIANS then the two Atom Bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the bombing went on for 3+ years in Europe.  It's not like Eisenhower has any claim to not knowing about the several hundred thousand he killed in Europe - and rightfully so.
> 
> Anything Eisenhower said or did must be framed in the context that he wanted to be president and, later, was an ex-president.  He was a politician.  I love the guy but I never forget that he was a politician.
Click to expand...


Some of the bombing was in no small part British extracting revenge for the terrorist bombings of civilian targets in Britain. The old saying "You reap what you sow" comes to mind as to why we shouldn't ever lose sleep over what happened against either Japan or Germany, or the Soviet Union for that matter; they have no claim to sympathy. See the fire bombing of London and its suburbs along with other cities for why it's dumb to piss off people you can't defeat.


----------



## Picaro

Ah, so now the claim is FDR forced Japan to invade China, sign the Tripartite Pact, demand Malaysia, the Dutch Indies, Singapore, the Phillipines, and let them order the U.S. to abandon the Pacific Ocean, while all the time they still had already agreed among themselves to attack us by December, because that was the latest they could attack due to the weather seasons.

It really is getting harder and harder to tell who is crazier, right wing loons or let wing ones. Why not just deport them all? Few reasons left not to.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed Ike directed the bombing of Germany. You did this to denigrate him for disagreeing with Truman’s war crime. You claim Ike systemically bombed Germany so he has no credibility on disagreeing with the bombing of Japan. I have proven you wrong once again. YOU LIED ONCE AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> He IS directly responsible for the decisions and actions of anyone UNDER HIM. Which if you knew the military you would know. HE CHOSE not to do anything about HIS role in the decision to fire Bomb Germany to systematically bomb cities. Which from 1944 to 1945 killed a hell of a lot more CIVILIANS then the two Atom Bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the bombing went on for 3+ years in Europe.  It's not like Eisenhower has any claim to not knowing about the several hundred thousand he killed in Europe - and rightfully so.
> 
> Anything Eisenhower said or did must be framed in the context that he wanted to be president and, later, was an ex-president.  He was a politician.  I love the guy but I never forget that he was a politician.
Click to expand...

Lol

Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944. BOOM.  There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you post obvious lies?  First, the Brits controlled about half the bombing missions in Europe. So dummy, Ike had no control over them. Secondly, Ike wasn’t involved in air forces until Spring 1944 and he delegated command.
> 
> _On 27 March 1944, the Combined Chiefs of Staff issued orders granting control of all the Allied air forces in Europe, including strategic bombers, to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, who delegated command to his deputy in SHAEF Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder.
> Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia_
> 
> To think Ike needed to be in the Pacific to understand things, is typical stupidity of a dumb grunt.
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler delegated  killing the Jews as well.  I guess he was innocent.
Click to expand...

Of course you missed my point, due to your mental midgitry.

The Dumbfuck Grunt claimed Ike directed aerial bombing, hence Ike had no right to criticize mass murdering civilians as the war criminal Truman did. PROBLEM IS HE DIDN’T DIRECT AIR FORCES.

LMFAO. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. 

Please try harder


----------



## gipper

Tryin


candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower *said in 1963, “ *the Japanese were ready to surrender* and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"
> 
> 
> 
> If they had only surrendered, we wouldn't have had to dust them. Instead thousands of Americans were killed at Guadalcanal,Perilu, Iwo Jima, etc...
> 
> As a result, nobody in Nagasaki or Hiroshima needs a night light.
Click to expand...

Justifying mass murder of defenseless civilians is impossible and completely anti-American.

STOP IT!


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower *said in 1963, “ *the Japanese were ready to surrender* and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"
> 
> "*That wasn’t merely hindsight. Eisenhower made the same argument in 1945*. "



Where is the contemporaneous news story from 1945 where he said that?  

One more time, Dripping Poop, nobody really thought of the nukes in 1945  the way we think of them now.  

Yes, 1963, EVERYONE WAS HORRIFIED OF NUKES.  

In 1945... It was just another weapon to be used against an enemy we had convinced ourselves was less than human.


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Lol
> 
> Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944. BOOM.  There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.



The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings.  He didn't stop them when he did take over.  He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.

Can you say, *ATOMIC BOOM?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



*


----------



## Levant

gipper said:


> Lol
> 
> *Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944.* BOOM.  There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.






gipper said:


> Of course you missed my point, due to your mental midgitry.
> 
> The Dumbfuck Grunt claimed Ike directed aerial bombing, hence Ike had no right to criticize mass murdering civilians as the war criminal Truman did. *PROBLEM IS HE DIDN’T DIRECT AIR FORCES*.
> 
> LMFAO. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
> 
> Please try harder



Most LIARS put a few posts, or a page or two, or even a thread or two between their contradictory lies.  You did it in two consecutive posts - one where Ike did direct the air forces and and then in the very next post, in caps to highlight your lies,  you said he didn't direct air forces...  You're not a very good liar at all.

And Hitler didn't direct the gas chambers... Ike and Hitler are off the hook.


----------



## gipper

Yeah


Levant said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944. BOOM.  There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings.  He didn't stop them when he did take over.  He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.
> 
> Can you say, *ATOMIC BOOM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...

Yeah...supreme commanders write opinion pieces during a war. LMFAO.

You apologists for mass murder are too much.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Yeah
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944. BOOM.  There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings.  He didn't stop them when he did take over.  He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.
> 
> Can you say, *ATOMIC BOOM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...supreme commanders write opinion pieces during a war. LMFAO.
> 
> You apologists for mass murder are too much.
Click to expand...

Supreme Commanders are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for everything their commanders do. So for a YEAR Ike did nothing about mass murder of German citizens by US Bombing and then years later whines about a couple atom bombs that killed less people and ended a war.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944. BOOM.  There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings.  He didn't stop them when he did take over.  He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.
> 
> Can you say, *ATOMIC BOOM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...supreme commanders write opinion pieces during a war. LMFAO.
> 
> You apologists for mass murder are too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Commanders are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for everything their commanders do. So for a YEAR Ike did nothing about mass murder of German citizens by US Bombing and then years later whines about a couple atom bombs that killed less people and ended a war.
Click to expand...

Bull shit. Dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation is a war crime. Ike knew it. He was supreme commander, yet you shit on him. Traitor!

Do you shit on all the other military and political leaders who knew Truman’s act was wrong?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944. BOOM.  There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings.  He didn't stop them when he did take over.  He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.
> 
> Can you say, *ATOMIC BOOM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...supreme commanders write opinion pieces during a war. LMFAO.
> 
> You apologists for mass murder are too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Commanders are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for everything their commanders do. So for a YEAR Ike did nothing about mass murder of German citizens by US Bombing and then years later whines about a couple atom bombs that killed less people and ended a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull shit. Dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation is a war crime. Ike knew it. He was supreme commander, yet you shit on him. Traitor!
> 
> Do you shit on all the other military and political leaders who knew Truman’s act was wrong?
Click to expand...

LOL but dropping tons of bombs on helpless Germans was just fine right? Firebombing a city was just fine right? As for helpless the Japanese REFUSED to surrender and we knew they planned to use civilians in human wave attacks against any landings, making them combatants. As for the cities? Both has manufacturing and naval production making them valid targets under the conditions fought in World War 2. Be so kind as to find any statement by Ike before he ran for office condemning the bombings something around 45 or 46 will do.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944. BOOM.  There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings.  He didn't stop them when he did take over.  He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.
> 
> Can you say, *ATOMIC BOOM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...supreme commanders write opinion pieces during a war. LMFAO.
> 
> You apologists for mass murder are too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Commanders are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for everything their commanders do. So for a YEAR Ike did nothing about mass murder of German citizens by US Bombing and then years later whines about a couple atom bombs that killed less people and ended a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull shit. Dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation is a war crime. Ike knew it. He was supreme commander, yet you shit on him. Traitor!
> 
> Do you shit on all the other military and political leaders who knew Truman’s act was wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL but dropping tons of bombs on helpless Germans was just fine right? Firebombing a city was just fine right? As for helpless the Japanese REFUSED to surrender and we knew they planned to use civilians in human wave attacks against any landings, making them combatants. As for the cities? Both has manufacturing and naval production making them valid targets under the conditions fought in World War 2. Be so kind as to find any statement by Ike before he ran for office condemning the bombings something around 45 or 46 will do.
Click to expand...

You think you can criticize one of America’s greatest generals. You traitor!  

I know you don’t know of the many other leaders who criticize your beloved Dirty Harry.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> Ike didn’t take command of US air forces until Spring 1944. BOOM.  There goes your argument. Just so you know, the war was over only one year later. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings.  He didn't stop them when he did take over.  He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.
> 
> Can you say, *ATOMIC BOOM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...supreme commanders write opinion pieces during a war. LMFAO.
> 
> You apologists for mass murder are too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Commanders are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for everything their commanders do. So for a YEAR Ike did nothing about mass murder of German citizens by US Bombing and then years later whines about a couple atom bombs that killed less people and ended a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull shit. Dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation is a war crime. Ike knew it. He was supreme commander, yet you shit on him. Traitor!
> 
> Do you shit on all the other military and political leaders who knew Truman’s act was wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL but dropping tons of bombs on helpless Germans was just fine right? Firebombing a city was just fine right? As for helpless the Japanese REFUSED to surrender and we knew they planned to use civilians in human wave attacks against any landings, making them combatants. As for the cities? Both has manufacturing and naval production making them valid targets under the conditions fought in World War 2. Be so kind as to find any statement by Ike before he ran for office condemning the bombings something around 45 or 46 will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think you can criticize one of America’s greatest generals. You traitor!
> 
> I know you don’t know of the many other leaders who criticize your beloved Dirty Harry.
Click to expand...

LOL So you think a person is above criticism? Ike was a great General but he was mostly a politician. That's what Generals become if they succeed. And it was politically advantageous in the mid 50's and 60's to be AGAINST nukes. I repeat find him saying the same in the 40's.


----------



## 22lcidw

A few facts....16 million served in WW 2. Over 400 thousand Americans killed. Still tens of thousands unaccounted for with their families having no closure. How many casualties I do not know. Two theatres of war that were vastly different. Two tenacious enemies. With one theatre being Euro centric and nations interconnected. The other theatre separated by islands/island landmasses.  A weapon perfected before an enemy could. And now its in the pages of history.  Those two same nations are friends today. Rich and prosperous. But kept under a watchful eye as they have the potential for greatness.


----------



## Weatherman2020

rightwinger said:


> I agree
> There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.
> 
> While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary


Other than the coup attempt to to keep the war going to the last man. 
But I prefer LeMays low level bombing with incendiary bombs to burn hundreds of thousands alive.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Weatherman2020 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree
> There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.
> 
> While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the coup attempt to to keep the war going to the last man.
> But I prefer LeMays low level bombing with incendiary bombs to burn hundreds of thousands alive.
Click to expand...

LOL ya one bomb and they still refused in fact the theory was that we didn't have many at all. The emperor only intervened when after the second one we threatened to drop one one a week till they surrendered. And even then the Army staged a Coup to stop that surrender.


----------



## CHAZBUKOWSKI

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.


Sorry for so late into this thread.   

I get it.  It was a bad situation, and, in hindsight, Nagasaki could have been avoided or at least delayed, but you are right.  Even more so than an example of applying modern values to the past, this is an example of applying modern knowledge to the past.  

And you are also right, at the time, this weapon was not so much more worse than a lot of shit that was going on.  Yeah, our hands were dirty.  The fire bombing of Tokyo was nothing to be proud of.  But the Japanese were guilty of so much, not just Pearl Harbor. Their general actions around China were just disgusting.  Unit 731. Comfort women.  List goes on and on.


----------



## JoeB131

Levant said:


> The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings. He didn't stop them when he did take over. He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.



Jesus, are you and Gipper confused?  

Ike wasn't in charge of the pacific theater...  He was briefed on the bombs after VE Day, he claims that he was totally against using them (but again, we only have his word for that after his presidency ended, not before, and he as president, he built a lot of nukes.)


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings. He didn't stop them when he did take over. He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, are you and Gipper confused?
> 
> Ike wasn't in charge of the pacific theater...  He was briefed on the bombs after VE Day, he claims that he was totally against using them (but again, we only have his word for that after his presidency ended, not before, and he as president, he built a lot of nukes.)
Click to expand...

Read the thread dumb ass I am talking about bombing Germany gipper claims Eisenhower is clean as snow and I pointed out HE practiced bombing cities too. I also pointed out he never said a word about being opposed to the atom bombs till it was politically expedient to do so.


----------



## Levant

Weatherman2020 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree
> There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.
> 
> While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the coup attempt to to keep the war going to the last man.
> But I prefer LeMays low level bombing with incendiary bombs to burn hundreds of thousands alive.
Click to expand...


Wow.   You're much more cruel than I'd have guessed.   You prefer the long, slow, burning of incendiary bombs and the sleepless nights of terror waiting for them to hit rather than the instant evaporation of the atomic bomb.  And they say I'm hard..


----------



## Levant

JoeB131 said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that Eisenhower KNEW about the bombings. He didn't stop them when he did take over. He didn't write opinion pieces against bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, are you and Gipper confused?
> 
> Ike wasn't in charge of the pacific theater...  He was briefed on the bombs after VE Day, he claims that he was totally against using them (but again, we only have his word for that after his presidency ended, not before, and he as president, he built a lot of nukes.)
Click to expand...


Nah.. read the thread more carefully.  

Gipper said that Eisenhower didn't bomb cities because he delegated the control of the air war in Europe.  I was applying Gipper's logic; if delegating makes you unaccountable for what happens then Hitler is not accountable for killing 6 million Jews.  It was a facetious remark because I support Eisenhower's bombing of Germany and I support Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. But, right or wrong, they both must live with and own the choices they made...

So, my logic, opposite of Gipper's unlogic, means that Hitler actually was accountable for the actions of those to whom he delegated the Final Solution.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Levant said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree
> There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.
> 
> While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the coup attempt to to keep the war going to the last man.
> But I prefer LeMays low level bombing with incendiary bombs to burn hundreds of thousands alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.   You're much more cruel than I'd have guessed.   You prefer the long, slow, burning of incendiary bombs and the sleepless nights of terror waiting for them to hit rather than the instant evaporation of the atomic bomb.  And they say I'm hard..
Click to expand...

Simply putting Leftard logic in perspective.  
And I forgot to mention what the Japs were doing to civilians and our POW’s. That should have dragged on for another few years.  The pleasure girls were enjoying their new lives.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> Read the thread dumb ass I am talking about bombing Germany gipper claims Eisenhower is clean as snow and I pointed out HE practiced bombing cities too. I also pointed out he never said a word about being opposed to the atom bombs till it was politically expedient to do so.



I wasn't responding to you, RetardedGySgt.  

I do actually think that Ike was a great man.  But I think like all of us, he remembered his life in a self-serving way. Of course, in 1963, he remembered he had reservations about nukes... because the whole world was in pant-shitting terror of them.


----------



## JoeB131

Levant said:


> Nah.. read the thread more carefully.
> 
> Gipper said that Eisenhower didn't bomb cities because he delegated the control of the air war in Europe. I was applying Gipper's logic; if delegating makes you unaccountable for what happens then Hitler is not accountable for killing 6 million Jews. It was a facetious remark because I support Eisenhower's bombing of Germany and I support Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. But, right or wrong, they both must live with and own the choices they made...



Um, no, that's still retarded.  Conventional bombing was largely targeted at valid military and industrial targets. Yes, you had an exception like Dresden, but those were exactly that, exceptions.  

Hiroshima, they spared it from bombing to have a more effective test of the atom bomb.  That was kind of cold.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.. read the thread more carefully.
> 
> Gipper said that Eisenhower didn't bomb cities because he delegated the control of the air war in Europe. I was applying Gipper's logic; if delegating makes you unaccountable for what happens then Hitler is not accountable for killing 6 million Jews. It was a facetious remark because I support Eisenhower's bombing of Germany and I support Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. But, right or wrong, they both must live with and own the choices they made...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, that's still retarded.  Conventional bombing was largely targeted at valid military and industrial targets. Yes, you had an exception like Dresden, but those were exactly that, exceptions.
> 
> Hiroshima, they spared it from bombing to have a more effective test of the atom bomb.  That was kind of cold.
Click to expand...


You silly apologists for history’s greatest war crime, have zero credibility.

Leaders who opposed Truman’s war crime:
- MacArthur
- Admiral Bull Halsey
- William Leahy, Chief of Staff
- General Hap Arnold
- Admiral Chester Nimitz
- General Curtis LeMay

Are all of them frauds like Eisenhower? You disgusting imperialist warmongers have to be the dumbest of all Americans.

If you had any intelligence, you would know why Truman did it and it wasn’t to end the war. The war was already over.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> You silly apologists for history’s greatest war crime, have zero credibility.
> 
> Leaders who opposed Truman’s war crime:
> - MacArthur
> - Admiral Bull Halsey
> - William Leahy, Chief of Staff
> - General Hap Arnold
> - Admiral Chester Nimitz
> - General Curtis LeMay



Yeah, none of those guys were going to get slaughtered on a beach on Kyushu 

of course, everyone felt REALLY BAD about the nukes 20 years later.   

At the time, it was just another weapon.



gipper said:


> Are all of them frauds like Eisenhower? You disgusting imperialist warmongers have to be the dumbest of all Americans.



I think they were a bunch of guys who realized that nuclear bombs made them kind of irrelevant. No more place for heroes and generals... just victims.  



gipper said:


> If you had any intelligence, you would know why Truman did it and it wasn’t to end the war. The war was already over.



Except Japan hadn't surrendered and their military was committing atrocities all over Asia.  They must have missed the memo.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You silly apologists for history’s greatest war crime, have zero credibility.
> 
> Leaders who opposed Truman’s war crime:
> - MacArthur
> - Admiral Bull Halsey
> - William Leahy, Chief of Staff
> - General Hap Arnold
> - Admiral Chester Nimitz
> - General Curtis LeMay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, none of those guys were going to get slaughtered on a beach on Kyushu
> 
> of course, everyone felt REALLY BAD about the nukes 20 years later.
> 
> At the time, it was just another weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are all of them frauds like Eisenhower? You disgusting imperialist warmongers have to be the dumbest of all Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they were a bunch of guys who realized that nuclear bombs made them kind of irrelevant. No more place for heroes and generals... just victims.
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had any intelligence, you would know why Truman did it and it wasn’t to end the war. The war was already over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Japan hadn't surrendered and their military was committing atrocities all over Asia.  They must have missed the memo.
Click to expand...

LOL. Yeah they’re are hypocrites and frauds, says a dumb fuck.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> LOL. Yeah they’re are hypocrites and frauds, says a dumb fuck.



Let me know when you can intellectually engage in the topic, rather than repeat whatever slogans you heard in the Libertardian Treehouse.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Yeah they’re are hypocrites and frauds, says a dumb fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you can intellectually engage in the topic, rather than repeat whatever slogans you heard in the Libertardian Treehouse.
Click to expand...

Logic dictates that I shouldn’t debate an ignoramus. I’m much too intelligent for that.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Logic dictates that I shouldn’t debate an ignoramus. I’m much too intelligent for that.



If brains were gunpowder, you couldn't blow your nose.


----------



## Levant

JoeB131 said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.. read the thread more carefully.
> 
> Gipper said that Eisenhower didn't bomb cities because he delegated the control of the air war in Europe. I was applying Gipper's logic; if delegating makes you unaccountable for what happens then Hitler is not accountable for killing 6 million Jews. It was a facetious remark because I support Eisenhower's bombing of Germany and I support Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. But, right or wrong, they both must live with and own the choices they made...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, that's still retarded.  Conventional bombing was largely targeted at valid military and industrial targets. Yes, you had an exception like Dresden, but those were exactly that, exceptions.
> 
> Hiroshima, they spared it from bombing to have a more effective test of the atom bomb.  That was kind of cold.
Click to expand...







						The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945 - Centre for the Study of War, State and Society - University of Exeter
					






					humanities.exeter.ac.uk
				




Bombing cities in Germany started in 1940.  US involvement wasn't until later but it continued from the earliest part of the war until the end of the war.  More civilians were killed in Germany than in both atomic bombs combined.


----------



## Levant

Another article outlining the American involvement much earlier in the war in intentional bombing of civilians





__





						The Allied Terror-Bombing of German Cities During World War II
					

When people think of the Allied bombing of Germany,



					www.revisionist.net


----------



## gipper

Levant said:


> Another article outlining the American involvement much earlier in the war in intentional bombing of civilians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Terror-Bombing of German Cities During World War II
> 
> 
> When people think of the Allied bombing of Germany,
> 
> 
> 
> www.revisionist.net


Does that justify Truman’s war crime in your mind?


----------



## Weatherman2020

gipper said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another article outlining the American involvement much earlier in the war in intentional bombing of civilians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Allied Terror-Bombing of German Cities During World War II
> 
> 
> When people think of the Allied bombing of Germany,
> 
> 
> 
> www.revisionist.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that justify Truman’s war crime in your mind?
Click to expand...

It would have been better to fire bomb a few million Japs instead.


----------



## JoeB131

Levant said:


> Bombing cities in Germany started in 1940. US involvement wasn't until later but it continued from the earliest part of the war until the end of the war. More civilians were killed in Germany than in both atomic bombs combined.



And so? The nazi fucks had it coming.


----------



## Levant

JoeB131 said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing cities in Germany started in 1940. US involvement wasn't until later but it continued from the earliest part of the war until the end of the war. More civilians were killed in Germany than in both atomic bombs combined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so? The nazi fucks had it coming.
Click to expand...


I agree.  So did the Japanese.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> One of the most popular TV shows in Japan right now follows B-list celebrities as they travel the world to find and interview Japanese people who are now living in various nations in every corner of the earth.
> 
> You can go almost anywhere in Japan and find signs, maps, and various forms of assistance in English and other languages to help out foreign visitors.
> 
> So xenophobic...



Notice, that is not in their own country.  Yes, they have a fascination of other cultures.  One of their biggest slogans for decades as "I Feel Coke".  But that does not mean they want lots of foreigners actually living there and becoming their citizens.

And I have been in Japan, the signs are *not *in "English".  What you will actually find is the place names of local cities and areas in the Roman alphabet.  But they are not in English.  They are just Roman spellings used for the Japanese names, which is the spelling system used by the majority of the world and not just in English.

Hence, the use of signs I saw all the time in Japan.  Like "Ie Shima", which if it was really in English would have read "Ie Island".  Or "Shuriji Shiro" and "Shuri Shiro", with "Shiro" instead of "Castle".  But somehow, you equate that with being in English?

Tell you what, feel free to do like I did.  Actually go to Japan for a year or more, and tell me your experience.  One of the things you have to do is learn at least some Japanese, unless you stay entirely inside the "Tourist Enclaves".  Which by the way I generally avoided if I could. 

Yes, I often saw Romanized signs say when I went diving at places like Manzamo, which is a popular diving site Internationally (because of the popular "toilet bowl").  But go to places like Manza Bichi (little known in the 1980s), you had better be comfortable with at least some Japanese.  Because once you left the main highway, the Romanized signs ended.  So you had better recognize at a minimum the kanji characters for "beach".

I probably had a vocabulary of over 500 words in Japanese when I left in 1990, and could recognize over 200 kanji and word characters.  I would even have halting conversations with other divers, finding some great unknown areas that few Americans learned about.  You seem to think the Romanized signs are everywhere, they are not.  Go more than a mile or so off of a main roadway, and they pretty much vanish.

And leave those areas, and you will find the locals increasingly standoffish, as they wonder why in the hell you are there.  I still remember one restaurant I went to, and they were barely short of rude.  However, the food was good and after one dive I returned, the smell of salt water still on me and the obvious marks on my face by the mask.  

The waiter this time asked "Daibingu?", and I nodded.  He understood our particular passion, and realized I was not intruding, but simply wanting to dive at the beach.  Service was always great after that.  But once again, unless I knew to look for Manza Bichi by the kanji script, I never would have found it.  Once you left the highway, the Romanized signs ended.

Your talking about buying maps made for tourists is irrelevant.


----------



## Mushroom

JoeB131 said:


> I think you really don't understand Japanese culture. All parties knew the war was lost by 1944.  It was just a matter of how to end the war and still save face.



Oh really?

And what exactly in Shinto and Bushido said that surrender was acceptable?

We are talking about a culture that did not comprehend the meaning of that word.  A culture that honors the attack of 47 soldiers upon the civilian teacher who embarrassed their Lord.  Who then went on to kill him, then surrender to be executed.

This is the real "Japanese Culture".  Yet you say some of us do not understand it?

I have great respect for their culture, but that does not mean I am blind to the serious issues in it that were exploited by their leaders during the early Showa era.  This is literally a culture that told their civilians on Saipan that it was better to throw their children off of cliffs then jump off themselves rather then surrender.  That suicide was better than surrender.  That dying in a futile attack was better than surrender.

Now please in your infinite understanding of "Japanese Culture" of that era explain to us where surrender was allowed.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."



You keep bringing things up like this over and over and over again.  Yet you have to give us evidence any proof that the Japanese were willing to accept Potsdam.

Apparently you can not comprehend the vast difference between an Armistice (which they wanted and absolutely nobody would present for them), and either a peace treaty acceptable to the Allied Powers and a surrender.

So why you just keep repeating yourself is lunacy.


----------



## Mushroom

P@triot said:


> Sounds like you spent a lifetime as an anti-American, pacifist asshole and formed uneducated opinions based on the propaganda spoon-fed to you.



To be fair, that is a slight against pacifists.

I myself am a pacifist.  I believe in trying any reasonable solution possible in order to avoid war.

But once there has to be a war or conflict, make it as fast and brutal as possible, to end it quickly and to serve as a lesson to other nations that may feel the same way later.  That is because sometimes peace is simply not a choice available.  Because peace requires both sides to not fight, and there is always somewhere in the world some asshole that is not willing to do that.

All the talking in the world would never have gotten Hitler out of Poland, or Saddam out of Kuwait.  At times like that you need to pull out the "big stick", and paddle the hell out of the puppy to try and teach them that is not the way to behave.

I respect the hell out of those like me who honestly and honorably advocate peace.  But I have no use for the "peace at any cost" crowd.  Far to often in history we have seen the results of their beliefs.  They are willing to see millions suffer, just so they themselves are not bothered.

Do not confuse the "pacifist fanatics" with honest pacifists.  Ghandi for example, he was kinda nuts.  He honestly thought the Jews should have not fought and marched into the gas chambers, and that the Germans would have gotten sick of killing them.  His attempt at passive resistance worked great against the UK post-WWII, they were already sick of death and killing by then.

If Germany had occupied the UK and India, we all know what their response to the passive resistance campaign would have been.  They would have marched in with machine guns and killed them all without a qualm.  Such actions only work against another culture which cares about the effects of killing others.  Japan and Germany of that era did not hesitate in slaughters of any people other than their own.


----------



## Picaro

We have the results of WW I and the failure to occupy Germany as the follow up to their defeat and what that led to, WW II, and for a modern example of half-assed measures in war George H.W. Bush's failure to finish off Baghdad in the Iraq war. Both make it obvious as to why half measures are a bad policy, at least with certain cultures they are. Conditional treaties and 'cease fire' agreements only lead to more deaths, not genuine peace.


----------



## Mushroom

JoeB131 said:


> _"The Soviet attack changed all that," Charman said. "The leadership in Tokyo realized they had no hope now, and in that sense August Storm did have a greater effect on the Japanese decision to surrender than the dropping of the A-bombs."_



The only problem with that often repeated quote is that the Japanese *did not surrender*.

Remember, the night of 10 August they were still hopelessly deadlocked.

Now here is a thought exercise, try to stay with me.  At that time the Japanese were already abandoning the mainland.  China, Indochina, Manchuko, they were leaving all of it to return to Japan to fight off the Allied invasion.

Now picture a world where the US did not drop the bombs, and the only thing you had prior to 10 August you had was the invasion by the Soviets.

Does anybody care to make the claim that Japan would have surrendered?  Does anybody even want to make the claim that the Privy Council would have voted for anything other than 8-0 to continue the war?

Yet after 1 bomb you had one member of the council advocating peace, and 3 others wavering.  Even Tojo was advocating to end the war as soon as possible, this was before news reached Tokyo of the Soviets entering the war.

Yes, the Soviets had minimal impact, the 3 others to cause the deadlock to end the war were prepared to find a solution even before they invaded.

Now, flip the history the other way.  Drop a second bomb, and analyze the reaction of the council.  Now they may have picked up 1 or 2 advocating peace, but likely not enough to deadlock it.  The hardliners would have accepted nothing short of death, they were that firm in their belief of ultimate victory.  Even if the 3rd or 4th bomb landed on their heads, they would have continued for the war to continue.  If the 4rd bomb had landed somewhere other than Tokyo, they likely would have surrendered.  If the Soviets entered the war or not.


----------



## Picaro

Mushroom said:


> But once there has to be a war or conflict, make it as fast and brutal as possible, to end it quickly and to serve as a lesson to other nations that may feel the same way later.  That is because sometimes peace is simply not a choice available.  Because peace requires both sides to not fight, and there is always somewhere in the world some asshole that is not willing to do that.
> 
> ....
> I respect the hell out of those like me who honestly and honorably advocate peace.  But I have no use for the "peace at any cost" crowd.  Far to often in history we have seen the results of their beliefs.  They are willing to see millions suffer, just so they themselves are not bothered.



.... exactly



> Such actions only work against another culture which cares about the effects of killing others.  Japan and Germany of that era did not hesitate in slaughters of any people other than their own.



This is something that modern Burb Brats do not understand about many cultures around the world; they've been fed a lot of nonsense about 'everybody is the same', and we can just 'dialogue' with potential enemies and then have group hugs and singalongs and all will be well.


----------



## candycorn

Again, my only regret about nuking Nagasaki was that we didn't obliterate Tokyo on the way back.


----------



## Mushroom

candycorn said:


> Again, my only regret about nuking Nagasaki was that we didn't obliterate Tokyo on the way back.



Tokyo was not intended as a target until the 5th bomb.

The hope was that before it got that far they would see the futility in continuing to fight an atomic armed US and throw in the towel.  And in order for that to happen, they needed to have the Emperor alive.  But if they had not surrendered by the time of the 4th bomb, they never would surrender so bombing as many cities as possible followed by a land invasion would be the only solution to end the war.

At the time of surrender the 2 bombs ready had already been used, and within a week the 3rd bomb would be ready, followed shortly by the 4th (the parts were already on the way to Tinian, and bomb number 5 would be ready the week after that.  This would have given Japan 2 more bombs and another 2 weeks to come to the decision to surrender.

If by then it had not happened, goodbye Tokyo.  And then every other bomb we were able to produce, short of the 2 which would have been held for the Operation Olympic (Kyushu Island) phase of Operation Downfall in November.  And by the time that operation wrapped up there likely would have been nobody to surrender anyways.

By the time of Operation Coronet in March 1946, Japan would likely have been nuked over a dozen times more.  The plan was to drop 1-2 every 2 weeks, eliminating any target of importance, starting with shipyards and aircraft production, then going down to large army logistic depot and large troop concentrations.

Hence, the importance of Hiroshima.  Not only a large logistics depot, it was also the headquarters and command of the entire Japanese Army in the southern half of the island.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most popular TV shows in Japan right now follows B-list celebrities as they travel the world to find and interview Japanese people who are now living in various nations in every corner of the earth.
> 
> You can go almost anywhere in Japan and find signs, maps, and various forms of assistance in English and other languages to help out foreign visitors.
> 
> So xenophobic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, that is not in their own country.  Yes, they have a fascination of other cultures.  ... But that does not mean they want lots of foreigners actually living there and becoming their citizens.
> ...
Click to expand...

 
Assfacesayswhat? Did I forget to mention another very popular show about foreigners living in Japan?









						COOL JAPAN - TV | NHK WORLD-JAPAN Live & Programs
					

What makes Japan cool? From traditional to on-trend, an international panel is immersed in Japanese culture, reporting back on their verdicts!




					www3.nhk.or.jp


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...
> 
> Now here is a thought exercise,....


= empty speculation

We will never know what might have happened because fdr rejected any possibility of peace out of hand. He had no interest in peace and so all those American servicemen, and all those civilians in Japan were bound to die to satisfy another bloodthirsty leftist like all the rest throughout history. Maybe nothing would have come from pursuing the many well-known overtures to an earlier peace, but we will never know. We only know that fdr's puppet did incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians just as he always wanted.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you really don't understand Japanese culture. All parties knew the war was lost by 1944.  It was just a matter of how to end the war and still save face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> And what exactly in Shinto and Bushido said that surrender was acceptable?
> 
> We are talking about a culture that did not comprehend the meaning of that word.  ...
Click to expand...

"Death Before Dishonor" is a proud motto of the US Marine Corps.


"Potius Mori Quam Foedar"
-Massachusetts Maritime Academy Honor Guard


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...Yes, they have a fascination of other cultures. ....


And is that how you define xenophobia?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...And I have been in Japan, the signs are *not *in "English". ....


There are signs, maps, and information everywhere in English (and now quite a lot in Chinese and Korean).


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ... What you will actually find is the place names of local cities and areas in the Roman alphabet.  But they are not in English.  ...


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...
> 
> Tell you what, feel free to do like I did.  Actually go to Japan for a year or more, and tell me your experience.  ...



What the hell do you think I've been doing, genius?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ....We are talking about a culture that did not comprehend the meaning of that word.  A culture that honors the attack of 47 soldiers upon the civilian teacher who embarrassed their Lord.  Who then went on to kill him, then surrender to be executed.
> ...


That is a misrepresentation of that famous story, and in any case you contradict yourself.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...
> 
> This is the real "Japanese Culture".  Y...


Is any one thing that happened in 1701 the beginning and end of American culture?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ... This is literally a culture that told their civilians on Saipan that it was better to throw their children off of cliffs then jump off themselves rather then surrender.  That suicide was better than surrender.  That dying in a futile attack was better than surrender.
> ...


Superficial, ignorant misrepresentation of history.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...and either a peace treaty acceptable to the Allied Powers and a surrender.
> ....


The terms sought were exactly the ones Truman eventually accepted anyway.


----------



## Unkotare

My father, the quiet hero: how Japan’s Schindler saved 6,000 Jews
					

Chiune Sugihara’s son tells how he learned of his father’s rescue mission in Lithuania, which commemorates his achievements this year




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> "Death Before Dishonor" is a proud motto of the US Marine Corps.


Not the same as death before surrender and we weren't at war with the US Marine Corps.

Japanese culture is Japanese culture.  It's for them to create and for them to own.  Fighting to the death, jumping from cliffs rather than surrender, those are all options the Japanese had and were within their rights to include in their culture.  But it cost them two atomic weapon attacks and, had they not revised their culture for the times, would have cost them more.

I see your turning the tables as a sign of defeat.  You no longer defend the Japanese but attack the US.  You lose.

Great job, Mushroom.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> My father, the quiet hero: how Japan’s Schindler saved 6,000 Jews
> 
> 
> Chiune Sugihara’s son tells how he learned of his father’s rescue mission in Lithuania, which commemorates his achievements this year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com



Good for Chiune Sugihara.  So what does it have to do with the atomic bomb on Nagasaki?


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> "Death Before Dishonor" is a proud motto of the US Marine Corps.
> 
> 
> "Potius Mori Quam Foedar"
> -Massachusetts Maritime Academy Honor Guard



Wrong.  Actually, it is "Semper Fidelis".  I have no idea where you get that from.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ... You .... attack the US.  ...


That is an offensive lie, you son of a bitch. Prove it or retract it immediately.


----------



## Mushroom

Levant said:


> Japanese culture is Japanese culture.  It's for them to create and for them to own.  Fighting to the death, jumping from cliffs rather than surrender, those are all options the Japanese had and were within their rights to include in their culture.  But it cost them two atomic weapon attacks and, had they not revised their culture for the times, would have cost them more.



It has not changed all that much really.

To this day Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the Industrial world.  And unlike in most nations where the suicide rates are highest among teens and young adults, in Japan it is highest in those who are from 20-44.  Especially when people lost jobs, a business fails, or a divorce happens.  Their sense of failure often leads them to this to atone their shame.

This is a major problem, and in men from 20-44 suicide is the leading cause of death.  Even their own government admits this is a problem, and has been trying for years to stop it.  And for both sexes from the age of 19-44, suicide is the leading cause of death (in the US suicide ranks at #9, below cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and even pneumonia).

Of course, it is a culture and religion that does not have any prohibition against suicide.  And culturally they accept that as the honorable thing to do if you have somehow fallen into dishonor.  In fact, one interesting thing about Japan, if you want to take a loan out for a business, the banks generally mandate that the person take "suicide insurance", so that if the person takes a loan and their business fails, the bank is not left holding the bag if they then kill themselves because of it.

This is literally a culture that honors suicide.  Plays and movies have been made about how it is the right thing to do, and they honor those who have done it in the past.  That was their culture then, it still is to this day.  SO why people would think it would be any different, I have no idea.

In 2007, Cabinet Minister Toshikatsu Matsuoka was being investigated for fraud.  THe day he was supposed to appear in front of the Diet to answer questions he killed himself.  Former Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara even praised that action, saying it was the honorable thing to do and he died like a "true samurai".

So why people refuse to accept that most of the nation would have died fighting against hopeless odds rather than surrender, I have no idea.

But yea, Poopy really does not know Japanese culture.  The fact that he can not comprehend the difference between a Pro Quo Ante Bellium armistice and a surrender and insists they are the same thing is a show of his failure.

Yea, what Japan wanted was the same as what it accepted.  Well, other than war crime trials, occupation, disarmament, no Government reform, and return of the islands they had lost in the war, and retaining control of Korea, Taiwan, and a lot of other territory.  Yea, just tiny things that do not matter at all.


----------



## Mushroom

Levant said:


> Good for Chiune Sugihara.  So what does it have to do with the atomic bomb on Nagasaki?



Or their contest to behead 100 civilians with a sword.  Posted in the sporting pages of newspapers nation wide.  With heavy betting, especially when it ended with both soldiers involved in a tie and going into "extra innings" with the new goal being 150 people.  That was during the Nanking Massacre, and after the war both were executed for war crimes.

If Japan had its way, there would have been no trial.  One of their demands was there would be no war crime trials, other than those they held themselves for their own soldiers.

Unit 731, massacres in all theaters of the war, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, only 56 Chinese POWs released after the war, dismissing the Geneva and Hague protocols and conventions, ordering the execution of all American POWs, airmen and sailors, forced labor, "comfort women", the list just goes on and on and on.  And as part of their demand (which no nation would present to the Allies) was there would be no trials for any of those atrocities and more.

But yea, pretend they are the same thing, and then divert by what 1 guy did.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> We will never know what might have happened because fdr rejected any possibility of peace out of hand.



Is that like "Peace at any cost"?  Yea, they tried that with Hitler, and we all know how that ended.

And no, FDR did not "reject", every nation at Potsdam made the decision to accept nothing but a full surrender.  All 4 nations, and when handed this the Japanese Government did not even try to negotiate, they just outright rejected it.

Tell you what buba, go back and research this little thing you must not have heard about, the "Potsdam Conference" in 1945.  It follows up the 1943 Cairo Declaration, which stated that no nation would accept a peace treaty unless all 3 nations (UK, China, US) agreed to the terms.

So tell me, when exactly did Japan send a message to the UK, China, and the US stating that they accepted the terms?  When did they even try to negotiate the terms?  When did they attempt to send anything short of a return to 1941 and pretending the war never happened?

You keep lying and making things up, and it is really old now.  Tell us exactly when Japan made it known that they were willing to do so.  But amazingly, once they finally did reach out after the Privy Council and Emperor decided to end the war, the response was amazingly quick.  Of course, we all know of the decision in the Privy Council that the Emperor decided in the early morning of 10 August.  But what even less know is that this still had to be ratified by the Diet, which they did not do until 14 August.  Which they then broadcast to the Swiss and Swedish Embassy for delivery to the US Government, in the early morning of 14 August (the wonders of the International Date Line).

The Japanese acceptance was sent with the provision that the Emperor remain in office, and the combined Allies almost immediately accepted that condition.  A few hours later the Emperor made his famous first ever radio broadcast, and VJ celebrations started worldwide on 15 August Japan, 14 August in the rest of the world.

There is an even more complete timeline.  Now kindly provide actual hard concrete proof that Japan tried to surrender in acceptance with any parts of Potsdam prior to 8 August.  Do not give me the scribblings of people passing their mental masturbation variation of alternate history, give me the hard facts.  The date they made this known to anybody as official policy to anywhere in the world other than themselves.

No matter how often you are challenged for this simple fact, you always just spin in a completely different direction.  This is "put up or shut up", do not give us some silly opinion, give us the exact text and reference to such a statement by anybody of importance in the Japanese Government where they made it known to others they were willing to give up.


----------



## JoeB131

Mushroom said:


> Oh really?
> 
> And what exactly in Shinto and Bushido said that surrender was acceptable?



Bushido was a myth. 



Mushroom said:


> he only problem with that often repeated quote is that the Japanese *did not surrender*.
> 
> Remember, the night of 10 August they were still hopelessly deadlocked.
> 
> Now here is a thought exercise, try to stay with me. At that time the Japanese were already abandoning the mainland. China, Indochina, Manchuko, they were leaving all of it to return to Japan to fight off the Allied invasion.



Actually, you are a bit confused.  They weren't backing out of those places and they were hoping for a post war settlement that would leave their puppet governments in those places in  place. Once the Russians were in it and rolling through Manchuria and Korea with little resistance, they knew a peace deal wasn't possible.

The bombs were meaningless.  We had been bombing Japan for months.  Russia in the war is what changed it.  They were now fighting a whole new war on a new front against an enemy that liked to rape women. The notiion of their country being populated by a bunch of half-Slavic bastards was probably too much for them. 



Mushroom said:


> Tokyo was not intended as a target until the 5th bomb.
> 
> The hope was that before it got that far they would see the futility in continuing to fight an atomic armed US and throw in the towel. And in order for that to happen, they needed to have the Emperor alive. But if they had not surrendered by the time of the 4th bomb, they never would surrender so bombing as many cities as possible followed by a land invasion would be the only solution to end the war.



We didn't have a fifth bomb or a fourth bomb.  Again, they wanted peace, they just wanted peace on their own terms.  We are the ones who conceded not putting that bastard Hirohito at the end of the rope he so rightly deserved.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ...Japanese culture is Japanese culture.  It's for them to create and for them to own.  Fighting to the death, jumping from cliffs rather than surrender, those are all options the Japanese had and were within their rights to include in their culture.  ...


Fighting to the death for a cause and/or to protect your country is also valued and honored in western tradition as well.


----------



## Unkotare

The leading cause of death in Japan is heart disease.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...So why people refuse to accept that most of the nation would have died fighting against hopeless odds rather than surrender, I have no idea.
> ...


You have no idea because you don't really understand the culture, then or now. You are obviously stuck in manga-boy level of simple-minded generalisms. You are also obviously ignorant of the history of the period.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...Yea, what Japan wanted was the same as what it accepted.  .....


Yes, that's right. The only term insisted upon as a deal-breaker was the retention of the emperor. Guess what Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians anyway?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...give us the exact text and reference to such a statement by anybody of importance in the Japanese Government where they made it known to others they were willing to give up.


Read the whole thread, lazy dog.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...And no, FDR did not "reject"...


He most certainly did. Have some self-respect and drop the fucking hero-worship. That blood-thirsty, racist, arrogant son of a bitch is not worth it. 

MacArthur penned a 40-page letter to fdr himself outlining the peace overtures that he personally had learned of. This was even before Yalta. The scumbag fdr tossed it aside saying “_MacArthur_ is _our greatest general_ and our _poorest politician_.”  Human life - of American servicemen or civilians anywhere - meant nothing more to him than a political game piece. 









						The Folly of War
					

American historian and political scientist Schmidt's attitude about war changed abruptly in 1991 when a colleague asked him if he would sacrifice his only son to (the first) Bush's (first) war on Iraq. He offers a critical review of US wars from the great hysteria of the Spanish-American War to...



					books.google.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...give us the exact text and reference to such a statement by anybody of importance in the Japanese Government where they made it known to others they were willing to give up.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread, lazy dog.
Click to expand...

You have NEVER linked to any actual text of any of these supposed peace offers EVER.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, FDR did not "reject"...
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did. Have some self-respect and drop the fucking hero-worship. That blood-thirsty, racist, arrogant son of a bitch is not worth it.
> 
> MacArthur penned a 40-page letter to fdr himself outlining the peace overtures that he personally had learned of. This was even before Yalta. The scumbag fdr tossed it aside saying “_MacArthur_ is _our greatest general_ and our _poorest politician_.”  Human life - of American servicemen or civilians anywhere - meant nothing more to him than a political game piece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Folly of War
> 
> 
> American historian and political scientist Schmidt's attitude about war changed abruptly in 1991 when a colleague asked him if he would sacrifice his only son to (the first) Bush's (first) war on Iraq. He offers a critical review of US wars from the great hysteria of the Spanish-American War to...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com
Click to expand...

And yet no link to this letter ever.


----------



## Unkotare

...


----------



## Unkotare

"Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."  "


----------



## Unkotare

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/042.pdf


----------



## Unkotare

"William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.*” "









						The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
					

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?




					www.thenation.com


----------



## Unkotare

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf


----------



## P@triot

Mushroom said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Soviet attack changed all that," Charman said. "The leadership in Tokyo realized they had no hope now, and in that sense August Storm did have a greater effect on the Japanese decision to surrender than the dropping of the A-bombs."_
> 
> 
> 
> The only problem with that often repeated quote is that the Japanese *did not surrender*.
Click to expand...

The problem with your comment is that you fail to realize that Joe doesn't give a shit about actual history. All he cares about is trying to rewrite and then convincing people to believe is insane bullshit.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> "William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.…


Bwahahahahaha! "Ready". They didn't surrender, you limp-wristed beta male. You just can't comprehend that all males aren't submissive pussies like _you_. Japan didn't surrender. And they weren't going to. Until we dropped the bomb on their ass.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> Fighting to the death for a cause and/or to protect your country is also valued and honored in western tradition as well.



Then you concede that the atomic bombs were necessary.


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> "Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."  "



Retired Marine Corps Sergeant? There's a strategical expert for sure.


----------



## MaryL

Japan was worse than the Nazis, with their sort of weird racist imperial worship of a man god. And don't  forget to mention special UNIT 731. Or the rape of Nanking. The mass murders and atrocities the Japanese  committed. Lets  not forget that America tried to stop them by embargoing them and that's why the Japanese  choose to attack us on December 7th 1941. Japan allied itself with the Fascists, so don't feel so sorry for Japan  every  August 6th. Its is regrettable, its sad. But it is on the Japanese, its karma. It's  like that tsunami in 2011 and that weirdly karmic Fukushima nuclear meltdown thing. I wish them well..


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> ... they weren't going to. Until we dropped the bomb ....




 Try to read the entire thread, dumbass. Ask an adult to help you with the big words.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."  "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retired Marine Corps Sergeant? There's a strategical expert for sure.
Click to expand...

How about Dwight D Eisenhower? How about Admiral William Leahy?


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting to the death for a cause and/or to protect your country is also valued and honored in western tradition as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you concede that the atomic bombs were necessary.
Click to expand...

Apparently you are too stupid to communicate. Check back when you've addressed that problem.


----------



## Unkotare

“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey


----------



## Unkotare

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of *key contemporary leaders in the US military*, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was *not a matter of military necessity*. *American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender* through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "


----------



## Mushroom

JoeB131 said:


> We didn't have a fifth bomb or a fourth bomb.



Wrong, we did.  The components for both were either on Tinian, or enroute when the war ended.  They were preparing the pit for final assembly of #5, and stopped when the war ended.

Here, this is something amazing.  It's known as a "reference":



			https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/066004008
		


And as you can see, our stockpile at the end of 1945 was 2 completed warheads (bombs 3 and 4).  And in 1946 we started our testing at the Bikini Atol.  In 1946 we detonated 3 atomic bombs, and still expanded our inventory to 9 by the end of the year.  That makes a total of 15 bombs built in less than 2 years.  The last year at peace when they were no longer needed for the battlefield.

In fact, the first 2 bombs were the same Fat Man bombs that were at Tinian when the war ended.  The 3rd was Bomb 5, where they finished the assembly early in 1946 and sent it there for testing.  We already knew by then that the implosion plutonium bomb was the way of the future, they were faster and easier to produce and were more effective than the uranium gun design.

Now kindly provide your reference proving we did not have 2 more bombs.  Even the official inventories say we did.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> The leading cause of death in Japan is heart disease.



Well no duh, did I ever say it was not?

This is why I now see you as a complete joke.  You completely ignore what was said, and once again make a statement that had not a damned thing to do with what I said about a very specific age group.


----------



## Mushroom

MaryL said:


> Japan was worse than the Nazis, with their sort of weird racist imperial worship of a man god. And don't  forget to mention special UNIT 731. Or the rape of Nanking. The mass murders and atrocities the Japanese  committed. Lets  not forget that America tried to stop them by embargoing them and that's why the Japanese  choose to attack us on December 7th 1941.



Only superficially.

Japan was already planning on going after the Dutch East Indies, for their oil and rubber.  And then they planned on going after even more territory.  But the problem was that there was this large group of islands sitting right in the middle of their supply line known as the Philippines.

And those islands were a huge outpost of US military power, literally standing on their throat if they made such a move.  Part of their goal of the GSEACPS was to become self-sufficient in all natural resources, and that meant attacking the Dutch East Indies.  And they were not going to risk doing that, then having the US jump into the war at a later date and cut their supply lines.

The embargos (oil and steel) only forced them to move faster, but those plans were already in place before then.  That was simply an excuse, and a very bad one.  They were already working on ways to make their torpedoes work in shallow waters before the embargos even started.  The planning for the invasions of the Philippines and attack on Pearl Harbor started in January 1941, the embargo did not start until July 1941.

Most people for some reason equate an embargo (refusal to sell) with a blockade (refusing to let anybody sell).  Logically, Japan attacking us for refusing to sell them our oil and steel makes about as much sense as if we had attacked the OPEC nations in 1973 for refusing to sell us oil.


----------



## Mushroom

P@triot said:


> The problem with your comment is that you fail to realize that Joe doesn't give a shit about actual history. All he cares about is trying to rewrite and then convincing people to believe is insane bullshit.



Oh, I do realize that.  The same with Poopy, he will repeatedly post the same garbage over and over again, post things that have nothing to do with anything, then insult anybody that does not agree with him.

Who I am actually posting for is those that might think about believing their coprolite.  To show them what civil and rational posting is like, and provide them references so they do not simply have to accept my word, but will hopefully take a look at the evidence for themselves.

Somebody challenges me, I reply civilly and if I had not done so before provide references.  This is to show that I do not just make stuff up like some do, but take the topic seriously and respond respectfully.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with being challenged for a reference.  And while I know the Poopies and Joe's of the world will never provide their own or respond actually on topic or provide proof to back up their claims, I do so in the hope that others will see which side is more credible in this debate.

And they do not even try to debate, they argue.  Lies, insults, things taken out of context, those are the tactics of a bully.  And I honestly chuckle when they just repeat the same things over and over and over again, and either do not understand or do not care that what they are saying does not even validate their claim.  I honestly think they are aware of that, but simply do not care.  They are Net Bullies, and think what they say matters.

And I enjoy showing how little anything that they say matters.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> “It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey


.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, FDR did not "reject"...
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did. Have some self-respect and drop the fucking hero-worship. That blood-thirsty, racist, arrogant son of a bitch is not worth it.
> 
> MacArthur penned a 40-page letter to fdr himself outlining the peace overtures that he personally had learned of. This was even before Yalta. The scumbag fdr tossed it aside saying “_MacArthur_ is _our greatest general_ and our _poorest politician_.”  Human life - of American servicemen or civilians anywhere - meant nothing more to him than a political game piece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Folly of War
> 
> 
> American historian and political scientist Schmidt's attitude about war changed abruptly in 1991 when a colleague asked him if he would sacrifice his only son to (the first) Bush's (first) war on Iraq. He offers a critical review of US wars from the great hysteria of the Spanish-American War to...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> ...


.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/042.pdf


.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/042.pdf


.
OK, interesting find.

For those that do not know, the link is of a Top Secret coded message from their Diplomatic Corps we decoded, which was highly classified and only for internal use.  And indeed it does discuss the possible surrender, but that Potsdam was completely unacceptable.

Now, once again, *where did they make this announcement to the world?*

This can not be taken seriously at all, it was an internal communication, not something they sent to anybody other than themselves.  And WWII is full of bogus communications.  We ourselves did this, sending out messages from our Pacific outposts, then because we had broken Japanese codes read what they said about our communications to determine their code names for various places.

That is how we were able to do what we did at Midway.  We sent a message which claimed their water purification equipment was broken and water was needed.  We were then able to intercept a message telling the Japanese command to prepare their invasion fleet with more water purification systems, therefore we knew where the attack was going to happen.

There was no problem with the water, we sent a series of messages for a week, with each of our islands reporting various problems.  We knew an attack was coming, and by reading their mail we were able to figure out which island was the target based on how they talked about it.

And why would anybody think that Japan would be any less fanatical in fighting than Germany was?  They fought on to the bitter end, their entire nation utterly destroyed and still did not surrender.  Does anybody think Japan would have been different?

Displaying a classified memo that we broke is nothing even close to their telling anybody that they were willing to surrender, or willing to negotiate.  In fact, in other parts of that same decrypted memo it talks about the Japanese claiming they will "fight to the bitter end" for Shanghai, and refused to even consider allowing the civilians to evacuate or to allow a safety zone for them to go to in order to avoid the fighting.

Does this in any way sound like the actions of a country about to surrender?  It is kind of like Dr. Strangelove if this is to be taken seriously.

Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?

Even a comedy gets the fallacy of your claim.  What is the point of attempting to surrender, if you keep it a secret and do not bother to tell anybody you want to surrender?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, FDR did not "reject"...
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did. Have some self-respect and drop the fucking hero-worship. That blood-thirsty, racist, arrogant son of a bitch is not worth it.
> 
> MacArthur penned a 40-page letter to fdr himself outlining the peace overtures that he personally had learned of. This was even before Yalta. The scumbag fdr tossed it aside saying “_MacArthur_ is _our greatest general_ and our _poorest politician_.”  Human life - of American servicemen or civilians anywhere - meant nothing more to him than a political game piece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Folly of War
> 
> 
> American historian and political scientist Schmidt's attitude about war changed abruptly in 1991 when a colleague asked him if he would sacrifice his only son to (the first) Bush's (first) war on Iraq. He offers a critical review of US wars from the great hysteria of the Spanish-American War to...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Great post, which is why the American imperialists ignored it.

How many threads must we make that expose the treachery and deceit of Stalin’s Stooge and Dirty Harry, before the American imperialists accept the truth? I suspect they never will.

The American imperialist wants to believe WWII was the “Good War,” as they were told (really indoctrinated) in grade school. They can’t accept the truth.  It’s too painful for them.

If there’s a Hell, FDR and Truman are burning there right next to Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito.


----------



## gipper

Mushroom said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/042.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> OK, interesting find.
> 
> For those that do not know, the link is of a Top Secret coded message from their Diplomatic Corps we decoded, which was highly classified and only for internal use.  And indeed it does discuss the possible surrender, but that Potsdam was completely unacceptable.
> 
> Now, once again, *where did they make this announcement to the world?*
> 
> This can not be taken seriously at all, it was an internal communication, not something they sent to anybody other than themselves.  And WWII is full of bogus communications.  We ourselves did this, sending out messages from our Pacific outposts, then because we had broken Japanese codes read what they said about our communications to determine their code names for various places.
> 
> That is how we were able to do what we did at Midway.  We sent a message which claimed their water purification equipment was broken and water was needed.  We were then able to intercept a message telling the Japanese command to prepare their invasion fleet with more water purification systems, therefore we knew where the attack was going to happen.
> 
> There was no problem with the water, we sent a series of messages for a week, with each of our islands reporting various problems.  We knew an attack was coming, and by reading their mail we were able to figure out which island was the target based on how they talked about it.
> 
> And why would anybody think that Japan would be any less fanatical in fighting than Germany was?  They fought on to the bitter end, their entire nation utterly destroyed and still did not surrender.  Does anybody think Japan would have been different?
> 
> Displaying a classified memo that we broke is nothing even close to their telling anybody that they were willing to surrender, or willing to negotiate.  In fact, in other parts of that same decrypted memo it talks about the Japanese claiming they will "fight to the bitter end" for Shanghai, and refused to even consider allowing the civilians to evacuate or to allow a safety zone for them to go to in order to avoid the fighting.
> 
> Does this in any way sound like the actions of a country about to surrender?  It is kind of like Dr. Strangelove if this is to be taken seriously.
> 
> Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?
> 
> Even a comedy gets the fallacy of your claim.  What is the point of attempting to surrender, if you keep it a secret and do not bother to tell anybody you want to surrender?
Click to expand...

You’re not informed. The Japanese tried to surrender several times. All ignored by the blood thirsty FDR and Dirty Harry.

Unconditional surrender resulted in thousands of needless deaths, thanks to the two assholes in the White House.

Funny thing...after Truman mass murdered thousands of defenseless Japanese women and children with the two bombs, he agreed to the only condition Japan had asked for, that the US not hang Hirohito.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of *key contemporary leaders in the US military*, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was *not a matter of military necessity*. *American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender* through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "


That’s a great column and clearly blows up the belief the bombs forced Japan to surrender and saved American lives. I Don’t expect the American imperialist to read it.

Here is the full column...
The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The problem with your comment is that you fail to realize that Joe doesn't give a shit about actual history. All he cares about is trying to rewrite and then convincing people to believe is insane bullshit.



Again, Poodle, I have a degree in history, what do you have.  I mean other than Corporate Kneepads.


----------



## JoeB131

Mushroom said:


> And as you can see, our stockpile at the end of 1945 was 2 completed warheads (bombs 3 and 4). And in 1946 we started our testing at the Bikini Atol.



That was the point, we didn't have Bombs 3 and 4 until the END of 1945.  If Japan had not surrendered. the Russians would have been in Hokkaido and probably Honshu by then, while we were still slogging it out on Kyushu. 

The bombs just weren't that big of a game changer.  The entry of the USSR into the war, was.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leading cause of death in Japan is heart disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no duh, did I ever say it was not?
> ....
Click to expand...

The suicide rate has been falling in Japan over the past decade, and is currently at its lowest level.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...Now, once again, *where did they make this announcement to the world?*
> ...


One, two! One, two! Move those goal posts! Put your back into it!


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/042.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> OK, interesting find.
> 
> For those that do not know, the link is of a Top Secret coded message from their Diplomatic Corps we decoded, which was highly classified and only for internal use.  And indeed it does discuss the possible surrender, but that Potsdam was completely unacceptable.
> 
> Now, once again, *where did they make this announcement to the world?*
> 
> This can not be taken seriously at all, it was an internal communication, not something they sent to anybody other than themselves.  And WWII is full of bogus communications.  We ourselves did this, sending out messages from our Pacific outposts, then because we had broken Japanese codes read what they said about our communications to determine their code names for various places.
> 
> That is how we were able to do what we did at Midway.  We sent a message which claimed their water purification equipment was broken and water was needed.  We were then able to intercept a message telling the Japanese command to prepare their invasion fleet with more water purification systems, therefore we knew where the attack was going to happen.
> 
> There was no problem with the water, we sent a series of messages for a week, with each of our islands reporting various problems.  We knew an attack was coming, and by reading their mail we were able to figure out which island was the target based on how they talked about it.
> 
> And why would anybody think that Japan would be any less fanatical in fighting than Germany was?  They fought on to the bitter end, their entire nation utterly destroyed and still did not surrender.  Does anybody think Japan would have been different?
> 
> Displaying a classified memo that we broke is nothing even close to their telling anybody that they were willing to surrender, or willing to negotiate.  In fact, in other parts of that same decrypted memo it talks about the Japanese claiming they will "fight to the bitter end" for Shanghai, and refused to even consider allowing the civilians to evacuate or to allow a safety zone for them to go to in order to avoid the fighting.
> 
> Does this in any way sound like the actions of a country about to surrender?  It is kind of like Dr. Strangelove if this is to be taken seriously.
> 
> Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?
> 
> Even a comedy gets the fallacy of your claim.  What is the point of attempting to surrender, if you keep it a secret and do not bother to tell anybody you want to surrender?
Click to expand...

Whoo! Be careful! You're gonna get dizzy from all that spinning!


----------



## Unkotare

The Folly of War
					

American historian and political scientist Schmidt's attitude about war changed abruptly in 1991 when a colleague asked him if he would sacrifice his only son to (the first) Bush's (first) war on Iraq. He offers a critical review of US wars from the great hysteria of the Spanish-American War to...



					books.google.com


----------



## Mushroom

gipper said:


> You’re not informed. The Japanese tried to surrender several times. All ignored by the blood thirsty FDR and Dirty Harry.



Fine.  Now provide me with a single reference that they actually made that known to the world.

I will sit patiently and wait for your evidence of this.


----------



## gipper

Mushroom said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re not informed. The Japanese tried to surrender several times. All ignored by the blood thirsty FDR and Dirty Harry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  Now provide me with a single reference that they actually made that known to the world.
> 
> I will sit patiently and wait for your evidence of this.
Click to expand...

Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> The suicide rate has been falling in Japan over the past decade, and is currently at its lowest level.



But it is still a major problem, and something the government has been trying to change for over 15 years.



> A total of 20,169 people took their own lives in the country in 2019, according to statistics released by the National Police Agency on Tuesday, a decrease of 617 on the previous year and the lowest figure since the police began compiling nationwide figures annually in 1978.
> Despite the decline in overall suicides, however, Japan still has a growing problem with young people taking their own lives.
> 
> Throughout 2019, 659 Japanese aged 20 or under died by their own hand, an increase of 60 on the year before. Theirs was also the only age group to see an increase – although analysts suggest Japan is not alone in this trend.











						Japan’s suicide rate is falling – except among its young people
					

About 20,000 people took their own lives in Japan last year, down from more than 34,000 16 years before. But one age group did see an increase: the under-20s.




					www.scmp.com
				




In fact, just the other day former Wrestler and TV personality Hana Kimura killed herself.  And among the reasons is issues she has had all her life.  Being of Japanese and Indonesian heritage, she was the subject of bullying her entire life.  Which also contradicts something you had tried to claim eralier, that the Japanese love "foreigners".

Sure, as long as they are visiting, and do not dare to consider themselves "Japanese".


----------



## Mushroom

gipper said:


> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.



Oh great, another one of those.

I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.

Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.

Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"

Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".

Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing to surrender, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.


----------



## gipper

Mushroom said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, another one of those.
> 
> I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.
> 
> Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.
> 
> Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"
> 
> Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".
> 
> Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing a peace treaty, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
Click to expand...

Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender. 

Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.


----------



## Mushroom

gipper said:


> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.



No, I will not take it from you.  Provide proof that the Japanese Government itself made this known.

In fact, if that was a fact, then the day of or after Hiroshima they could have just announced this amazing fact to the world.  But we know they did not.  In fact, we know that even with 2 bombs and the involvement of the Soviets that they *still could not agree to surrender* among their very top leadership.

Sorry, as I keep pointing out, you are wrong.  And once again, neither you nor anybody else has yet provided any actual proof that the Japanese were trying to surrender.  Just opinions, which mean nothing in the absence of facts.

So go ahead, I am still challenging you.  Provide some facts to validate your claim.


----------



## gipper

Mushroom said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I will not take it from you.  Provide proof that the Japanese Government itself made this known.
> 
> In fact, if that was a fact, then the day of or after Hiroshima they could have just announced this amazing fact to the world.  But we know they did not.  In fact, we know that even with 2 bombs and the involvement of the Soviets that they *still could not agree to surrender* among their very top leadership.
> 
> Sorry, as I keep pointing out, you are wrong.  And once again, neither you nor anybody else has yet provided any actual proof that the Japanese were trying to surrender.  Just opinions, which mean nothing in the absence of facts.
> 
> So go ahead, I am still challenging you.  Provide some facts to validate your claim.
Click to expand...

I’m way past that.

Statists can’t accept the truth.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, another one of those.
> 
> I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.
> 
> Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.
> 
> Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"
> 
> Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".
> 
> Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing a peace treaty, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
Click to expand...

And yet you can not link to a single verifiable source of what it is the Japanese Told McArthur. not one. Nor has fan boy poop spreader.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...  Which also contradicts something you had tried to claim eralier [sic], that the Japanese love "foreigners".
> ....











						Hafu: Japan's Obsession with  Mixed-Race People
					

Why does Japan elevate half-Japanese people (or hafu)? And what do half people think about it?




					www.tofugu.com


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...But it is still a major problem, and ...











						More and more Americans are dying by suicide. What are we missing?
					

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the nation's suicide rate rose again in 2018. Suicide is the nation's 10th-leading cause of death.



					www.usatoday.com


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of *key contemporary leaders in the US military*, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was *not a matter of military necessity*. *American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender* through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "


.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Yea, what Japan wanted was the same as what it accepted.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's right. The only term insisted upon as a deal-breaker was the retention of the emperor. Guess what Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians anyway?
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And no, FDR did not "reject"...
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did. Have some self-respect and drop the fucking hero-worship. That blood-thirsty, racist, arrogant son of a bitch is not worth it.
> 
> MacArthur penned a 40-page letter to fdr himself outlining the peace overtures that he personally had learned of. This was even before Yalta. The scumbag fdr tossed it aside saying “_MacArthur_ is _our greatest general_ and our _poorest politician_.”  Human life - of American servicemen or civilians anywhere - meant nothing more to him than a political game piece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Folly of War
> 
> 
> American historian and political scientist Schmidt's attitude about war changed abruptly in 1991 when a colleague asked him if he would sacrifice his only son to (the first) Bush's (first) war on Iraq. He offers a critical review of US wars from the great hysteria of the Spanish-American War to...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> ...


.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."  "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retired Marine Corps Sergeant? There's a strategical expert for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about Dwight D Eisenhower? How about Admiral William Leahy?
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Tell you what, feel free to do like I did.  Actually go to Japan for a year or more, and tell me your experience.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think I've been doing, genius?
Click to expand...

.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, another one of those.
> 
> I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.
> 
> Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.
> 
> Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"
> 
> Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".
> 
> Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing a peace treaty, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single verifiable source of what it is the Japanese Told McArthur. not one. Nor has fan boy poop spreader.
Click to expand...

It’s clear the Japanese wanted to surrender, well before the two bombs.  Their only condition was the emperor. Truman refused and committed his war crime, then accepted their only condition. These facts are undeniable. 

An intelligent person would question the use of the bombs based on these facts.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, another one of those.
> 
> I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.
> 
> Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.
> 
> Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"
> 
> Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".
> 
> Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing a peace treaty, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single verifiable source of what it is the Japanese Told McArthur. not one. Nor has fan boy poop spreader.
Click to expand...

Even Secretary of War Henry Stimson, said: “the true question was not whether surrender could have been achieved without the use of the bomb but whether a different diplomatic and military course would have led to an earlier surrender. A large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on.” In other words, Stimson knew that the US had unnecessarily prolonged the war.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, another one of those.
> 
> I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.
> 
> Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.
> 
> Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"
> 
> Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".
> 
> Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing a peace treaty, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single verifiable source of what it is the Japanese Told McArthur. not one. Nor has fan boy poop spreader.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the most startling condemnation of Truman's decision from a US military leader came from Admiral William D. Leahy, the president's chief of staff. In his memoirs, Leahy denounced the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – an action he described as "not worth of Christian man" — as "of no material assistance in our war against Japan. By using it Leahy said the US had descended to "an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, another one of those.
> 
> I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.
> 
> Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.
> 
> Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"
> 
> Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".
> 
> Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing a peace treaty, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single verifiable source of what it is the Japanese Told McArthur. not one. Nor has fan boy poop spreader.
Click to expand...

You’re not man enough to accept the truth.  Imagine had the war ended
early in 1945. Imagine the numbers of Americans who would have lived. In essence, this means your beloved FDR and Truman were traitors. 


early in


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, another one of those.
> 
> I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.
> 
> Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.
> 
> Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"
> 
> Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".
> 
> Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing a peace treaty, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single verifiable source of what it is the Japanese Told McArthur. not one. Nor has fan boy poop spreader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s clear the Japanese wanted to surrender, well before the two bombs.  Their only condition was the emperor. Truman refused and committed his war crime, then accepted their only condition. These facts are undeniable.
> 
> An intelligent person would question the use of the bombs based on these facts.
Click to expand...

LOL NO that is an absolutely lie, even after the 1st Atomic Bomb they tried to get an armistice NOT a surrender and all they ever offered to anyone was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, another one of those.
> 
> I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.
> 
> Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.
> 
> Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"
> 
> Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".
> 
> Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing a peace treaty, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single verifiable source of what it is the Japanese Told McArthur. not one. Nor has fan boy poop spreader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s clear the Japanese wanted to surrender, well before the two bombs.  Their only condition was the emperor. Truman refused and committed his war crime, then accepted their only condition. These facts are undeniable.
> 
> An intelligent person would question the use of the bombs based on these facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL NO that is an absolutely lie, even after the 1st Atomic Bomb they tried to get an armistice NOT a surrender and all they ever offered to anyone was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.
Click to expand...

You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve ever met online. All the evidence has been revealed to you numerous times, yet you still cling to a lie.

Man up Son!


----------



## Flash

If the Japs didn't want to be nuked then they shouldn't have gone to war with the US.

Dumbshits!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, another one of those.
> 
> I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.
> 
> Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.
> 
> Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"
> 
> Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".
> 
> Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing a peace treaty, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single verifiable source of what it is the Japanese Told McArthur. not one. Nor has fan boy poop spreader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s clear the Japanese wanted to surrender, well before the two bombs.  Their only condition was the emperor. Truman refused and committed his war crime, then accepted their only condition. These facts are undeniable.
> 
> An intelligent person would question the use of the bombs based on these facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL NO that is an absolutely lie, even after the 1st Atomic Bomb they tried to get an armistice NOT a surrender and all they ever offered to anyone was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve ever met online. All the evidence has been revealed to you numerous times, yet you still cling to a lie.
> 
> Man up Son!
Click to expand...

You have NEVER linked to any of the specifics of what the japanese offered and have not told us who these Japanese were. THE FACTS are the ARMY controlled the Government and the Navy wanted to end the war. But did not control the Government, THE FACTS are that every OFFICIAL dispatch and intercept and even the notes from the Japanese meetings all say the SAME thing. ALL the Army offered was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. It does not matter what some Japanese wanted as the final decision was by the ARMY and they REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet attack. And then staged a Coup attempt to stop the Emperor from surrendering when he over ruled them.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus dude. Read the fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, another one of those.
> 
> I have read it.  And nowhere, has anybody ever showed in any way whatsoever that Japan had told anybody they wanted to surrender.
> 
> Oh yes, they tried many times to get the Swiss, the Swedish, and the Soviets to present for them terms for an Armistice.  But an Armistice is not a surrender, it is not even close.  They wanted to turn the clock back to 1941, and pretend the war never happened.
> 
> Even the Swiss Ambassador told them that was not possible, and refused to even present the document to the Allies.  The Swedish had the same response.  The Soviet Ambassador pretty much blew them off, said he would pass it up to Stalin, then reported that they were delusional and there was no way the Man of Steel would present it.  And we all know he never did, he knew that the terms Japan was trying to dictate were completely unacceptable.  No disarmament, no occupation, no change in Government, no war crime trials, no reparations, all territories won and lost after 7 December returned to their previous country.  Basically, they were trying to go "Ooops, our bad!  We will give you back the Philippines, you give us all our land back, and we'll call it a draw!"
> 
> Yes, I know about their Armistice proposal, talked it to death.  Something you would know if you had "read the fucking thread".
> 
> Now you said they wanted to surrender.  Give us the proof of this.  I find it absolutely amazing that so many are claiming they were proposing a peace treaty, but amazingly not a single person has actually provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single verifiable source of what it is the Japanese Told McArthur. not one. Nor has fan boy poop spreader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s clear the Japanese wanted to surrender, well before the two bombs.  Their only condition was the emperor. Truman refused and committed his war crime, then accepted their only condition. These facts are undeniable.
> 
> An intelligent person would question the use of the bombs based on these facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL NO that is an absolutely lie, even after the 1st Atomic Bomb they tried to get an armistice NOT a surrender and all they ever offered to anyone was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve ever met online. All the evidence has been revealed to you numerous times, yet you still cling to a lie.
> 
> Man up Son!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER linked to any of the specifics of what the japanese offered and have not told us who these Japanese were. THE FACTS are the ARMY controlled the Government and the Navy wanted to end the war. But did not control the Government, THE FACTS are that every OFFICIAL dispatch and intercept and even the notes from the Japanese meetings all say the SAME thing. ALL the Army offered was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. It does not matter what some Japanese wanted as the final decision was by the ARMY and they REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet attack. And then staged a Coup attempt to stop the Emperor from surrendering when he over ruled them.
Click to expand...

Damn you’re dumb.


----------



## Mushroom

gipper said:


> It’s clear the Japanese wanted to surrender, well before the two bombs.  Their only condition was the emperor. Truman refused and committed his war crime, then accepted their only condition. These facts are undeniable.
> 
> An intelligent person would question the use of the bombs based on these facts.



And exactly where did they make this fact known to the world?

I have asked this many times, and like so many people you simply refuse to answer it or to provide any proof to back up this silly claim.  If you are so right, then surely it would be really simple to find a single document or statement or speech by anybody in power in Japan stating such.

Yet, you provide nothing but insults.

And as for the statement about a "large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on" is not valid.  That is an opinion.  And ultimately an opinion that is ultimately wrong.

You see, the only thing that matters is what the Privy Council wanted.  Those 8+1 men had the ultimate power in the nation, it is only what they wanted that mattered.  And the day before the first bomb fell, they actually held a vote if the war should continue, and they voted 8-0 to continue the war.

Fast forward several days, after both bombs fell and the Soviets invaded.  Then and only then did this vote change, to 4-4.  And the 4 diehards as part of their arguments insisted that Japan fight on to the death.  Not a single one of them would change their vote, until the meeting was so deadlocked that the Prime Minister finally passed the decision to Emperor Showa.

And we know all about the meetings of the Privy Council.  This is the body that outright refused to negotiate, that dismissed Potsdam without even an attempt to discuss terms.  They did exactly as they said they would do, treat it with contempt by refusing to discuss it.

Stimson was acting as a great many do, bloviate years later, trying to make themselves sound more important than they are by injecting their own opinions as if they mean something.  Well guess what, opinions are not facts.  They are only that, opinions.

I may have an opinion that Chocolate is the best food ever, and pay for surveys that find people that agree with me.  But in the end that is really only an opinion.  The problem you and Poopy have is that you can not tell the difference between an opinion and a fact, and consider them to be the same thing.

Which is why I keep saying the same thing over and over again.  When did Japan make it known they were willing to accept the terms of Potsdam?  In short, they never did.  Even the month before the bombs fell they were still trying to peddle their Armistice proposal to anybody that would listen to them, and nobody would.  Why even try that, when all they had to do was get on the radio and make the Jewel Voice Broadcast.

Trust me, if that had happened the fighting would have ended.  But they did not do that.  In fact, even that broadcast was not made until 15 August, after one major coup attempt to stop it, and even the Prime Minister urged the Emperor to make it as soon as possible else the entire Army rise up in revolt.

Wanting to surrender does not matter a damned bit if you do not tell anybody about it.  And if there is one thing the US learned during the war, it is to never trust a Japanese offer of surrender until they have laid down their guns and gotten to their knees.  They learned the hard way that the Japanese never surrendered, and most times that such an offer was made it was a trap.  Surrendering Japanese soldiers pulling out grenades is not just a cheesy bit from movies, that actually happened.

By the end of the war, a Japanese soldier had to cross over into the US lines completely naked.  They were that well known for trying to give a false surrender as a way to conduct a final attack.  That is how fanatical they were.


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have NEVER linked to any of the specifics of what the japanese offered and have not told us who these Japanese were. THE FACTS are the ARMY controlled the Government and the Navy wanted to end the war. But did not control the Government, THE FACTS are that every OFFICIAL dispatch and intercept and even the notes from the Japanese meetings all say the SAME thing. ALL the Army offered was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. It does not matter what some Japanese wanted as the final decision was by the ARMY and they REFUSED to surrender even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet attack. And then staged a Coup attempt to stop the Emperor from surrendering when he over ruled them.



OK, to be fair that is not quite true.  The actual top leadership was composed of 3 factions.  The CIvilian politicians, the Army, and the Navy.

In early August, the political side was starting to waiver, but they were the minority group in the Privy Council.  The next was the Navy, they were also fanatics, but had been hit the hardest during the war.  The majority of the losses against the Allies fell upon the Navy, and they had gone from one of the most powerful navies in the world to little more than a shattered shell.  And almost all of their Naval Infantry (Marines) was also dead.

The Army however was little impacted, most of their battles were on Asia, and they had not suffered the huge losses of the Navy.  This is why when in the final discussions, most of the Navy changed sides after the bombs were dropped and supported the Politicians in finding an acceptable negotiated surrender.

The Army on the other hand refused to budge.  They still so believed that it was better to die as a nation than to surrender.  But the change was enough that the decision was handed to the Emperor to decide.  And make no mistakes, if the Emperor had decided to fight on, there would have been no choice but to utterly destroy the nation.  That is undoubtedly the most important decision made by a single individual in all of human history.

And if he had said to fight on, the entire council would have then voted 8-0 to fight to the death, and they never again would have made such a vote.

I think it is really fascinating that I talk over and over again about the importance of the Privy Council, they were the only power in the land and it is only their decisions that matter.  Even the walking through of the agreement was only sent through the Diet as a formality, they had no power.  Yet some keep insisting they were about to surrender.  Even though they repeatedly in their discussions outright dismissed Potsdam, and voted the day of the first bomb 8-0 to keep fighting.  Not a single vote in dissent was ever raised until after the first bomb dropped.


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> You’re not man enough to accept the truth.  Imagine had the war ended
> early in 1945. Imagine the numbers of Americans who would have lived. In essence, this means your beloved FDR and Truman were traitors.



Gee, then maybe the Japanese should have told somebody they were about to surrender.  But funny, they did not do so before or after Iwo Jima.  And they also said not a thing other than they would win and drive the Americans into the ocean during Okinawa.

If they were going to surrender in January 1945, funny how it took until August for them to actually make that announcement to the world.

Of course, Mac also stated that he would hold the Philippines forever, and that the Chinese would not dare get involved in the Korean War.

And we all know how those predictions turned out.

It is well known that Mac wanted to invade Japan.  He wanted to be at the head of a victorious army, marching into the capitol of an enemy he had defeated himself.  Not forced to largely sit back and watch as it ended not through martial prowess but by 2 bombs.


----------



## Picaro

Here's a timeline that is relatively easy to follow.









						Kyūjō incident - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




... and a related incident after the Aug. 15 speech. The surrender wasn't a done deal until a few hours before the broadcast. And, even then it was dicey whether the country would follow the Emperor or the fanatics. There were all those troops left in China to worry about. Given all the assassiantio attempts and riots of that era in Japan, it was never  a given that the government had total control over all the factions.









						Matsue incident - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I wasn't aware of this one.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Yea, what Japan wanted was the same as what it accepted.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's right. The only term insisted upon as a deal-breaker was the retention of the emperor. Guess what Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians anyway?
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...It is well known that Mac wanted to invade Japan.  ...


----------



## Unkotare

The Folly of War
					

American historian and political scientist Schmidt's attitude about war changed abruptly in 1991 when a colleague asked him if he would sacrifice his only son to (the first) Bush's (first) war on Iraq. He offers a critical review of US wars from the great hysteria of the Spanish-American War to...



					books.google.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Mushroom said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re not man enough to accept the truth.  Imagine had the war ended
> early in 1945. Imagine the numbers of Americans who would have lived. In essence, this means your beloved FDR and Truman were traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, then maybe the Japanese should have told somebody they were about to surrender.  But funny, they did not do so before or after Iwo Jima.  And they also said not a thing other than they would win and drive the Americans into the ocean during Okinawa.
> 
> If they were going to surrender in January 1945, funny how it took until August for them to actually make that announcement to the world.
> 
> Of course, Mac also stated that he would hold the Philippines forever, and that the Chinese would not dare get involved in the Korean War.
> 
> And we all know how those predictions turned out.
> 
> It is well known that Mac wanted to invade Japan.  He wanted to be at the head of a victorious army, marching into the capitol of an enemy he had defeated himself.  Not forced to largely sit back and watch as it ended not through martial prowess but by 2 bombs.
Click to expand...

That is not my quote you did something wrong with the quote.


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> That is not my quote you did something wrong with the quote.



 Yes, Gipper said that.  I deleted the wrong lines.

One thing I hate is the 20 quote long threads this forum software allows.  It is absolutely insane, and I try to eliminate that whenever I quote somebody.  And sometimes I make a mistake when I do so.

A huge difference from those that will never admit they ever do anything wrong.  Hence, why they keep posting the same silly things over and over again.  Like somehow if they keep reposting their mistakes, it will somehow make them true.


----------



## Mushroom

Picaro said:


> Matsue incident - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware of this one.



And the thing is, if there had been no occupation this would have grown over the decades.  This was a common feeling among the Ultra-Nationalists, that the County had been betrayed, and was denied their proper place.

The same kind of sentiment that allowed Hitler to eventually rise to power.

And that is not even the last such incident.  In 1970, Yukio Mishima (an ultra-Nationalist actor and Nobel nominated poet) staged a similar coup.  Intending to overthrow the post-war changes and "return power to the Emperor", he took over a major command building of the Japanese Self Defense Forces.  He held the Commandant hostage, and then went onto a balcony and gave a speech intending on causing the soldiers gathered below to join his cause.

However, his speech had the opposite effect, and he was reviled and heckled by the crowd.  When the soldiers failed to join him, he went back into the office and killed himself ritually.






Largely pushed aside and forgotten today, his poetry and speeches for years prior to this were full of images of powerful Samurai, killing everything in their path, and the "brutal Japanese people" (his own words) resuming their proper place.  Not as arrangers of flowers and salesmen but as warriors.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...
> 
> Wanting to surrender does not matter a damned bit if you do not tell anybody about it.  And if there is one thing the US learned during the war, it is to never trust a Japanese offer of surrender until they have laid down their guns and gotten to their knees.  They learned the hard way that the Japanese never surrendered, and most times that such an offer was made it was a trap.  Surrendering Japanese soldiers pulling out grenades is not just a cheesy bit from movies, that actually happened.
> 
> By the end of the war, a Japanese soldier had to cross over into the US lines completely naked.  They were that well known for trying to give a false surrender as a way to conduct a final attack.  That is how fanatical they were.







__





						American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'
					






					www.telegraph.co.uk
				













						War is hell
					

War is hell




					www.latimes.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt

G


Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Wanting to surrender does not matter a damned bit if you do not tell anybody about it.  And if there is one thing the US learned during the war, it is to never trust a Japanese offer of surrender until they have laid down their guns and gotten to their knees.  They learned the hard way that the Japanese never surrendered, and most times that such an offer was made it was a trap.  Surrendering Japanese soldiers pulling out grenades is not just a cheesy bit from movies, that actually happened.
> 
> By the end of the war, a Japanese soldier had to cross over into the US lines completely naked.  They were that well known for trying to give a false surrender as a way to conduct a final attack.  That is how fanatical they were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War is hell
> 
> 
> War is hell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
Click to expand...

get back to me when you can cite millions of Japanese murdered. As for prisoners almost all Japanese Soldiers tried to trick the people they claimed they were surrendering to pulling out pistols and grenades.


----------



## Picaro

RetiredGySgt said:


> get back to me when you can cite millions of Japanese murdered. As for prisoners almost all Japanese Soldiers tried to trick the people they claimed they were surrendering to pulling out pistols and grenades.



He's mentally ill. In other news, many Germans who surrendered were surprised they weren't fed steaks by their captors at the holding camps.


----------



## gipper

Mushroom said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s clear the Japanese wanted to surrender, well before the two bombs.  Their only condition was the emperor. Truman refused and committed his war crime, then accepted their only condition. These facts are undeniable.
> 
> An intelligent person would question the use of the bombs based on these facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And exactly where did they make this fact known to the world?
> 
> I have asked this many times, and like so many people you simply refuse to answer it or to provide any proof to back up this silly claim.  If you are so right, then surely it would be really simple to find a single document or statement or speech by anybody in power in Japan stating such.
> 
> Yet, you provide nothing but insults.
> 
> And as for the statement about a "large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on" is not valid.  That is an opinion.  And ultimately an opinion that is ultimately wrong.
> 
> You see, the only thing that matters is what the Privy Council wanted.  Those 8+1 men had the ultimate power in the nation, it is only what they wanted that mattered.  And the day before the first bomb fell, they actually held a vote if the war should continue, and they voted 8-0 to continue the war.
> 
> Fast forward several days, after both bombs fell and the Soviets invaded.  Then and only then did this vote change, to 4-4.  And the 4 diehards as part of their arguments insisted that Japan fight on to the death.  Not a single one of them would change their vote, until the meeting was so deadlocked that the Prime Minister finally passed the decision to Emperor Showa.
> 
> And we know all about the meetings of the Privy Council.  This is the body that outright refused to negotiate, that dismissed Potsdam without even an attempt to discuss terms.  They did exactly as they said they would do, treat it with contempt by refusing to discuss it.
> 
> Stimson was acting as a great many do, bloviate years later, trying to make themselves sound more important than they are by injecting their own opinions as if they mean something.  Well guess what, opinions are not facts.  They are only that, opinions.
> 
> I may have an opinion that Chocolate is the best food ever, and pay for surveys that find people that agree with me.  But in the end that is really only an opinion.  The problem you and Poopy have is that you can not tell the difference between an opinion and a fact, and consider them to be the same thing.
> 
> Which is why I keep saying the same thing over and over again.  When did Japan make it known they were willing to accept the terms of Potsdam?  In short, they never did.  Even the month before the bombs fell they were still trying to peddle their Armistice proposal to anybody that would listen to them, and nobody would.  Why even try that, when all they had to do was get on the radio and make the Jewel Voice Broadcast.
> 
> Trust me, if that had happened the fighting would have ended.  But they did not do that.  In fact, even that broadcast was not made until 15 August, after one major coup attempt to stop it, and even the Prime Minister urged the Emperor to make it as soon as possible else the entire Army rise up in revolt.
> 
> Wanting to surrender does not matter a damned bit if you do not tell anybody about it.  And if there is one thing the US learned during the war, it is to never trust a Japanese offer of surrender until they have laid down their guns and gotten to their knees.  They learned the hard way that the Japanese never surrendered, and most times that such an offer was made it was a trap.  Surrendering Japanese soldiers pulling out grenades is not just a cheesy bit from movies, that actually happened.
> 
> By the end of the war, a Japanese soldier had to cross over into the US lines completely naked.  They were that well known for trying to give a false surrender as a way to conduct a final attack.  That is how fanatical they were.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter.

Why do you support the wanton cold blooded murdering of defenseless civilians?  Are you a psychopath?


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> G
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Wanting to surrender does not matter a damned bit if you do not tell anybody about it.  And if there is one thing the US learned during the war, it is to never trust a Japanese offer of surrender until they have laid down their guns and gotten to their knees.  They learned the hard way that the Japanese never surrendered, and most times that such an offer was made it was a trap.  Surrendering Japanese soldiers pulling out grenades is not just a cheesy bit from movies, that actually happened.
> 
> By the end of the war, a Japanese soldier had to cross over into the US lines completely naked.  They were that well known for trying to give a false surrender as a way to conduct a final attack.  That is how fanatical they were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War is hell
> 
> 
> War is hell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> get back to me when you can cite millions of Japanese murdered. As for prisoners almost all Japanese Soldiers tried to trick the people they claimed they were surrendering to pulling out pistols and grenades.
Click to expand...

So your logic is since the Imperial Japanese government ruthlessly murdered, the US government should too.

You get dumber with every post.


----------



## Mac-7

gipper said:


> Why do you support the wanton cold blooded murdering of defenseless civilians? Are you a psychopath?


I am not a psychopath

why do hate your own country so much?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> G
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Wanting to surrender does not matter a damned bit if you do not tell anybody about it.  And if there is one thing the US learned during the war, it is to never trust a Japanese offer of surrender until they have laid down their guns and gotten to their knees.  They learned the hard way that the Japanese never surrendered, and most times that such an offer was made it was a trap.  Surrendering Japanese soldiers pulling out grenades is not just a cheesy bit from movies, that actually happened.
> 
> By the end of the war, a Japanese soldier had to cross over into the US lines completely naked.  They were that well known for trying to give a false surrender as a way to conduct a final attack.  That is how fanatical they were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War is hell
> 
> 
> War is hell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> get back to me when you can cite millions of Japanese murdered. As for prisoners almost all Japanese Soldiers tried to trick the people they claimed they were surrendering to pulling out pistols and grenades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your logic is since the Imperial Japanese government ruthlessly murdered, the US government should too.
> 
> You get dumber with every post.
Click to expand...

You can LIE all you want the FACT is that even after 2 atomic bombs and the attack by the Soviet Union the GOVERNMENT of Japan did not willingly surrender, it took an intervention by the Emperor and then a coup was staged to stop that, Your ignorant claims that Japan was going to surrender are JUST that IGNORANT and NOT supported by a single shred of evidence.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> G
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Wanting to surrender does not matter a damned bit if you do not tell anybody about it.  And if there is one thing the US learned during the war, it is to never trust a Japanese offer of surrender until they have laid down their guns and gotten to their knees.  They learned the hard way that the Japanese never surrendered, and most times that such an offer was made it was a trap.  Surrendering Japanese soldiers pulling out grenades is not just a cheesy bit from movies, that actually happened.
> 
> By the end of the war, a Japanese soldier had to cross over into the US lines completely naked.  They were that well known for trying to give a false surrender as a way to conduct a final attack.  That is how fanatical they were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War is hell
> 
> 
> War is hell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> get back to me when you can cite millions of Japanese murdered. As for prisoners almost all Japanese Soldiers tried to trick the people they claimed they were surrendering to pulling out pistols and grenades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your logic is since the Imperial Japanese government ruthlessly murdered, the US government should too.
> 
> You get dumber with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can LIE all you want the FACT is that even after 2 atomic bombs and the attack by the Soviet Union the GOVERNMENT of Japan did not willingly surrender, it took an intervention by the Emperor and then a coup was staged to stop that, Your ignorant claims that Japan was going to surrender are JUST that IGNORANT and NOT supported by a single shred of evidence.
Click to expand...

You can ignore the truth all you want, but I’m not joining you. I’m not a pussy like you. I can accept the truth.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of *key contemporary leaders in the US military*, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was *not a matter of military necessity*.


The ignorance of Sensei Snowflake never ceases to amaze everyone on this board.

It doesn’t matter what Japan was discussing. They were still _fully_ engaged in war against the U.S.
Dropping the nuclear bombs has prevented wars and *saved* *millions* of lives. It was a deterrent that made the enemies of the United States realize it was a grave mistake to attack the U.S.
You’re not capable of the intelligence required for the discussion on this board.


----------



## Unkotare

The Folly of War
					

American historian and political scientist Schmidt's attitude about war changed abruptly in 1991 when a colleague asked him if he would sacrifice his only son to (the first) Bush's (first) war on Iraq. He offers a critical review of US wars from the great hysteria of the Spanish-American War to...



					books.google.com


----------



## Unkotare

“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey


----------



## Unkotare

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of *key contemporary leaders in the US military*, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was *not a matter of military necessity*. *American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender* through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> “It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey


You are delusional and so are all the supposed historians that claim Japan was about to surrender, the FACT is after 2 atomic bombs and an invasion by the Soviet Union the GOVERNMENT of Japan voted NOT to surrender THAT is the facts.


----------



## Unkotare

"Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."  "


----------



## Unkotare

"William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.*” "









						The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
					

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?




					www.thenation.com


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> “It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional and so are all the supposed historians that claim Japan was about to surrender...
Click to expand...

Was William Leahy delusional? Was MacArthur? Eisenhower? Halsey?


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> "Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."  "



Do you know nothing at all about the military?  What is the role and expertise of a sergeant?  I was a Chief Petty Officer.  I certainly  had opinions about what top brass should do but, even with all my security clearances above and beyond Top Secret, I didn't know shit of what those decision makers knew.  It's not that the decision makers are always right or that I'm always wrong.  The point is, no one in the world, in their right mind, would have made strategic military decisions based on my recommendation or what I knew.  Same thing fore retired Marine enlisted men.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> “It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional and so are all the supposed historians that claim Japan was about to surrender...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was William Leahy delusional? Was MacArthur? Eisenhower? Halsey?
Click to expand...

You KEEP ignoring the fact the Japanese were not going to surrender. The Bombs forced the Emperor to over rule the Government and even then the military attempted a Coup. It is plain as day and it is a FACT. No matter what anyone says otherwise the FACT is with out the bombs and perhaps the Soviet Invasion the Emperor would not have over ruled his Government.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."  "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know nothing at all about the military?  What is the role and expertise of a sergeant?  I was a Chief Petty Officer.  I certainly  had opinions about what top brass should do but, even with all my security clearances above and beyond Top Secret, I didn't know shit of what those decision makers knew.  It's not that the decision makers are always right or that I'm always wrong.  The point is, no one in the world, in their right mind, would have made strategic military decisions based on my recommendation or what I knew.  Same thing fore retired Marine enlisted men.
Click to expand...

Was MacArthur "top brass"? Was Eisenhower? Halsey? Leahy?


----------



## Levant

Unkotare said:


> Was MacArthur "top brass"? Was Eisenhower? Halsey? Leahy?



After-the-fact guilt; that's all.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was MacArthur "top brass"? Was Eisenhower? Halsey? Leahy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After-the-fact guilt; that's all.
Click to expand...

You haven't bothered to read the thread.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> MacArthur penned a 40-page letter to fdr himself outlining the peace overtures that he personally had learned of. *This was even before Yalta.* The scumbag fdr tossed it aside saying “_MacArthur_ is _our greatest general_ and our _poorest politician_.”  Human life - of American servicemen or civilians anywhere - meant nothing more to him than a political game piece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Folly of War
> 
> 
> American historian and political scientist Schmidt's attitude about war changed abruptly in 1991 when a colleague asked him if he would sacrifice his only son to (the first) Bush's (first) war on Iraq. He offers a critical review of US wars from the great hysteria of the Spanish-American War to...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur penned a 40-page letter to fdr himself outlining the peace overtures that he personally had learned of. *This was even before Yalta.* The scumbag fdr tossed it aside saying “_MacArthur_ is _our greatest general_ and our _poorest politician_.”  Human life - of American servicemen or civilians anywhere - meant nothing more to him than a political game piece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Folly of War
> 
> 
> American historian and political scientist Schmidt's attitude about war changed abruptly in 1991 when a colleague asked him if he would sacrifice his only son to (the first) Bush's (first) war on Iraq. He offers a critical review of US wars from the great hysteria of the Spanish-American War to...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.com
Click to expand...

And yet you can no link to this 40 page letter at all.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Unkotare said:


> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of *key contemporary leaders in the US military*, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was *not a matter of military necessity*.





P@triot said:


> The ignorance of Sensei Snowflake never ceases to amaze everyone on this board.
> 
> 1. It doesn’t matter what Japan was discussing. They were still _fully_ engaged in war against the U.S.



On what planet? By June 1945, the Japanese were entirely on the defensive, were nearing starvation levels of food, were essentially defenseless against air raids, and had no meaningful presence at sea. 

What makes Truman's decision all the more revolting is that he KNEW that even the emperor was ready to end the war as long as we would grant him the sole condition that he would not be deposed. 



P@triot said:


> 2. Dropping the nuclear bombs has prevented wars and *saved* *millions* of lives. It was a deterrent that made the enemies of the United States realize it was a grave mistake to attack the U.S.



That is downright macabre. Using that logic, Mao could have said, "Hey, killing 30 million Chinese has saved many more millions of lives by discouraging other Chinese from acting on any idea to revolt against my tyranny." 

We could have demonstrated our nuclear bombs to the world without dropping them on defenseless civilian targets in a country whose civilian leaders were trying to end the war on reasonable terms.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of *key contemporary leaders in the US military*, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was *not a matter of military necessity*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorance of Sensei Snowflake never ceases to amaze everyone on this board.
> 
> 1. It doesn’t matter what Japan was discussing. They were still _fully_ engaged in war against the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what planet? By June 1945, the Japanese were entirely on the defensive, were nearing starvation levels of food, were essentially defenseless against air raids, and had no meaningful presence at sea.
> 
> What makes Truman's decision all the more revolting is that he KNEW that even the emperor was ready to end the war as long as we would grant him the sole condition that he would not be deposed.
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Dropping the nuclear bombs has prevented wars and *saved* *millions* of lives. It was a deterrent that made the enemies of the United States realize it was a grave mistake to attack the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is downright macabre. Using that logic, Mao could have said, "Hey, killing 30 million Chinese has saved many more millions of lives by discouraging other Chinese from acting on any idea to revolt against my tyranny."
> 
> We could have demonstrated our nuclear bombs to the world without dropping them on defenseless civilian targets in a country whose civilian leaders were trying to end the war on reasonable terms.
Click to expand...

And YET even after 2 atomic bombs AND a Soviet Invasion Japan did NOT surrender.


----------



## Levant

RetiredGySgt said:


> And YET even after 2 atomic bombs AND a Soviet Invasion Japan did NOT surrender.



Because the Emperor cared only about his own position and power and was willing to let the country burn to the ground to stay in power.

Just as we would not have allowed a German surrender that left Hitler in charge, we should not have allowed a Japanese surrender that left the Emperor in charge.  It wasn't his surrender or his mercy, it was FDR's mercy that left the Emperor in place in the end.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Actually Truman FDR w


----------



## Levant

Levant said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YET even after 2 atomic bombs AND a Soviet Invasion Japan did NOT surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Emperor cared only about his own position and power and was willing to let the country burn to the ground to stay in power.
> 
> Just as we would not have allowed a German surrender that left Hitler in charge, we should not have allowed a Japanese surrender that left the Emperor in charge.  It wasn't his surrender or his mercy, it was FDR's mercy that left the Emperor in place in the end.
Click to expand...

Good catch.  Thanks.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> ... it was FDR's mercy that left the Emperor in place in the end.


fdr had no such emotion, and his puppet carried out his final wish to slaughter civilians. fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ya the Japanese Army ran the Government and oversaw the BRUTAL slaughter of MILLIONS of civilians in China the Philippines and across the Pacific and when faced with a TOTAL collapse REFUSED to surrender when clearly beaten, BUT you go ahead and blame a US president for their stupidity.


----------



## mikegriffith1

RetiredGySgt said:


> And YET even after 2 atomic bombs AND a Soviet Invasion Japan did NOT surrender.



What an amazingly ignorant and dishonest argument.

Some here probably know who General Telford Taylor was. He was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. In 1970, Taylor wrote that while the morality of Hiroshima was debatable, he knew of no credible justification for Nagasaki, and he said Nagasaki was a war crime:

The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable, but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki. It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes” (_Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, _Chicago: Quandrangle, 1970, p. 143; see also Richard Minear, _Victors’ Justice: Tokyo War Crimes Trial_, Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 101)

What would you say if I told you that James Byrnes, Truman’s Japan-hating secretary of state, the author of the Byrnes Note, admitted after the war that the atomic bombs did not force Japan to surrender, that Japan was already beaten before they were nuked, and that this was evidenced by Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel?!

Well, here’s how it happened: Some Japanese officials were claiming that they had had no choice but to surrender once they saw that America had nukes, and they implied that in a “fair” (i.e., conventional) fight, Japan would have defeated an American invasion of the home islands and forced America to sue for a negotiated peace.

When Byrnes heard these claims, he held a press conference on August 29 to refute them. He told reporters that Japan was already beaten before we nuked them, and as proof he cited Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel that the Japanese knew they were beaten before Hiroshima. The next day, August 30, the _New York Times _printed a story on Byrnes’ remarks—the story was titled “Japan Beaten Before Atom Bomb, Byrnes Says, Citing Peace Bids.” Dr. Peter Kuznick discusses the _New York Times_ article on Byrnes’ comments:

The _New York Times_ reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (https://apjjf.org/-Peter-J.-Kuznick/2479/article.html)


----------



## LambertLunatic

Even after the Nagasaki bomb there were many In the Japanese government that wanted to continue the war.  When Hirohito taped a msg to the Jap people saying they were surrendering they tried destroying the tape before it could be broadcast.

But they'd have been ok with surrender after only 1 bomb?


----------



## Unkotare

LambertLunatic said:


> Even after the Nagasaki bomb there were many In the Japanese government that wanted to continue the war.  When Hirohito taped a msg to the Jap[anese] people saying they were surrendering they tried destroying the tape before it could be broadcast.
> 
> But they'd have been ok with surrender after only 1 bomb?


If the bloodthirsty fdr had any interest in peace the war might well have been over long before either bomb, or before the terrible loss of American life on Iwo Jima and Okinawa for that matter. Like all leftists, human life meant nothing to fdr.


----------



## Levant

mikegriffith1 said:


> Some here probably know who General Telford Taylor was. He was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. In 1970, Taylor wrote that while the morality of Hiroshima was debatable, he knew of no credible justification for Nagasaki, and he said Nagasaki was a war crime:



How does being the chief prosecutor - a lawyer - qualify anyone to speak to credible justification for Nagasaki?  Were all of the classified documents that Truman had about the war in Japan included in the prosecutorial documents in Germany?  

You keep coming up with the most bizarre not-experts to back up your argument.  Opinions are like ass-holes... Everybody has one and most are full of scat.


----------



## Levant

mikegriffith1 said:


> The _New York Times_ reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)



And, yet, they did not surrender.  That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering.  Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation.  It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise.  And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not.  Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat.  Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Levant said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _New York Times_ reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, yet, they did not surrender.  That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering.  Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation.  It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise.  And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not.  Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat.  Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...


You can repeat a myth 1,000 times, but it will still be a myth. This simplistic, disingenuous line that "yet they did not surrender" is as misleading and dishonest as the Southern Lost Cause line that "Lincoln did not abolish slavery until after the war."  

The Japanese moderates, including the emperor, had been trying to end the war on terms acceptable to the U.S. since at least the end of June, and we know that Truman knew it. The moderates desperately needed Truman's help to overcome the hardliners' opposition, but instead Truman sabotaged the moderates' cause and enabled the hardliners to block surrender for weeks. Only the Soviet entry into the war finally created a situation where the emperor could halt the war, and even then Byrnes' idiotic reply to the Japanese peace offer delayed the surrender by nearly 48 crucial hours and almost led to a continuation of the war.


----------



## Levant

mikegriffith1 said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _New York Times_ reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, yet, they did not surrender.  That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering.  Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation.  It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise.  And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not.  Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat.  Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can repeat a myth 1,000 times, but it will still be a myth. This simplistic, disingenuous line that "yet they did not surrender" is as misleading and dishonest as the Southern Lost Cause line that "Lincoln did not abolish slavery until after the war."
> 
> The Japanese moderates, including the emperor, had been trying to end the war on terms acceptable to the U.S. since at least the end of June, and we know that Truman knew it. The moderates desperately needed Truman's help to overcome the hardliners' opposition, but instead Truman sabotaged the moderates' cause and enabled the hardliners to block surrender for weeks. Only the Soviet entry into the war finally created a situation where the emperor could halt the war, and even then Byrnes' idiotic reply to the Japanese peace offer delayed the surrender by nearly 48 crucial hours and almost led to a continuation of the war.
Click to expand...


Really?!?!  That's news I hadn't heard.  The Japanese actually DID surrender before the bombing of Nagasaki?  I'm anxious to get the link you forgot to post.  Please debunk the myth that they didn't.  The world is anxiously awaiting that.


----------



## Unkotare

Levant said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _New York Times_ reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, yet, they did not surrender.  That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering.  Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation.  It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise.  And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not.  Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat.  Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can repeat a myth 1,000 times, but it will still be a myth. This simplistic, disingenuous line that "yet they did not surrender" is as misleading and dishonest as the Southern Lost Cause line that "Lincoln did not abolish slavery until after the war."
> 
> The Japanese moderates, including the emperor, had been trying to end the war on terms acceptable to the U.S. since at least the end of June, and we know that Truman knew it. The moderates desperately needed Truman's help to overcome the hardliners' opposition, but instead Truman sabotaged the moderates' cause and enabled the hardliners to block surrender for weeks. Only the Soviet entry into the war finally created a situation where the emperor could halt the war, and even then Byrnes' idiotic reply to the Japanese peace offer delayed the surrender by nearly 48 crucial hours and almost led to a continuation of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?!?!  That's news I hadn't heard.  The Japanese actually DID surrender before the bombing of Nagasaki?  I'm anxious to get the link you forgot to post.  Please debunk the myth that they didn't.  The world is anxiously awaiting that.
Click to expand...

Read the entire thread and stop being a douche bag.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _New York Times_ reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, yet, they did not surrender.  That they believed they would win a "fair" war (ask the sailors on the Arizona about "fair" wars) is proof they had no intention of surrendering.  Byrne's claim of Russian proof is not backed up by any documentation.  It's Byrnes' word over the word of the Japanese who said otherwise.  And the word of the Japanese is backed up by their actions and their refusal to surrender - beaten or not.  Remember they were actually determined to fight to extinction rather than the shame of defeat.  Even if they knew they were defeated, that meant absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can repeat a myth 1,000 times, but it will still be a myth. This simplistic, disingenuous line that "yet they did not surrender" is as misleading and dishonest as the Southern Lost Cause line that "Lincoln did not abolish slavery until after the war."
> 
> The Japanese moderates, including the emperor, had been trying to end the war on terms acceptable to the U.S. since at least the end of June, and we know that Truman knew it. The moderates desperately needed Truman's help to overcome the hardliners' opposition, but instead Truman sabotaged the moderates' cause and enabled the hardliners to block surrender for weeks. Only the Soviet entry into the war finally created a situation where the emperor could halt the war, and even then Byrnes' idiotic reply to the Japanese peace offer delayed the surrender by nearly 48 crucial hours and almost led to a continuation of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?!?!  That's news I hadn't heard.  The Japanese actually DID surrender before the bombing of Nagasaki?  I'm anxious to get the link you forgot to post.  Please debunk the myth that they didn't.  The world is anxiously awaiting that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the entire thread and stop being a douche bag.
Click to expand...

All he NEEDS to know is you can not link to a single document that supports your claim while I can link to lots that show the RULING Japanese Government never offered to surrender and even after 2 atomic bombs and a soviet Invasion voted to continue the war, when the Emperor over ruled them they staged a Coup to stop THAT surrender.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.


How does one “try” to surrender? You either do or you don’t. It’s not something you have to “try”. 


gipper said:


> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.


And you take the word of Stalin’s communist U.S.S.R. over the U.S.?


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Read the entire thread and stop being a douche bag.


Everyone has. All it does is illustrate what a limp-wristed, soy-boi, beta “male” you are. Move along.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> How does one “try” to surrender? You either do or you don’t. It’s not something you have to “try”.
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of General McArthur?  He told Stalin’s Stooge of their desire to surrender. It’s clearly outline in a post just a few posts above. Please don’t be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you take the word of Stalin’s communist U.S.S.R. over the U.S.?
Click to expand...

No. When your opponent won’t accept your surrender, you tried.

You don’t know who is Stalin’s Stooge?  Hint: his initials are FDR.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.


FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.

You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> No. When your opponent won’t accept your surrender, you tried.


Good! You bomb Pearl Harbor, you don’t get to surrender. Our _only_ mistake was not dropping a third nuclear bomb on the miserable mother fuckers.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. When your opponent won’t accept your surrender, you tried.
> 
> 
> 
> Good! You bomb Pearl Harbor, you don’t get to surrender. Our _only_ mistake was not dropping a third nuclear bomb on the miserable mother fuckers.
Click to expand...

Dumb. Mass murdering defenseless civilians because their government bombed your military base, is the thinking of an adolescent.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> The Japanese moderates, including the emperor, had been trying to end the war on terms acceptable to the U.S. since at least the end of June


Awesome propaganda. To which, I say, “oh well”. The slant-eyed mother fuckers started the war by bombing Pearl Harbor. We get to end it on _our_ terms, not theirs. We should have dropped a third. And a fourth. Then we should have planted a flag and made it the 49th state of the U.S. (we didn’t have Alaska or Hawaii at the time). Would have made a nice nuclear test island for our military.

Ah well. Opportunity lost but lesson learned.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Dumb. Mass murdering defenseless civilians because their government bombed your military base, is the thinking of an adolescent.


Thinking that war should be a classy competition of gentlemen with 1-to-1 rules is the _epitome_ of immature, juvenile, kumbaya leftism that results in unnecessary lives lost.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb. Mass murdering defenseless civilians because their government bombed your military base, is the thinking of an adolescent.
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking that war should be a classy competition of gentlemen with 1-to-1 rules is the _epitome_ of immature, juvenile, kumbaya leftism that results in unnecessary lives lost.
Click to expand...

More ignorance. Find a brain.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the entire thread and stop being a douche bag.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has. All it does is illustrate what a limp-wristed, soy-boi, beta “male” you are. Move along.
Click to expand...

Keep trying to convince yourself of that, miss.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese moderates, including the emperor, had been trying to end the war on terms acceptable to the U.S. since at least the end of June
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome propaganda. To which, I say, “oh well”. The slant-eyed mother fuckers started the war by bombing Pearl Harbor. We get to end it on _our_ terms, not theirs. We should have dropped a third. And a fourth. Then we should have planted a flag and made it the 49th state of the U.S. (we didn’t have Alaska or Hawaii at the time). Would have made a nice nuclear test island for our military.
> 
> Ah well. Opportunity lost but lesson learned.
Click to expand...

You're a racist idiot, and completely ignorant of history.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.


----------



## james bond

P@triot said:


> We should have dropped a third. And a fourth. Then we should have planted a flag and made it the 49th state of the U.S. (we didn’t have Alaska or Hawaii at the time). Would have made a nice nuclear test island for our military.



You didn't learn anything.  What kind of racist idiot are you?

First, you don't win wars, especially world wars with bombs.  Nukes are for peacekeeping essentially.  You win with boots on the ground and this is what happened to Japan.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
Click to expand...

The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.


----------



## Regent23

I was on a hospital ship coming home from the Pacific. On the voyage we
listened to the ship's speakers as the ship broadcast the whole saga of the bomb-droppings. What I remember as most peculiar was when Japan surrendered the ship became extremely quiet . No cheers, no boasts, nothing but complete silence. For the first time I could hear the electric motors adjusting the ship's rudder.


----------



## P@triot

james bond said:


> First, you don't win wars, especially world wars with bombs.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb. Mass murdering defenseless civilians because their government bombed your military base, is the thinking of an adolescent.
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking that war should be a classy competition of gentlemen with 1-to-1 rules is the _epitome_ of immature, juvenile, kumbaya leftism that results in unnecessary lives lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ignorance. Find a brain.
Click to expand...

Spoken _exactly_ like the epitome of an immature, ignorant juvenile who thinks war is a classy competition of gentlemen with 1-to-1 rules. You’re the type of asshat who would push for Ralph Lauren polos for military uniforms


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> You're a racist idiot...


But...but...but...you’re a RAAAAAAAAACIST!


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.


I’ve been in the thread for quite a while, Sensei Snowflake. I read it.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve been in the thread for quite a while, Sensei Snowflake. I read it.
Click to expand...

It's clear that you have not because you keep repeating things that have been addressed over and over.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
Click to expand...

They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve been in the thread for quite a while, Sensei Snowflake. I read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's clear that you have not because you keep repeating things that have been addressed over and over.
Click to expand...

And YOU IGNORE the fact that after 2 atomic bombs and an invasion by the Soviets the Japanese Government STILL refused to surrender. Yet keep claiming they wanted to.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
Click to expand...

Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
Click to expand...

You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
Click to expand...

Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
Click to expand...

Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.
Click to expand...

POST a link or admit you got nothing.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POST a link or admit you got nothing.
Click to expand...

LOL. I’ve done it many times, but you never learn. I did it in this thread. Your pea size brain refuses to accept anything that disputes your ignorant beliefs.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POST a link or admit you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. I’ve done it many times, but you never learn. I did it in this thread. Your pea size brain refuses to accept anything that disputes your ignorant beliefs.
Click to expand...

You have NEVER linked to an official site nor to any official response from Mac. All you have ever linked to is his claim there were 40 in a book by an author with an agenda. I HAVE linked to official documents that show all Japan ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 51 start lines and NO concessions in China. Since you can not and will not link to what the offers Mac presented said then the official site wins hands down. Because all the Japanese were offering is what I linked to through official channels and the FACT that the Government did NOT surrender after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet invasion puts the lie to your claim they tried to surrender before the bombs.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POST a link or admit you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. I’ve done it many times, but you never learn. I did it in this thread. Your pea size brain refuses to accept anything that disputes your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER linked to an official site nor to any official response from Mac. All you have ever linked to is his claim there were 40 in a book by an author with an agenda. I HAVE linked to official documents that show all Japan ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 51 start lines and NO concessions in China. Since you can not and will not link to what the offers Mac presented said then the official site wins hands down. Because all the Japanese were offering is what I linked to through official channels and the FACT that the Government did NOT surrender after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet invasion puts the lie to your claim they tried to surrender before the bombs.
Click to expand...

Lol. See?  You refuse to accept the truth.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POST a link or admit you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. I’ve done it many times, but you never learn. I did it in this thread. Your pea size brain refuses to accept anything that disputes your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER linked to an official site nor to any official response from Mac. All you have ever linked to is his claim there were 40 in a book by an author with an agenda. I HAVE linked to official documents that show all Japan ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 51 start lines and NO concessions in China. Since you can not and will not link to what the offers Mac presented said then the official site wins hands down. Because all the Japanese were offering is what I linked to through official channels and the FACT that the Government did NOT surrender after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet invasion puts the lie to your claim they tried to surrender before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. See?  You refuse to accept the truth.
Click to expand...

The TRUTH is that the Japanese NEVER OFFERED TO SURRENDER all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start line as I have shown repeatedly, the TRUTH is after 2 atomic bombs and an invasion by the Soviets the Government of Japan voted NOT TO SURRENDER and when the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army attempted a Coup to stop him, THAT is the TRUTH, not your idiotic unsourced claims otherwise.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POST a link or admit you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. I’ve done it many times, but you never learn. I did it in this thread. Your pea size brain refuses to accept anything that disputes your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER linked to an official site nor to any official response from Mac. All you have ever linked to is his claim there were 40 in a book by an author with an agenda. I HAVE linked to official documents that show all Japan ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 51 start lines and NO concessions in China. Since you can not and will not link to what the offers Mac presented said then the official site wins hands down. Because all the Japanese were offering is what I linked to through official channels and the FACT that the Government did NOT surrender after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet invasion puts the lie to your claim they tried to surrender before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. See?  You refuse to accept the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The TRUTH is that the Japanese NEVER OFFERED TO SURRENDER all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start line as I have shown repeatedly, the TRUTH is after 2 atomic bombs and an invasion by the Soviets the Government of Japan voted NOT TO SURRENDER and when the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army attempted a Coup to stop him, THAT is the TRUTH, not your idiotic unsourced claims otherwise.
Click to expand...

More lies from the dumb grunt. He just can’t accept the truth.

Man up son.


----------



## TheParser

War is horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

Just looking at the suffering caused by the Japanese military to civilians and soldiers makes me sick to my stomach.

Remember the American boys senselessly killed  in the Pacific. Iwo Jima. Okinawa. The USS Indianapolis, etc.

The suffering of China when it was attacked by Japan. Bataan in the Philippines.

So I believe that both  atomic bombs -- unfortunately -- were necessary.

And I am especially sorry that Emperor Hirohito was not -- at the very least -- forced to abdicate. He was hardly the weak, powerless figurehead that General McArthur portrayed him as.

*****

I feel sorry for the Japanese civilians in Nagasaki, of course.  But the innocent always get caught up in things. Look at the innocent shop owners here in Los Angeles who had their livelihoods destroyed by vicious and worthless looters recently.  Life is not fair.


----------



## Unkotare

TheParser said:


> War is horrible. Horrible. Horrible.
> 
> Just looking at the suffering caused by the Japanese military to civilians and soldiers makes me sick to my stomach.
> 
> Remember the American boys senselessly killed  in the Pacific. Iwo Jima. Okinawa. The USS Indianapolis, etc.
> 
> The suffering of China when it was attacked by Japan. Bataan in the Philippines.
> 
> So I believe that both  atomic bombs -- unfortunately -- were necessary.
> 
> And I am especially sorry that Emperor Hirohito was not -- at the very least -- forced to abdicate. He was hardly the weak, powerless figurehead that General McArthur portrayed him as.
> 
> *****
> 
> I feel sorry for the Japanese civilians in Nagasaki, of course.  But the innocent always get caught up in things. Look at the innocent shop owners here in Los Angeles who had their livelihoods destroyed by vicious and worthless looters recently.  Life is not fair.


Read the thread


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> War is horrible. Horrible. Horrible.
> 
> Just looking at the suffering caused by the Japanese military to civilians and soldiers makes me sick to my stomach.
> 
> Remember the American boys senselessly killed  in the Pacific. Iwo Jima. Okinawa. The USS Indianapolis, etc.
> 
> The suffering of China when it was attacked by Japan. Bataan in the Philippines.
> 
> So I believe that both  atomic bombs -- unfortunately -- were necessary.
> 
> And I am especially sorry that Emperor Hirohito was not -- at the very least -- forced to abdicate. He was hardly the weak, powerless figurehead that General McArthur portrayed him as.
> 
> *****
> 
> I feel sorry for the Japanese civilians in Nagasaki, of course.  But the innocent always get caught up in things. Look at the innocent shop owners here in Los Angeles who had their livelihoods destroyed by vicious and worthless looters recently.  Life is not fair.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the thread
Click to expand...

Lol. He’s got a lot of reading to do.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> They tried to surrender numerous times...


They should have thought about that before they *murdered* Americans


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times...
> 
> 
> 
> They should have thought about that before they *murdered* Americans
Click to expand...

Nice post, for a 12 year old.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POST a link or admit you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. I’ve done it many times, but you never learn. I did it in this thread. Your pea size brain refuses to accept anything that disputes your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER linked to an official site nor to any official response from Mac. All you have ever linked to is his claim there were 40 in a book by an author with an agenda. I HAVE linked to official documents that show all Japan ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 51 start lines and NO concessions in China. Since you can not and will not link to what the offers Mac presented said then the official site wins hands down. Because all the Japanese were offering is what I linked to through official channels and the FACT that the Government did NOT surrender after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet invasion puts the lie to your claim they tried to surrender before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. See?  You refuse to accept the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The TRUTH is that the Japanese NEVER OFFERED TO SURRENDER all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start line as I have shown repeatedly, the TRUTH is after 2 atomic bombs and an invasion by the Soviets the Government of Japan voted NOT TO SURRENDER and when the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army attempted a Coup to stop him, THAT is the TRUTH, not your idiotic unsourced claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More lies from the dumb grunt. He just can’t accept the truth.
> 
> Man up son.
Click to expand...

I have proved my points with ACTUAL links to SOURCE documents unlike you retard.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POST a link or admit you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. I’ve done it many times, but you never learn. I did it in this thread. Your pea size brain refuses to accept anything that disputes your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER linked to an official site nor to any official response from Mac. All you have ever linked to is his claim there were 40 in a book by an author with an agenda. I HAVE linked to official documents that show all Japan ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 51 start lines and NO concessions in China. Since you can not and will not link to what the offers Mac presented said then the official site wins hands down. Because all the Japanese were offering is what I linked to through official channels and the FACT that the Government did NOT surrender after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet invasion puts the lie to your claim they tried to surrender before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. See?  You refuse to accept the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The TRUTH is that the Japanese NEVER OFFERED TO SURRENDER all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start line as I have shown repeatedly, the TRUTH is after 2 atomic bombs and an invasion by the Soviets the Government of Japan voted NOT TO SURRENDER and when the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army attempted a Coup to stop him, THAT is the TRUTH, not your idiotic unsourced claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More lies from the dumb grunt. He just can’t accept the truth.
> 
> Man up son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have proved my points with ACTUAL links to SOURCE documents unlike you retard.
Click to expand...

LOL. I got links, says the little snowflake.

If links mean truth, then why are my links not just as good as yours? LOL!!!!!

General McArthur made it clear, Japan wished to surrender long before Truman mass murdered defenseless women and children. Others also notified FDR and Truman of their desire to surrender. All linked in this thread.

Can you read grunt?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POST a link or admit you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. I’ve done it many times, but you never learn. I did it in this thread. Your pea size brain refuses to accept anything that disputes your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER linked to an official site nor to any official response from Mac. All you have ever linked to is his claim there were 40 in a book by an author with an agenda. I HAVE linked to official documents that show all Japan ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 51 start lines and NO concessions in China. Since you can not and will not link to what the offers Mac presented said then the official site wins hands down. Because all the Japanese were offering is what I linked to through official channels and the FACT that the Government did NOT surrender after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet invasion puts the lie to your claim they tried to surrender before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. See?  You refuse to accept the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The TRUTH is that the Japanese NEVER OFFERED TO SURRENDER all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start line as I have shown repeatedly, the TRUTH is after 2 atomic bombs and an invasion by the Soviets the Government of Japan voted NOT TO SURRENDER and when the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army attempted a Coup to stop him, THAT is the TRUTH, not your idiotic unsourced claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More lies from the dumb grunt. He just can’t accept the truth.
> 
> Man up son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have proved my points with ACTUAL links to SOURCE documents unlike you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. I got links, says the little snowflake.
> 
> If links mean truth, then why are my links not just as good as yours? LOL!!!!!
> 
> General McArthur made it clear, Japan wished to surrender long before Truman mass murdered defenseless women and children. Others also notified FDR and Truman of their desire to surrender. All linked in this thread.
> 
> Can you read grunt?
Click to expand...

and you can not link to any such document from the Government where Japan offered to surrender. No link to what these supposed offers were and no actual statement from Mac that he did any such thing. Just a link to a book by an author with an agenda. I can link to the ACTUAL offers made by Japan to Sweden Switzerland and the Soviets and what they offered after each atomic bomb, and NOT ONE of them is an offer to surrender. All they offer is a cease fire no occupation and return to 41 start lines.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr couldn't care less about any life - including Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an asshole and one of the three worst presidents of all time. Doesn’t change the fact that Japan deserved at least one more nuclear bomb and probably more.
> 
> You’re also far too ignorant to understand that it served as a deterrent that ushered in an era of unprecedented peace for the U.S. No one dared fire a bullet in our direction for another 50 years and even then it wasn’t a nation-state, it was Al Qaeda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't even bothered to read the thread, you lazy idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one's that haven't read the threads are you and the ones claim Japan tried to surrender. THE FACT as DOCUMENTED repeatedly is even after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet Invasion the Ruling Government of Japan STILL REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor took it out of their hands the Army staged a COUP to stop that surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look stupid all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt, are you calling General McArthur a liar? That’s grounds for court martial and a hanging at dawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since he is no longer alive or a General you would be wrong and I have repeatedly asked you or anyone to post a link to any such GOVERNMENT document that shows what was offered, or to any document from Mac during WW2 that shows what was offered. What I have shown you is SOURCE documents from the Government of Japan and the USA that clearly show all Japan offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. I don't care if Japan offered 40 versions of a ceasefire, with no occupation and no consequences for Japan, they were never going to be accepted. And NOW YOU answer why if Japan was so ready to surrender why after 2 atomic bombs and an Invasion by the Soviets the Government did NOT surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you know more than General McArthur and are clearly calling him a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POST a link or admit you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. I’ve done it many times, but you never learn. I did it in this thread. Your pea size brain refuses to accept anything that disputes your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER linked to an official site nor to any official response from Mac. All you have ever linked to is his claim there were 40 in a book by an author with an agenda. I HAVE linked to official documents that show all Japan ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 51 start lines and NO concessions in China. Since you can not and will not link to what the offers Mac presented said then the official site wins hands down. Because all the Japanese were offering is what I linked to through official channels and the FACT that the Government did NOT surrender after 2 atomic bombs and a Soviet invasion puts the lie to your claim they tried to surrender before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. See?  You refuse to accept the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The TRUTH is that the Japanese NEVER OFFERED TO SURRENDER all they ever offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start line as I have shown repeatedly, the TRUTH is after 2 atomic bombs and an invasion by the Soviets the Government of Japan voted NOT TO SURRENDER and when the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army attempted a Coup to stop him, THAT is the TRUTH, not your idiotic unsourced claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More lies from the dumb grunt. He just can’t accept the truth.
> 
> Man up son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have proved my points with ACTUAL links to SOURCE documents unlike you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. I got links, says the little snowflake.
> 
> If links mean truth, then why are my links not just as good as yours? LOL!!!!!
> 
> General McArthur made it clear, Japan wished to surrender long before Truman mass murdered defenseless women and children. Others also notified FDR and Truman of their desire to surrender. All linked in this thread.
> 
> Can you read grunt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you can not link to any such document from the Government where Japan offered to surrender. No link to what these supposed offers were and no actual statement from Mac that he did any such thing. Just a link to a book by an author with an agenda. I can link to the ACTUAL offers made by Japan to Sweden Switzerland and the Soviets and what they offered after each atomic bomb, and NOT ONE of them is an offer to surrender. All they offer is a cease fire no occupation and return to 41 start lines.
Click to expand...

I have ask you repeatedly to post a link to any of these supposed offers, and what they offered. And all I have gotten is crickets from you and everyone else claiming it.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Nice post, for a 12 year old.


Horrible post...even for a 10 year old beta male.


----------



## P@triot

Here are *indisputable* *facts* for mikegriffith1, Unkotare, gipper, and the rest of you _ignorant_ assholes:


> “This second demonstration of the power of the atomic bomb apparently threw Tokyo into a panic, for *the next morning brought the first indication that the Japanese Empire was ready to surrender*,” Truman later wrote in his memoirs. On August 15, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan’s unconditional surrender, bringing World War II to a close.


Japan had 0 indications of surrender before Nagasaki. Zero. Now shut the fuck up, you crying lying little propagandists.








						Hiroshima, Then Nagasaki: Why the US Deployed the Second A-Bomb
					

The explicit reason was to swiftly end the war with Japan. But it was also intended to send a message to the Soviets.




					www.history.com


----------



## Unkotare

Notapatriot the sofa hero hasn’t read, or has completely forgotten this entire thread.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Notapatriot the sofa hero hasn’t read, or has completely forgotten this entire thread.


You have yet to post a single Government source for the claim that Japan made numerous offers to surrender, all you have are books written years later with no actual paper trail.


----------



## LuckyDuck

The initial plans were for military targets, however, as bombing in those days was strictly by sight only, and the weather wasn't cooperating, they had alternate designated targets if they couldn't hit the military ones.  The only thing I agree with, is that the US should have waited a bit longer to see if the Japanese would surrender.  Some of the Japanese generals wanted to keep fighting to the end, which would have cost thousands more American lives, had they not surrendered.


----------



## P@triot

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notapatriot the sofa hero hasn’t read, or has completely forgotten this entire thread.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to post a single Government source for the claim that Japan made numerous offers to surrender, all you have are books written years later with no actual paper trail.
Click to expand...

That’s because the indisputable, undeniable facts are that Japan *refused* to surrender, even after the first nuclear bomb.


----------



## Unkotare

Dumbass ^^^^ can't even be bothered to read the thread.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> Here are *indisputable* *facts* for mikegriffith1, Unkotare, gipper, and the rest of you _ignorant_ assholes:
> 
> 
> 
> “This second demonstration of the power of the atomic bomb apparently threw Tokyo into a panic, for *the next morning brought the first indication that the Japanese Empire was ready to surrender*,” Truman later wrote in his memoirs. On August 15, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan’s unconditional surrender, bringing World War II to a close.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan had 0 indications of surrender before Nagasaki. Zero. Now shut the fuck up, you crying lying little propagandists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima, Then Nagasaki: Why the US Deployed the Second A-Bomb
> 
> 
> The explicit reason was to swiftly end the war with Japan. But it was also intended to send a message to the Soviets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
Click to expand...

WRONG. 

Why would you call General McArthur, a true America hero, a liar?  Are you a commie traitor?


----------



## there4eyeM

Nuking Japan was poorly thought out and not really "necessary" (as if incinerating mere citizens ever could be). Many other ways to have handled the situation existed.
One would have been to just go to the source of the problems and bomb Moscow, for example, if it were well and truly the intention to demonstrate power and determination.


----------



## gipper

there4eyeM said:


> Nuking Japan was poorly thought out and not really "necessary" (as is incinerating mere citizens ever cold be). Many other ways to have handled the situation existed.
> One would have been to just go to the source of the problems and bomb Moscow, for example, if it were well and truly the intention to demonstrate power and determination.


It’s ironic that Dirty Harry Truman, may he be burning in Hell for eternity, mass murdered all those defenseless Japanese women and children to impress Uncle Joe...when we know that Uncle Joe knew all about the bomb, before Dirty Harry knew.

With FDR’s administration full of Stalinist spies, Uncle Joe had no fear. He knew he would get all the details of the bomb in short order, and he did.

So, Dirty Harry’s war crime was committed to impress Uncle Joe, but didn’t.


----------



## Cellblock2429

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notapatriot the sofa hero hasn’t read, or has completely forgotten this entire thread.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to post a single Government source for the claim that Japan made numerous offers to surrender, all you have are books written years later with no actual paper trail.
Click to expand...

/——/ Japan was arming women and children with broom sticks. They were prepared for a fight to the death.


----------



## gipper

Cellblock2429 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notapatriot the sofa hero hasn’t read, or has completely forgotten this entire thread.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to post a single Government source for the claim that Japan made numerous offers to surrender, all you have are books written years later with no actual paper trail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Japan was arming women and children with broom sticks. They were prepared for a fight to the death.
Click to expand...

Do you really think this justifies the bombings?  

Has it ever occurred to you statists that we didn’t need to occupy Japan?  Accept their surrender and go home. Before Truman’s war crime, Japan was a destroyed nation with no military. It posed no threat to us or anyone else.


----------



## Unkotare

Cellblock2429 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notapatriot the sofa hero hasn’t read, or has completely forgotten this entire thread.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to post a single Government source for the claim that Japan made numerous offers to surrender, all you have are books written years later with no actual paper trail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Japan was arming women and children with broom sticks. They were prepared for a fight to the death.
Click to expand...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notapatriot the sofa hero hasn’t read, or has completely forgotten this entire thread.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to post a single Government source for the claim that Japan made numerous offers to surrender, all you have are books written years later with no actual paper trail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Japan was arming women and children with broom sticks. They were prepared for a fight to the death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really think this justifies the bombings?
> 
> Has it ever occurred to you statists that we didn’t need to occupy Japan?  Accept their surrender and go home. Before Truman’s war crime, Japan was a destroyed nation with no military. It posed no threat to us or anyone else.
Click to expand...

700000 troops in China say differently.


----------



## Flash

The Japs did it to themselves.

They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.

The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".

The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.

Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notapatriot the sofa hero hasn’t read, or has completely forgotten this entire thread.
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to post a single Government source for the claim that Japan made numerous offers to surrender, all you have are books written years later with no actual paper trail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Japan was arming women and children with broom sticks. They were prepared for a fight to the death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really think this justifies the bombings?
> 
> Has it ever occurred to you statists that we didn’t need to occupy Japan?  Accept their surrender and go home. Before Truman’s war crime, Japan was a destroyed nation with no military. It posed no threat to us or anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 700000 troops in China say differently.
Click to expand...

No. They were getting their ass kicked.


----------



## gipper

Flash said:


> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.


Revisionist history. Dumb too.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
Click to expand...

The only revisionist here is you and your retarded friends.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only revisionist here is you and your retarded friends.
Click to expand...

It’s sad that so many Americans are duped by the state, as you have been.


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
Click to expand...



Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.

What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.


----------



## gipper

Flash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
Click to expand...

The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.

You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LOL Now suddenly the board loon claims Japan did not invade anyone. Or start a war with the US and Invade the Philippines.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL Now suddenly the board loon claims Japan did not invade anyone. Or start a war with the US and Invade the Philippines.


I’m not surprised you failed to comprehend my post. Ignorant people have a hard time with comprehension.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Now suddenly the board loon claims Japan did not invade anyone. Or start a war with the US and Invade the Philippines.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not surprised you failed to comprehend my post. Ignorant people have a hard time with comprehension.
Click to expand...

You are the one making moronic claims with NO evidence to back them up.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> The...did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid ... fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The ... should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.




Another one who hasn't bothered to read the thread.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The...did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid ... fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The ... should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who hasn't bothered to read the thread.
Click to expand...

You STILL haven't provide the link to GOVERNMENT documents that support your claim.


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
Click to expand...


You are confused.

You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.

However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.

It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The...did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid ... fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The ... should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who hasn't bothered to read the thread.
Click to expand...



I have read the thread.  In fact I have participated in it several times pror to this post.

Do you know anything about the lessons the US learned at Okinawa?

What do you think they were?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Flash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...

So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?


----------



## gipper

Flash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...

I’ve argued in this thread and in others, that FDR’s actions lead to war with Japan. He WANTED war.

I can’t agree with you on anything else. Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nations who tried to surrender, is a crime


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve argued in this thread and in others, that FDR’s actions lead to war with Japan. He WANTED war.
Click to expand...

Again in order to believe we had no business cutting Japan off you have to believe it was none of our business that OUR fuel and metal was allowing Japan to MURDER millions of Chinese.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The...did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid ... fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The ... should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who hasn't bothered to read the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the thread.  ...
Click to expand...


Then you're ignoring the vast amount of proof provided that there were Japanese overtures to surrender long before Okinawa; overtures that were willfully ignored by roosevelt.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The...did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid ... fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The ... should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who hasn't bothered to read the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the thread.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're ignoring the vast amount of proof provided that there were Japanese overtures to surrender long before Okinawa; overtures that were willfully ignored by roosevelt.
Click to expand...

LOL PROVIDE a single source from the Government that supports your claim.


----------



## Flash

RetiredGySgt said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
Click to expand...



The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.

The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.

We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.

The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.

By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The...did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid ... fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The ... should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who hasn't bothered to read the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the thread.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're ignoring the vast amount of proof provided that there were Japanese overtures to surrender long before Okinawa; overtures that were willfully ignored by roosevelt.
Click to expand...


You are confused.

If they Japs had wanted to surrender then they would not have created that Okinawa bloodbath.  They were fighting to the last man inflicting as many casualties on the Americans as possible.  Sending the strong message that they were not going to give up.

That was where the rubber met the road.


----------



## HenryBHough

Truman was the last American president to understand that wars are for winning.

Trump (magic in that "T" first initial?) might have the chance to prove himself with China.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The...did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid ... fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The ... should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one who hasn't bothered to read the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the thread.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're ignoring the vast amount of proof provided that there were Japanese overtures to surrender long before Okinawa; overtures that were willfully ignored by roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> ....
Click to expand...


Not at all. Read the thread.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Flash said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
Click to expand...

We went to war in Kuwait because it was INVADED. Again claiming it was none of our business what Japan was doing is asinine short sighted and amazingly STUPID. Amd NO we did not Attack Iraq because OUR supply was threatened, We get less then 5 percent from the middle east. And the Philippines was ours for over 40 years before Japan attacked us claiming we were some threat to them, again STUPID.


----------



## gipper

HenryBHough said:


> Truman was the last American president to understand that wars are for winning.
> 
> Trump (magic in that "T" first initial?) might have the chance to prove himself with China.


Wrong. Dirty Harry won the war, then he massacred thousands of defenseless women and children of a defeated nation.


----------



## gipper

Flash said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
Click to expand...

FDR knew Japan would go to war, if the US cut off they oil supply. I wanted war, set it up, and knew it was coming.


----------



## gipper

Flash said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
Click to expand...

The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die. 

Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
Click to expand...

And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.


----------



## Flash

RetiredGySgt said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We went to war in Kuwait because it was INVADED. Again claiming it was none of our business what Japan was doing is asinine short sighted and amazingly STUPID. Amd NO we did not Attack Iraq because OUR supply was threatened, We get less then 5 percent from the middle east. And the Philippines was ours for over 40 years before Japan attacked us claiming we were some threat to them, again STUPID.
Click to expand...



I am sorry I will have to respectively disagree.  You and I have agreed on many other topics in other threads but I will beg to differ on this one.

We did not send that massive army to Kuwait to save a few Muslim lives or to protect their poperty.  At least I hope to hell not.  We sent them there there because we didn't want Saddam to have all that oil that he could use to control the market.  Back then it was not 5% by the way but more like 25%.

 The invasion of Kuwait was not a humanitarian war.  It was to stabilize the oil market.  By the way, I think it was the right thing to do.  It directly affected the economic well being of the US and our allies and was the right reason to go to war.

I think the Japs thought it was the right thing to do kick the US out of their area of influence after the boycott just like we have done to several other countries for lesser reasons in our history.  It was dumb to go to war with the US but they did it for the same reasons that we have used on other occasions.  

War is usually a dumb venture for the most part.   We will never know how well off we had been had we stuck with our non interventionist policy.  However, we do know how much the war cost us.  Almost 400,000 Americans died.  The Allies also fought the war with Texas and Oklahoma oil and that caused the post war shortage that resulted in us relying on Middle East oil.  Then there was that stupid Cold War because we guaranteeing the security of Europe from the Russkes.

By the way, I agree with you in that it was the right thing to do to nuke the Japs.  If we do go to war then we need to win it and that sure as hell shut the little bastards up, didn't it?


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
Click to expand...



You need to pay attention what I write before you comment on it.  That way you won't look like an idiot when you post.

Yes the Japs and Nazis were assholes.  I think that is pretty well known.

I said (and you didn't pay attention) that we provoked the Japs into war with the oil boycott and I said we didn't need to send troops to Europe.

Pull your head out of your ass before you respond to comments I make.


----------



## Flash

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
Click to expand...



He can't because they were hell bent on fighting until the last man.  They proved it on Okinawa.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The place the revisionist get the claim the Japanese tried to surrender is the couple overtures they made one to Sweden one to The soviets for a cease fire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China. No one was going to accept that so what the revisionist do is NOT mention the terms.


----------



## gipper

Flash said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He can't because they were hell bent on fighting until the last man.  They proved it on Okinawa.
Click to expand...

You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
Click to expand...

LOL. I‘ve provided prove directly to you, many times over the years. You just won’t accept it, because you’re a dumb ass statist.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> The place the revisionist get the claim the Japanese tried to surrender is the couple overtures they made one to Sweden one to The soviets for a cease fire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China. No one was going to accept that so what the revisionist do is NOT mention the terms.


McArthur knew they wished to surrender. Are you too calling him a liar?


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He can't because they were hell bent on fighting until the last man.  They proved it on Okinawa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.
Click to expand...



Fighting to the last man is not looking to surrender as it has been suggested on this thread.  

If the Japs didn't want to get nuked all they had to do was give it up.  They were stupid.  They made the wrong choice and paid for it.


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The place the revisionist get the claim the Japanese tried to surrender is the couple overtures they made one to Sweden one to The soviets for a cease fire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China. No one was going to accept that so what the revisionist do is NOT mention the terms.
> 
> 
> 
> McArthur knew they wished to surrender. Are you too calling him a liar?
Click to expand...



They way they fought to the last man on Okinawa and used Kamikaze attacks were all the proof the Americans needed that the sonofabitches had no intentions of giving it up. 

They sealed their own fate.  they thought they were being brave but all they were doing was sealing their own fate that included fire bombings of their cities and a couple of nukes down their throats.


----------



## there4eyeM

When it comes to 'what-ifing', the fundamental one is what if planners finally realized that there was no necessity of invading Japan, which was by then nothing but a besieged bastion with no means of supporting itself at any level.
The Imperial Army in Manchuria? Just send over a few thousand T54s and M 48s and run over it. 
Nothing like hundreds of thousands had to die unless the Japanese chose it. Then it would all have been up to them. The Emperor would probably have died along with maybe millions of civilians and military, if only from starvation. That, at least, would have put the onus for the deaths of so many on the Japanese themselves, and would have absolved the U.S. of accusations of excessive use of power and racism. It would also have cleared the way for an egalitarian democracy, as in 1776.


----------



## toobfreak

mikegriffith1 said:


> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Obscene?  I celebrate it.  It was that second detonation that finally forced the emperor to back down, lose face and concede, ending the war.  The old school emperors were ready to go down all the way to the end if necessary rather than face the humiliation of defeat.  

WE BROKE JAPAN, and those detonations provided important necessary information for us and to the world on the effectiveness of the bombs.


----------



## gipper

Flash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He can't because they were hell bent on fighting until the last man.  They proved it on Okinawa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting to the last man is not looking to surrender as it has been suggested on this thread.
> 
> If the Japs didn't want to get nuked all they had to do was give it up.  They were stupid.  They made the wrong choice and paid for it.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. Are you capable of thinking?  Do you know how surrendering works. Both antagonists must agree. Jesus

The Japanese people fighting knew nothing of their government’s efforts to surrender. They were merely trying to protect their country, just as Americans would.

Since both Stalin’s Stooge and Dirty Harry stupidly demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese assumed the US would hang the emperor. All they asked of Dirty Harry is leave the emperor alone. He didn’t agree with those terms until AFTER he incinerated all those defenseless women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## there4eyeM

Of course, there are any number of sick reasons to carry out such an act.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The place the revisionist get the claim the Japanese tried to surrender is the couple overtures they made one to Sweden one to The soviets for a cease fire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China. No one was going to accept that so what the revisionist do is NOT mention the terms.
> 
> 
> 
> McArthur knew they wished to surrender. Are you too calling him a liar?
Click to expand...

And yet you can not provide a single source that LISTS what these supposed surrenders entailed, no document no statement nothing.


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He can't because they were hell bent on fighting until the last man.  They proved it on Okinawa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting to the last man is not looking to surrender as it has been suggested on this thread.
> 
> If the Japs didn't want to get nuked all they had to do was give it up.  They were stupid.  They made the wrong choice and paid for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Are you capable of thinking?  Do you know how surrendering works. Both antagonists must agree. Jesus
> 
> The Japanese people fighting knew nothing of their government’s efforts to surrender. They were merely trying to protect their country, just as Americans would.
> 
> Since both Stalin’s Stooge and Dirty Harry stupidly demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese assumed the US would hang the emperor. All they asked of Dirty Harry is leave the emperor alone. He didn’t agree with those terms until AFTER he incinerated all those defenseless women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Click to expand...


You are confused

You surrender by putting up your hands and saying "I give up".  It ain't rocket science.  If you want a model just look at the Dutch giving up to the Germans.  We call the French "The Surrender Monkeys" but the Dutch beat them seven ways to Sunday.

 The Jap shitheads didn't do that.  Instead they fought to almost the last man at Okinawa.  They also crashed their airplanes into our ships inflicting very heavy casualties.  They even talked many of the civilians into committing suicide rather than give up to the Americans.

If they had any intentions of negotiating any agreement they sure as hell blew it and that is why we fire bombed their cities and then nuked them.

Stop being an apologist for the filthy ass Japs.  It just makes you look like an idiot.


----------



## HenryBHough

gipper said:


> Wrong. Dirty Harry won the war, then he massacred thousands of defenseless women and children of a defeated nation.



President Truman acted presidential.  He saved hundreds of thousands of Americans from torture and death at the hands of power-crazed Japanese warlords.  But I would hardly expect a power-crazed liberal to comprehend the importance of that.


----------



## gipper

HenryBHough said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Dirty Harry won the war, then he massacred thousands of defenseless women and children of a defeated nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Truman acted presidential.  He saved hundreds of thousands of Americans from torture and death at the hands of power-crazed Japanese warlords.  But I would hardly expect a power-crazed liberal to comprehend the importance of that.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Long ago proven to be nothing but propaganda.


----------



## gipper

Flash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He can't because they were hell bent on fighting until the last man.  They proved it on Okinawa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting to the last man is not looking to surrender as it has been suggested on this thread.
> 
> If the Japs didn't want to get nuked all they had to do was give it up.  They were stupid.  They made the wrong choice and paid for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Are you capable of thinking?  Do you know how surrendering works. Both antagonists must agree. Jesus
> 
> The Japanese people fighting knew nothing of their government’s efforts to surrender. They were merely trying to protect their country, just as Americans would.
> 
> Since both Stalin’s Stooge and Dirty Harry stupidly demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese assumed the US would hang the emperor. All they asked of Dirty Harry is leave the emperor alone. He didn’t agree with those terms until AFTER he incinerated all those defenseless women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused
> 
> You surrender by putting up your hands and saying "I give up".  It ain't rocket science.  If you want a model just look at the Dutch giving up to the Germans.  We call the French "The Surrender Monkeys" but the Dutch beat them seven ways to Sunday.
> 
> The Jap shitheads didn't do that.  Instead they fought to almost the last man at Okinawa.  They also crashed their airplanes into our ships inflicting very heavy casualties.  They even talked many of the civilians into committing suicide rather than give up to the Americans.
> 
> If they had any intentions of negotiating any agreement they sure as hell blew it and that is why we fire bombed their cities and then nuked them.
> 
> Stop being an apologist for the filthy ass Japs.  It just makes you look like an idiot.
Click to expand...

You are obviously a racist and a bigot. That then means you’re dumb. Please do not address me again.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Dirty Harry won the war, then he massacred thousands of defenseless women and children of a defeated nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Truman acted presidential.  He saved hundreds of thousands of Americans from torture and death at the hands of power-crazed Japanese warlords.  But I would hardly expect a power-crazed liberal to comprehend the importance of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Long ago proven to be nothing but propaganda.
Click to expand...

And yet you can not link to a single source that lists any of these supposed surrender offers. You claim there are a bunch I will settle for a link to just one.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Dirty Harry won the war, then he massacred thousands of defenseless women and children of a defeated nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Truman acted presidential.  He saved hundreds of thousands of Americans from torture and death at the hands of power-crazed Japanese warlords.  But I would hardly expect a power-crazed liberal to comprehend the importance of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Long ago proven to be nothing but propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single source that lists any of these supposed surrender offers. You claim there are a bunch I will settle for a link to just one.
Click to expand...

I’m guessing you’ve got dementia because several posters including me, have posted links for you to read. You can read, right?


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He can't because they were hell bent on fighting until the last man.  They proved it on Okinawa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting to the last man is not looking to surrender as it has been suggested on this thread.
> 
> If the Japs didn't want to get nuked all they had to do was give it up.  They were stupid.  They made the wrong choice and paid for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Are you capable of thinking?  Do you know how surrendering works. Both antagonists must agree. Jesus
> 
> The Japanese people fighting knew nothing of their government’s efforts to surrender. They were merely trying to protect their country, just as Americans would.
> 
> Since both Stalin’s Stooge and Dirty Harry stupidly demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese assumed the US would hang the emperor. All they asked of Dirty Harry is leave the emperor alone. He didn’t agree with those terms until AFTER he incinerated all those defenseless women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused
> 
> You surrender by putting up your hands and saying "I give up".  It ain't rocket science.  If you want a model just look at the Dutch giving up to the Germans.  We call the French "The Surrender Monkeys" but the Dutch beat them seven ways to Sunday.
> 
> The Jap shitheads didn't do that.  Instead they fought to almost the last man at Okinawa.  They also crashed their airplanes into our ships inflicting very heavy casualties.  They even talked many of the civilians into committing suicide rather than give up to the Americans.
> 
> If they had any intentions of negotiating any agreement they sure as hell blew it and that is why we fire bombed their cities and then nuked them.
> 
> Stop being an apologist for the filthy ass Japs.  It just makes you look like an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are obviously a racist and a bigot. That then means you’re dumb. Please do not address me again.
Click to expand...



You are using the race card when you couldn't address my points?

LOL! typical.

PS.  Japan is a country, not a race.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Dirty Harry won the war, then he massacred thousands of defenseless women and children of a defeated nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Truman acted presidential.  He saved hundreds of thousands of Americans from torture and death at the hands of power-crazed Japanese warlords.  But I would hardly expect a power-crazed liberal to comprehend the importance of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Long ago proven to be nothing but propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single source that lists any of these supposed surrender offers. You claim there are a bunch I will settle for a link to just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m guessing you’ve got dementia because several posters including me, have posted links for you to read. You can read, right?
Click to expand...

You have NEVER posted a link that shows a single one of these supposed offers just links to a book where it is claimed some were made, If you can not link to any such offer then yes I am calling you a liar. And Mac Aurther and anyone else that claims any such offer was made.


----------



## gipper

Flash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He can't because they were hell bent on fighting until the last man.  They proved it on Okinawa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting to the last man is not looking to surrender as it has been suggested on this thread.
> 
> If the Japs didn't want to get nuked all they had to do was give it up.  They were stupid.  They made the wrong choice and paid for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Are you capable of thinking?  Do you know how surrendering works. Both antagonists must agree. Jesus
> 
> The Japanese people fighting knew nothing of their government’s efforts to surrender. They were merely trying to protect their country, just as Americans would.
> 
> Since both Stalin’s Stooge and Dirty Harry stupidly demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese assumed the US would hang the emperor. All they asked of Dirty Harry is leave the emperor alone. He didn’t agree with those terms until AFTER he incinerated all those defenseless women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused
> 
> You surrender by putting up your hands and saying "I give up".  It ain't rocket science.  If you want a model just look at the Dutch giving up to the Germans.  We call the French "The Surrender Monkeys" but the Dutch beat them seven ways to Sunday.
> 
> The Jap shitheads didn't do that.  Instead they fought to almost the last man at Okinawa.  They also crashed their airplanes into our ships inflicting very heavy casualties.  They even talked many of the civilians into committing suicide rather than give up to the Americans.
> 
> If they had any intentions of negotiating any agreement they sure as hell blew it and that is why we fire bombed their cities and then nuked them.
> 
> Stop being an apologist for the filthy ass Japs.  It just makes you look like an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are obviously a racist and a bigot. That then means you’re dumb. Please do not address me again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are using the race card when you couldn't address my points?
> 
> LOL! typical.
> 
> PS.  Japan is a country, not a race.
Click to expand...

Okay now I know you’re dumb. You referred to Japanese as Jap shitheads and filthy assed Japs. Do you know what this means?

BANNED.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Dirty Harry won the war, then he massacred thousands of defenseless women and children of a defeated nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Truman acted presidential.  He saved hundreds of thousands of Americans from torture and death at the hands of power-crazed Japanese warlords.  But I would hardly expect a power-crazed liberal to comprehend the importance of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Long ago proven to be nothing but propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single source that lists any of these supposed surrender offers. You claim there are a bunch I will settle for a link to just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m guessing you’ve got dementia because several posters including me, have posted links for you to read. You can read, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER posted a link that shows a single one of these supposed offers just links to a book where it is claimed some were made, If you can not link to any such offer then yes I am calling you a liar. And Mac Aurther and anyone else that claims any such offer was made.
Click to expand...

Now I know you have dementia or is it Alzheimer’s?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He can't because they were hell bent on fighting until the last man.  They proved it on Okinawa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting to the last man is not looking to surrender as it has been suggested on this thread.
> 
> If the Japs didn't want to get nuked all they had to do was give it up.  They were stupid.  They made the wrong choice and paid for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Are you capable of thinking?  Do you know how surrendering works. Both antagonists must agree. Jesus
> 
> The Japanese people fighting knew nothing of their government’s efforts to surrender. They were merely trying to protect their country, just as Americans would.
> 
> Since both Stalin’s Stooge and Dirty Harry stupidly demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese assumed the US would hang the emperor. All they asked of Dirty Harry is leave the emperor alone. He didn’t agree with those terms until AFTER he incinerated all those defenseless women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused
> 
> You surrender by putting up your hands and saying "I give up".  It ain't rocket science.  If you want a model just look at the Dutch giving up to the Germans.  We call the French "The Surrender Monkeys" but the Dutch beat them seven ways to Sunday.
> 
> The Jap shitheads didn't do that.  Instead they fought to almost the last man at Okinawa.  They also crashed their airplanes into our ships inflicting very heavy casualties.  They even talked many of the civilians into committing suicide rather than give up to the Americans.
> 
> If they had any intentions of negotiating any agreement they sure as hell blew it and that is why we fire bombed their cities and then nuked them.
> 
> Stop being an apologist for the filthy ass Japs.  It just makes you look like an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are obviously a racist and a bigot. That then means you’re dumb. Please do not address me again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are using the race card when you couldn't address my points?
> 
> LOL! typical.
> 
> PS.  Japan is a country, not a race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay now I know you’re dumb. You referred to Japanese as Jap shitheads and filthy assed Japs. Do you know what this means?
> 
> BANNED.
Click to expand...

Seeing how you are not a mod good luck with that, now where is that link?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Dirty Harry won the war, then he massacred thousands of defenseless women and children of a defeated nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Truman acted presidential.  He saved hundreds of thousands of Americans from torture and death at the hands of power-crazed Japanese warlords.  But I would hardly expect a power-crazed liberal to comprehend the importance of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Long ago proven to be nothing but propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not link to a single source that lists any of these supposed surrender offers. You claim there are a bunch I will settle for a link to just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m guessing you’ve got dementia because several posters including me, have posted links for you to read. You can read, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NEVER posted a link that shows a single one of these supposed offers just links to a book where it is claimed some were made, If you can not link to any such offer then yes I am calling you a liar. And Mac Aurther and anyone else that claims any such offer was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now I know you have dementia or is it Alzheimer’s?
Click to expand...

I see you can not link to one so instead play dumb again no link then yes you are in fact a liar.


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Damn that’s dumb, but lots of dumb Americans agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you can not provide a single source that shows the Japanese tried to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb. All you need is a single Government source that supports your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He can't because they were hell bent on fighting until the last man.  They proved it on Okinawa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting to the last man is not looking to surrender as it has been suggested on this thread.
> 
> If the Japs didn't want to get nuked all they had to do was give it up.  They were stupid.  They made the wrong choice and paid for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Are you capable of thinking?  Do you know how surrendering works. Both antagonists must agree. Jesus
> 
> The Japanese people fighting knew nothing of their government’s efforts to surrender. They were merely trying to protect their country, just as Americans would.
> 
> Since both Stalin’s Stooge and Dirty Harry stupidly demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese assumed the US would hang the emperor. All they asked of Dirty Harry is leave the emperor alone. He didn’t agree with those terms until AFTER he incinerated all those defenseless women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused
> 
> You surrender by putting up your hands and saying "I give up".  It ain't rocket science.  If you want a model just look at the Dutch giving up to the Germans.  We call the French "The Surrender Monkeys" but the Dutch beat them seven ways to Sunday.
> 
> The Jap shitheads didn't do that.  Instead they fought to almost the last man at Okinawa.  They also crashed their airplanes into our ships inflicting very heavy casualties.  They even talked many of the civilians into committing suicide rather than give up to the Americans.
> 
> If they had any intentions of negotiating any agreement they sure as hell blew it and that is why we fire bombed their cities and then nuked them.
> 
> Stop being an apologist for the filthy ass Japs.  It just makes you look like an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are obviously a racist and a bigot. That then means you’re dumb. Please do not address me again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are using the race card when you couldn't address my points?
> 
> LOL! typical.
> 
> PS.  Japan is a country, not a race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay now I know you’re dumb. You referred to Japanese as Jap shitheads and filthy assed Japs. Do you know what this means?
> 
> BANNED.
Click to expand...



LOL.  You are not smart to tell the difference between a country and a race?

I would have said the same thing about the Germans so you can take your race baiting bullshit and cram it.


----------



## gipper

What?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> What?


You are a liar and can not back up a single one of your claims.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ...
> 
> I would have said the same thing about the Germans so you can take your race baiting bullshit and cram it.



And yet you managed to write that without repeating an ethnic slur about Germans over and over like some dimwitted little boy with Tourette's Syndrome.


----------



## Unkotare

Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I would have said the same thing about the Germans so you can take your race baiting bullshit and cram it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you managed to write that without repeating an ethnic slur about Germans over and over like some dimwitted little boy with Tourette's Syndrome.
Click to expand...



My father hated the Germans.

My two uncles that fought in the Pacific hated the Japs.

By way, Jap is nothing more than short for Japanese.  Easier to type. 

Nowadays I have no ill feelings towards either the Japs or the Krauts.


----------



## HenryBHough

gipper said:


> Wrong. Long ago proven to be nothing but propaganda.



Help us understand here...are you channeling Julius or Ethel?


----------



## gipper

HenryBHough said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Long ago proven to be nothing but propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Help us understand here...are you channeling Julius or Ethel?
Click to expand...

Old tactic. Try to be a little more creative.


----------



## HenryBHough

Question too hard?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I would have said the same thing about the Germans so you can take your race baiting bullshit and cram it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you managed to write that without repeating an ethnic slur about Germans over and over like some dimwitted little boy with Tourette's Syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My father hated the Germans.
> 
> My two uncles that fought in the Pacific hated the Jap[anese].
> 
> Nowadays I have no ill feelings towards either the Jap[anese] or the Krauts.
Click to expand...


Still can't control yourself? All out of Haldol?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


I wonder if the grunt can read these words..._.The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. _


----------



## gipper

HenryBHough said:


> Question too hard?


Yes I love traitors.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I would have said the same thing about the Germans so you can take your race baiting bullshit and cram it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you managed to write that without repeating an ethnic slur about Germans over and over like some dimwitted little boy with Tourette's Syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My father hated the Germans.
> 
> My two uncles that fought in the Pacific hated the Jap[anese].
> 
> Nowadays I have no ill feelings towards either the Jap[anese] or the Krauts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still can't control yourself? All out of Haldol?
Click to expand...



LOL! You are obsessed with racism, aren't you?

Jap is short for Japanese.  Easier to type than the full name.

My uncles hated the slant eyed little Jap bastards as much as my father hated the filthy ass Nazi Krauts and he was of German ancestry.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the grunt can read these words..._.The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. _
Click to expand...

I have listed what they offered via the Soviets, a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China, that was no offer to surrender, further no occupation and no repercussions to Japan.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the grunt can read these words..._.The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have listed what they offered via the Soviets, a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China, that was no offer to surrender, further no occupation and no repercussions to Japan.
Click to expand...

No. All they asked for was no harm to the emperor, by July 1945. Dirty Harry said fuck you, then he nuked thousands of defenseless women and children and then he said okay.

What a guy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the grunt can read these words..._.The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have listed what they offered via the Soviets, a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China, that was no offer to surrender, further no occupation and no repercussions to Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All they asked for was no harm to the emperor, by July 1945. Dirty Harry said fuck you, then he nuked thousands of defenseless women and children and then he said okay.
> 
> What a guy.
Click to expand...

I have the Government intercept you LYING MORON. They did not offer peace and they did not offer to surrender if the Emperor was retained.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the grunt can read these words..._.The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have listed what they offered via the Soviets, a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China, that was no offer to surrender, further no occupation and no repercussions to Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All they asked for was no harm to the emperor, by July 1945. Dirty Harry said fuck you, then he nuked thousands of defenseless women and children and then he said okay.
> 
> What a guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the Government intercept you LYING MORON. They did not offer peace and they did not offer to surrender if the Emperor was retained.
Click to expand...

You dumb grunt. Stop posting. You know nothing.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ...
> 
> Jap [sic] is short for Japanese.  Easier to type than the full name.
> ...


Bullcrap. It is an ethnic slur. It was understood to be an ethnic slur in the 1940s, and it is understood to be an ethnic slur today. Undertaking the grueling task of typing 5 more letters will probably not give you a stroke.

At least have the sack to be honest about what you're doing. This playing coy nonsense is weak.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the grunt can read these words..._.The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have listed what they offered via the Soviets, a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China, that was no offer to surrender, further no occupation and no repercussions to Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All they asked for was no harm to the emperor, by July 1945. Dirty Harry said fuck you, then he nuked thousands of defenseless women and children and then he said okay.
> 
> What a guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the Government intercept you LYING MORON. They did not offer peace and they did not offer to surrender if the Emperor was retained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt. Stop posting. You know nothing.
Click to expand...

LOL I have the intercepts from Japan to the soviets retard. I have posted them in this thread before and can again but why bother you are too damn stupid to know you have been lied too,


----------



## Unkotare

archive.ph


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> archive.ph


LOL did you read it? It says what I said they offered. No actual surrender return to 41 start lines and NO consequences for Japan. NO ONE was going to accept that offer EVER.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
Click to expand...

Who were their "GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY"? Jews? Russians? Martians? They were the part of the Japanese nation. They killed millions of innocent people just for the benefit of the whole Japanese nation. 
And yes, all those people were not "defenseless" - their "GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY" were their defense (and offense, what is more important).


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who were their "GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY"? Jews? Russians? Martians? They were the part of the Japanese nation. They killed millions of innocent people just for the benefit of the whole Japanese nation.
> And yes, all those people were not "defenseless" - their "GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY" were their defense (and offense, what is more important).
Click to expand...

Another one who hasn't bothered to read the thread... ^^^


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who were their "GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY"? Jews? Russians? Martians? They were the part of the Japanese nation. They killed millions of innocent people just for the benefit of the whole Japanese nation.
> And yes, all those people were not "defenseless" - their "GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY" were their defense (and offense, what is more important).
Click to expand...

Our government does that too.  Do you think it’s okay for your children and grandchildren to be massacred because our government murders?


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Bullcrap. It is an ethnic slur.




Only in your racist mind.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap. It is an ethnic slur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your racist mind.
Click to expand...

In reality.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Read the proof they provided above, it says EXACTLY what I said it said, No actual surrender, the Japanese return to the 41 start lines and the war ends. And they Unkotare and gipper have been claiming that is not true, but then he links to a newspaper article that says EXACTLY that.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap. It is an ethnic slur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your racist mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In reality.
Click to expand...



You stupid confused Libtards assign racist motives to everything.

The filthy ass Japs in WWII weren't evil little sonofabitches because of their race.  They were  vile little shitheads because of their political indoctrination.  Not any different than those Kraut White Boys.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap. It is an ethnic slur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your racist mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You stupid confused Libtards ...
Click to expand...



Guess again, boy


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap. It is an ethnic slur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your racist mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...assign racist motives to everything.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



Don’t blame the world when you go out of your way to demonstrate what you are by spewing ethnic slurs over and over and over.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare supports the idea we should have just let the Japanese end the war on their terms, no Occupation no punishment and they keep China and Korea. His own link says so.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> 
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> 
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> 
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> 
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what is revisionist about the lessons that we Americans learned from that Okinawa bloodbath.
> 
> What we learned is that the stupid Japs were going to extract a horrendous price for bringing the end to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> You can argue that it was FDR's interventionist policy that caused the Japs to attack the US.  I would agree with you.  I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  It was none of our business.  It was also wrong for FDR to send millions of troops to Europe when it was the Japs that attacked us.  FDR was an imbecile.
> 
> However, you cannot deny that once total war was under way it was the viciousness of the Japanese  that led to the US kicking their ass so bad, including nuking them.  The lessons of Okinawa was that they were going to extract a heavy price for the end of the war and that nuking them was going to be a much less costlier way to end the war.
> 
> It was their own damn fault.  Don't start something you can't finish.  It was really dumb for the Japs to start a war with a country that had tremendous manpower, industrial capacity and the resources to develop very destructive weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let me get this right, it was none of our business that Japan was using OUR fuel and OUR metal to kill maim rape and murder millions of Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US was the largest oil producer in the world at that time and we cut them off.
> 
> The US has gone to war in the Middle East because our oil supply was threatened.  Remember Kuwait?  That tends to piss a country off.  It sure as hell pissed off the Japs.
> 
> We also had deployed troops right on the Jap's back yard.  Just look what we did when the Soviets put a few troops in Central America.  We invaded Granada to kick them out.  We threatened to go to war when they put missiles in Cuba.
> 
> The Japs were assholes.  No doubt about it.  So were the Germans.  However, I think if we had played our cards differently maybe we could have stayed out of WWII.  We would have been stronger because of it.
> 
> By the way, my father who was an Infantryman in WWII who proudly and courageously served in Europe felt the same way.  He did his duty but felt the politicians that sent him to war were imbeciles.  I think he was right.  Certainly that shithead LBJ that sent me to Vietnam was an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY were assholes.  So their defenseless people deserved to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who were their "GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY"? Jews? Russians? Martians? They were the part of the Japanese nation. They killed millions of innocent people just for the benefit of the whole Japanese nation.
> And yes, all those people were not "defenseless" - their "GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY" were their defense (and offense, what is more important).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our government does that too.  Do you think it’s okay for your children and grandchildren to be massacred because our government murders?
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm a part of the nation, I'm proud of what we've achieved, and I'm responsible for all our 'crimes'. I know, that there are millions who want to massacre us,  our children and grandchildren and I'm ready to massacre them (and their children and grandchildren) first.  We are faithful to our country, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, in crimes and prosperity all the days of our lifes.


----------



## Silver Cat

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare supports the idea we should have just let the Japanese end the war on their terms, no Occupation no punishment and they keep China and Korea. His own link says so.


And I support the idea, that three nuclear bombs would be better than two.


----------



## Quasar44

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war


----------



## gipper

Quasar44 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
Click to expand...

Another dupe.

Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap. It is an ethnic slur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your racist mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...assign racist motives to everything.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t blame the world when you go out of your way to demonstrate what you are by spewing ethnic slurs over and over and over.
Click to expand...



You are as uneducated as gripper.  Japan is a country, not a race.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dupe.
> 
> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.
Click to expand...

You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dupe.
> 
> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?
Click to expand...

Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullcrap. It is an ethnic slur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your racist mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...assign racist motives to everything.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t blame the world when you go out of your way to demonstrate what you are by spewing ethnic slurs over and over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are as uneducated as gripper.  Japan is a country, not a race.
Click to expand...

And?


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dupe.
> 
> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.
Click to expand...

1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
3. Sure, imperial powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dupe.
> 
> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
> 2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
> 3. Sure, imperials powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.
Click to expand...

Obviously all wrong. You know nothing. Stop posting. 

In your delusional world, the response to an attack on a military base is mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children. 

I thought Americans were better than this.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dupe.
> 
> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
> 2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
> 3. Sure, imperials powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously all wrong. You know nothing. Stop posting.
> 
> In your delusional world, the response to an attack on a military base is mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children.
> 
> I thought Americans were better than this.
Click to expand...

You was wrong. We are not "better" (in the understanding of pacifistic freaks). And yes, if anybody (for example, China) think, that we'll not burn hundreds of their cities (and kill many millions of their civilians) in answer of their attack against our military bases on Okinawa and  Guam - they are wrong. We'll do it. 
The life of an American soldier is much more important than the lifes of millions Chinese civilians.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dupe.
> 
> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
> 2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
> 3. Sure, imperials powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously all wrong. You know nothing. Stop posting.
> 
> In your delusional world, the response to an attack on a military base is mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children.
> 
> I thought Americans were better than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You was wrong. We are not "better" (in the understanding of pacifistic freaks). And yes, if anybody (for example, China) think, that we'll not burn hundreds of their cities (and kill many millions of their civilians) in answer of their attack against our military bases on Okinawa and  Guam - they are wrong. We'll do it.
> The life of an American soldier is much more important than the lifes of millions Chinese civilians.
Click to expand...

You are the perfect example of the Dumb American. You’re proud your country massacres defenseless civilians. Ugh. 

I’m assuming you’re a con. I thought cons revered the Founding Fathers. They wouldn’t approve of your blood lust imperialism. Now would they?


----------



## Unkotare

Quasar44 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
Click to expand...

They were not. That is the simplistic notion that too many people have been fed for decades because it avoids the difficult moral problem involved, and implies absolution for the inescapable reality of what was done.


----------



## Unkotare

archive.ph


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> archive.ph


Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.


----------



## Quasar44

Japan was as brutal and murderous as Germany 
We ended the war


----------



## Quasar44

One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “


----------



## Quasar44

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dupe.
> 
> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.
Click to expand...

Wow are you a total ignoramus and lemming


----------



## Quasar44

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dupe.
> 
> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
> 2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
> 3. Sure, imperials powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously all wrong. You know nothing. Stop posting.
> 
> In your delusional world, the response to an attack on a military base is mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children.
> 
> I thought Americans were better than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You was wrong. We are not "better" (in the understanding of pacifistic freaks). And yes, if anybody (for example, China) think, that we'll not burn hundreds of their cities (and kill many millions of their civilians) in answer of their attack against our military bases on Okinawa and  Guam - they are wrong. We'll do it.
> The life of an American soldier is much more important than the lifes of millions Chinese civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the perfect example of the Dumb American. You’re proud your country massacres defenseless civilians. Ugh.
> 
> I’m assuming you’re a con. I thought cons revered the Founding Fathers. They wouldn’t approve of your blood lust imperialism. Now would they?
Click to expand...

Japanese killed tens of millions and we finished them


----------



## Unkotare

Quasar44 said:


> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “


Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?


----------



## Quasar44

Unkotare said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
Click to expand...

No
But the bombs had to fall
Truman the last great Dem


----------



## Quasar44

Too bad we did not nuke Germany but they surrendered


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the grunt can read these words..._.The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have listed what they offered via the Soviets, a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China, that was no offer to surrender, further no occupation and no repercussions to Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All they asked for was no harm to the emperor, by July 1945. Dirty Harry said fuck you, then he nuked thousands of defenseless women and children and then he said okay.
> 
> What a guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have the Government intercept you LYING MORON. They did not offer peace and they did not offer to surrender if the Emperor was retained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb grunt. Stop posting. You know nothing.
Click to expand...


For someone who knows nothing, he sure puts your stupid ass to shame.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

So again for those watching Unkotare and Gipper both claimed I was wrong when I stated that all Japan offered was ceasefire and return to 41 start lines and Now after over 100 pages of claiming I lied, I was wrong, I was a liar, Unkotare posts TWICE the supposed offer made by Japan to surrender, and GUESS what? It is what I said it was an offer for an end to the war by just stopping and returning to 41 start lines, no consequences for Japan at all and they keep Korea and China.


----------



## Unkotare

Quasar44 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.
Click to expand...

Your reading skills are weak, old man.


----------



## HenryBHough

gipper said:


> Yes I love traitors.


Congratulations!

You just won today's "Stating The Obvious" award!


----------



## Quasar44

Unkotare said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

The Japs would have fought to the end .
Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
It had to be done


----------



## Quasar44

Imperial Japan was as bad as Fascist Germany


----------



## toobfreak

mikegriffith1 said:


> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*



My only regret is that we didn't drop 4-5 nukes on Japan after Pearl Harbor.  Pound them back to the stone age for what they did to us!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading skills are weak, old man.
Click to expand...

LOL you didn't actually READ the article did you dumb ass?


----------



## Unkotare

Quasar44 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jap[anese] would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
Click to expand...

That is the soothing myth that has been promulgated for the past 75 years. Casualty numbers for a hypothetical invasion are, by definition, speculative. An invasion was not the only other option than incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic fire. America's military leaders of the day recognized that Japan's military was all but defeated. The civilian population was starving and demoralized. It was a choice but it did not "have to be done."


----------



## Dick Foster

Quasar44 said:


> Imperial Japan was as bad as Fascist Germany


Maybe worse.


----------



## Dick Foster

Unkotare said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jap[anese] would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the soothing myth that has been promulgated for the past 75 years. Casualty numbers for a hypothetical invasion are, by definition, speculative. An invasion was not the only other option than incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic fire. America's military leaders of the day recognized that Japan's military was all but defeated. The civilian population was starving and demoralized. It was a choice but it did not "have to be done."
Click to expand...

Was Okinawa speculation, asshole? 
Truth be told if we had not used the nukes and had invaded Japan in the usual fashion, far more Japanese would likely have died by thier own hand than were killed by both bombs added together. They showed exactly  how they were going to act in Tinian and again in Okinawa. Get a clue, fool.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't drop 4-5 nukes on Japan after Pearl Harbor.  Pound them back to the stone age for what they did to us!
Click to expand...

Do you have a number of civilians you would have liked slaughtered in retaliation for a military strike on a military installation not even in the United States? A military response was certainly called for. Defeating the enemy military was just. Deliberately targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is not what America is about.


----------



## Unkotare

Dick Foster said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jap[anese] would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the soothing myth that has been promulgated for the past 75 years. Casualty numbers for a hypothetical invasion are, by definition, speculative. An invasion was not the only other option than incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic fire. America's military leaders of the day recognized that Japan's military was all but defeated. The civilian population was starving and demoralized. It was a choice but it did not "have to be done."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Okinawa speculation, asshole?
Click to expand...

Want to try and focus on the discussion, champ? The bloodthirsty fdr had the opportunity to pursue peace via the surrender of Japan before Okinawa ever happened. You really think he cared about the lives of American servicemen, asshole? He didn't care about American civilians. He didn't care about the Constitution. He seemed to care a great deal about carrying water for Uncle Joe.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> So again for those watching Unkotare and Gipper both claimed I was wrong when I stated that all Japan offered was ceasefire and return to 41 start lines and Now after over 100 pages of claiming I lied, I was wrong, I was a liar, Unkotare posts TWICE the supposed offer made by Japan to surrender, and GUESS what? It is what I said it was an offer for an end to the war by just stopping and returning to 41 start lines, no consequences for Japan at all and they keep Korea and China.


Do you have Biden Syndrome, old man? Read the article. There is even a list of terms offered - a list identical to the terms we eventually accepted after lackey truman carried out the ghoul fdr's last wishes from hell.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading skills are weak, old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you didn't actually READ the article did you dumb ass?
Click to expand...

One of us did.


----------



## gipper

Quasar44 said:


> Imperial Japan was as bad as Fascist Germany


It’s funny how Americans are so judgmental of other nations, but are completely unaware of the many heinous acts committed by their government. WTF!


----------



## gipper

Quasar44 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dupe.
> 
> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow are you a total ignoramus and lemming
Click to expand...

You don’t know anything other than what the state told you in 4th grade. Get informed.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading skills are weak, old man.
Click to expand...

Now that’s an understatement.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So again for those watching Unkotare and Gipper both claimed I was wrong when I stated that all Japan offered was ceasefire and return to 41 start lines and Now after over 100 pages of claiming I lied, I was wrong, I was a liar, Unkotare posts TWICE the supposed offer made by Japan to surrender, and GUESS what? It is what I said it was an offer for an end to the war by just stopping and returning to 41 start lines, no consequences for Japan at all and they keep Korea and China.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have Biden Syndrome, old man? Read the article. There is even a list of terms offered - a list identical to the terms we eventually accepted after lackey truman carried out the ghoul fdr's last wishes from hell.
Click to expand...

He’s got links from the CIA that he’s really proud of. LOL.


----------



## gipper

Quasar44 said:


> Too bad we did not nuke Germany but they surrendered


What a dumb fuck.


----------



## HenryBHough

It's been too long since..........


----------



## Quasar44

gipper said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 3 days could have been 2 weeks !!!
> The nukes were the only way to save lives and end the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another dupe.
> 
> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like how the Japanese murdered millions in China and the conquered territories, like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender. Imperial powers are all the same, but you’re too dumb to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow are you a total ignoramus and lemming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know anything other than what the state told you in 4th grade. Get informed.
Click to expand...

What trash can nation are you from ??


----------



## Flash

Dick Foster said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jap[anese] would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the soothing myth that has been promulgated for the past 75 years. Casualty numbers for a hypothetical invasion are, by definition, speculative. An invasion was not the only other option than incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic fire. America's military leaders of the day recognized that Japan's military was all but defeated. The civilian population was starving and demoralized. It was a choice but it did not "have to be done."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Okinawa speculation, asshole?
> Truth be told if we had not used the nukes and had invaded Japan in the usual fashion, far more Japanese would likely have died by thier own hand than were killed by both bombs added together. They showed exactly  how they were going to act in Tinian and again in Okinawa. Get a clue, fool.
Click to expand...



They pretty well fucked themselves by playing hard ball.

They thought they were sacrificing for the stupid Emperor but in fact they were setting themselves up to be firebombed and nuked.  Stupid sonofabitches.


----------



## Flash

If nothing else the Japs deserved to be nuked for what they did to Allied POWs.


----------



## Silver Cat

Quasar44 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
Click to expand...

And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars. 
Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading skills are weak, old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you didn't actually READ the article did you dumb ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of us did.
Click to expand...

Here’s more...but the dumb American is incapable of learning or accepting that his nation’s leader committed one of the worst war crimes in world history.  
_*
Today's Gospel-shorthand tells us it was the A-Bomb, and only the A-Bomb, that forced Japan to surrender, but that is not at all what many leading military and political lights of the day believed.*

The following quotations come from Herbert Hoover's history of WWII, Freedom Betrayed:

On August 19, 1945, the AP reported:

Secretary of State ... Byrnes challenged today Japan's argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war.

He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Foreign Commissar Vyacheslaff M. Molotoff informed the Americans and British at the Berlin [Potsdam] Conference, Mr, Byrnes said, that the Japanese had asked to send a delegation to Moscow to seek Russian mediation for the end of the war -- an act that Mr. Byrnes said interpreted as proof of the enemy's recognition of defeat.

On September 20, 1945, Major General Curtis LeMay, who directed the air attacks on Japan, stated to the Associated Press:

*The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war ... The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians coming in and without the atomic bomb*.

Hoover adds: "There were present at this interview two American Generals who were engaged in action against Japan -- General Barney Giles and Brigadier General Emmett O'Donnell -- both of whom agreed with General LeMay."

On October 5, 1945, Admiral Chester Nimitz told the Associated Press "he was convinced that the end of the war would have been the same without the atomic bomb or the entry of the Russians into the war:" On the same day Nimitz told Congress:

*The atomic bomb did not end the war against Japan. The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. ...*

Hoover quotes the memoirs of White House chief of staff Admiral Leahy, who wrote:

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon against 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.

It was my reaction that the scientists and others want to make this test because of the vast sums that had been spent on the project ... 

Here is one final quotation from Admiral Zacharias from How the Far East Was Lost by historian Anthony Kubeck. In a 1950 Look magazine article called "How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender," Zacharias wrote:

The Potsdam declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed and insure our postwar strategic position. Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. ... I contend that the A-bombing of Japan is now known to have been a mistake ... It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds. ...

I could go on, but I think the cracks in the consensus are clear. Bomb-love is blind to the historical record_.
The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Was the A-Bomb the Only Way to Get the Japanese to Surrender?


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
Click to expand...

Dupe


----------



## gipper

Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....

*...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.*


----------



## gipper

toobfreak said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't drop 4-5 nukes on Japan after Pearl Harbor.  Pound them back to the stone age for what they did to us!
Click to expand...




RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading skills are weak, old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you didn't actually READ the article did you dumb ass?
Click to expand...

^^^

Two enormous dumb fucks.

*The political elite implicated in the atomic bombings feared a backlash that would aid and abet the rebirth of horrid prewar "isolationism." Apologias were rushed into print, lest public disgust at the sickening war crime result in erosion of enthusiasm for the globalist project.98 No need to worry. A sea-change had taken place in the attitudes of the American people. Then and ever after, all surveys have shown that the great majority supported Truman, believing that the bombs were required to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, or more likely, not really caring one way or the other.
The War Criminal Harry Truman - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com*


----------



## gipper

I’ve posted this great column by the great Ralph Raico Ph.D multiple times on this message board over the years, but the ignorant American statist never learns.

The War Criminal Harry Truman - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
_*Leo Szilard was the world-renowned physicist who drafted the original letter to Roosevelt that Einstein signed, instigating the Manhattan Project. In 1960, shortly before his death, Szilard stated another obvious truth:

If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them.109

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime worse than any that Japanese generals were executed for in Tokyo and Manila. If Harry Truman was not a war criminal, then no one ever was.*_


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
Click to expand...

Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
2) Nuclear attack;
3) Russia's entry into the war. 
If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
> 
> *...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.*


It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
> 
> *...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.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?
Click to expand...

Read the column, but please don’t get back to me.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> If nothing else the Jap[anese] deserved to be nuked for what they did to Allied POWs.




Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of the day indicating that the use of atomic weapons against civilians was an act of revenge?


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
> 
> *...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.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?
Click to expand...

"[W]*ars cannot be won by destroying women and children" *_*sounds like an argument.*_


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
> 
> *...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.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "[W]*ars cannot be won by destroying women and children" *_*sounds like an argument.*_
Click to expand...

Of course he’s correct, but the dumb American statist is incapable of thinking on his own. The state tells him what to think and he’s happy with that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
Click to expand...

Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
Click to expand...

Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
Click to expand...

Offering a ceasefire  return to 41 start lines and no consequences to Japan is not an offer to surrender.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Offering a ceasefire  return to 41 start lines and no consequences to Japan is not an offer to surrender.
Click to expand...

Of course, you’re wrong. If you could open your closed statist mind, you’d comprehend the truth.


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which says EXACTLY what I said Japan did not offer to surrender they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. You claimed I was wrong about that yet every time you link this it proves I was right. Again NO ONE was going to let Japan simply walk away from all the death murder and destruction they CAUSED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading skills are weak, old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you didn't actually READ the article did you dumb ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of us did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here’s more...but the dumb American is incapable of learning or accepting that his nation’s leader committed one of the worst war crimes in world history.
> 
> _*Today's Gospel-shorthand tells us it was the A-Bomb, and only the A-Bomb, that forced Japan to surrender, but that is not at all what many leading military and political lights of the day believed.*
> 
> The following quotations come from Herbert Hoover's history of WWII, Freedom Betrayed:
> 
> On August 19, 1945, the AP reported:
> 
> Secretary of State ... Byrnes challenged today Japan's argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war.
> 
> He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Foreign Commissar Vyacheslaff M. Molotoff informed the Americans and British at the Berlin [Potsdam] Conference, Mr, Byrnes said, that the Japanese had asked to send a delegation to Moscow to seek Russian mediation for the end of the war -- an act that Mr. Byrnes said interpreted as proof of the enemy's recognition of defeat.
> 
> On September 20, 1945, Major General Curtis LeMay, who directed the air attacks on Japan, stated to the Associated Press:
> 
> *The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war ... The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians coming in and without the atomic bomb*.
> 
> Hoover adds: "There were present at this interview two American Generals who were engaged in action against Japan -- General Barney Giles and Brigadier General Emmett O'Donnell -- both of whom agreed with General LeMay."
> 
> On October 5, 1945, Admiral Chester Nimitz told the Associated Press "he was convinced that the end of the war would have been the same without the atomic bomb or the entry of the Russians into the war:" On the same day Nimitz told Congress:
> 
> *The atomic bomb did not end the war against Japan. The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. ...*
> 
> Hoover quotes the memoirs of White House chief of staff Admiral Leahy, who wrote:
> 
> It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon against 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.
> 
> It was my reaction that the scientists and others want to make this test because of the vast sums that had been spent on the project ...
> 
> Here is one final quotation from Admiral Zacharias from How the Far East Was Lost by historian Anthony Kubeck. In a 1950 Look magazine article called "How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender," Zacharias wrote:
> 
> The Potsdam declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed and insure our postwar strategic position. Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. ... I contend that the A-bombing of Japan is now known to have been a mistake ... It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds. ...
> 
> I could go on, but I think the cracks in the consensus are clear. Bomb-love is blind to the historical record_.
> The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Was the A-Bomb the Only Way to Get the Japanese to Surrender?
Click to expand...


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
> 
> *...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.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "[W]*ars cannot be won by destroying women and children" *_*sounds like an argument.*_
Click to expand...

It is the stupid "argument". There were plenty of wars, won by destroying women and children.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
> 
> *...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.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "[W]*ars cannot be won by destroying women and children" *_*sounds like an argument.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the stupid "argument". There were plenty of wars, won by destroying women and children.
Click to expand...

Which ones?


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Offering a ceasefire  return to 41 start lines and no consequences to Japan is not an offer to surrender.
Click to expand...

Stop lying, old man.


----------



## Unkotare

archive.ph
		



See the list


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

People who say that Japan was not trying to find a way to end the war do not understand Japanese culture and the value they place on honor.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
Click to expand...

1) They didn't try to "surrender". They were searching for the "peace on their terms". 
2) Even if they want to surrender we can accept or not accept it. It is our choice - how merciful we can be that time.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) They didn't try to "surrender". They were searching for the "peace on their terms".
> ...
Click to expand...

Read the fucking link for cryin' out loud.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list


Stupid journalists of Chicago Tribune can't even match the number of the terms. First they wrote about "five unofficial Japanese peace overtures", but then they wrote about 7 terms of capitulation. And yes, actual instrument of surrender was different:


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid journalists of Chicago Tribune can't even match the number of the terms. First they wrote about "five unofficial Japanese peace overtures", but then they wrote about 7 terms of capitulation. ...
Click to expand...

Wow. What is your first language?


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
> 
> *...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.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "[W]*ars cannot be won by destroying women and children" *_*sounds like an argument.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the stupid "argument". There were plenty of wars, won by destroying women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which ones?
Click to expand...

Many of them. Starting from Jewish conquer of the lands of modern Israel and finishing by Kosovo war.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid journalists of Chicago Tribune can't even match the number of the terms. First they wrote about "five unofficial Japanese peace overtures", but then they wrote about 7 terms of capitulation. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. What is your first language?
Click to expand...

What is yours? Can you see the difference between journalist's nonsense and actual instrument of surrender?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) They didn't try to "surrender". They were searching for the "peace on their terms".
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the fucking link for cryin' out loud.
Click to expand...

They won’t. They are all pussies. They can’t accept the truth.


----------



## Dick Foster

Unkotare said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jap[anese] would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the soothing myth that has been promulgated for the past 75 years. Casualty numbers for a hypothetical invasion are, by definition, speculative. An invasion was not the only other option than incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic fire. America's military leaders of the day recognized that Japan's military was all but defeated. The civilian population was starving and demoralized. It was a choice but it did not "have to be done."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Okinawa speculation, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Want to try and focus on the discussion, champ? The bloodthirsty fdr had the opportunity to pursue peace via the surrender of Japan before Okinawa ever happened. You really think he cared about the lives of American servicemen, asshole? He didn't care about American civilians. He didn't care about the Constitution. He seemed to care a great deal about carrying water for Uncle Joe.
Click to expand...

Bullshit! FDR was dead when the bomb was dropped you moron and Truman was president. But FDR was indeed a commie asshole. Still Japan got the nuke, they needed the nuke and they deserved the nuke. Hell they weren't nuked enough and if they hadn't already nuked themselves with Fukushima I'd say we should go and nuke the assholes again. At least till they owned up to all the crap they did back then which the assholes still won't do.


----------



## gipper

Dick Foster said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jap[anese] would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the soothing myth that has been promulgated for the past 75 years. Casualty numbers for a hypothetical invasion are, by definition, speculative. An invasion was not the only other option than incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic fire. America's military leaders of the day recognized that Japan's military was all but defeated. The civilian population was starving and demoralized. It was a choice but it did not "have to be done."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Okinawa speculation, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Want to try and focus on the discussion, champ? The bloodthirsty fdr had the opportunity to pursue peace via the surrender of Japan before Okinawa ever happened. You really think he cared about the lives of American servicemen, asshole? He didn't care about American civilians. He didn't care about the Constitution. He seemed to care a great deal about carrying water for Uncle Joe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit! FDR was dead when the bomb was dropped you moron and Truman was president. But FDR uas indeed a commie asshole. Still Japan got the nuke, they needed the nuke and they deserved the nuke. Hell they weren't nuked enough and if they hadn't already nuked themselves with Fukushima I'd say we should go and nuke the assholes again. At least till they owned up to all the crap they did back then which the assholes still won't do.
Click to expand...

Oh man are you crazy. Seek help.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) They didn't try to "surrender". They were searching for the "peace on their terms".
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the fucking link for cryin' out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They won’t. They are all pussies. They can’t accept the truth.
Click to expand...

1) The article in Chicago Tribune proves nothing. They are well-known liars. Do you have real documents? 

2) Peace with Japan in 1944 means another big war in Pacific in next ten-twenty years. Japan really needed to be crushed, and Japanese minds needed to be formatted in the different way.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

A point of view from an actual historian and a Japanese one at that. Prey tell where is this offer to surrender in his claims?








						Would Japan have surrendered without the atomic bombings?
					

In the United States, generations were taught that Japan would never have surrendered so quickly without use of the atomic bomb and that victory would have required a bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. Japanese students were generally taught a very...




					www.stripes.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) They didn't try to "surrender". They were searching for the "peace on their terms".
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the fucking link for cryin' out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They won’t. They are all pussies. They can’t accept the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) The article in Chicago Tribune proves nothing. They are well-known liars. Do you have real documents?
> 
> 2) Peace with Japan in 1944 means another big war in Pacific in next ten-twenty years. Japan really needed to be crushed, and Japanese minds needed to be formatted in the different way.
Click to expand...

I just quoted a Japanese Historian and at no time has he claimed that Japan actually offered what the two buffoons claim. He was a child in the fire bombing of Tokyo and while he says they may have surrendered with out the A Bombs he does NOT claim what these two claim.  I have asked numerous times for an official Government document that supports their position and the paper claims there is one BU low and BEHOLD none of them actually produce it link to it or quote it.


----------



## Dick Foster

gipper said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jap[anese] would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the soothing myth that has been promulgated for the past 75 years. Casualty numbers for a hypothetical invasion are, by definition, speculative. An invasion was not the only other option than incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in atomic fire. America's military leaders of the day recognized that Japan's military was all but defeated. The civilian population was starving and demoralized. It was a choice but it did not "have to be done."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Okinawa speculation, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Want to try and focus on the discussion, champ? The bloodthirsty fdr had the opportunity to pursue peace via the surrender of Japan before Okinawa ever happened. You really think he cared about the lives of American servicemen, asshole? He didn't care about American civilians. He didn't care about the Constitution. He seemed to care a great deal about carrying water for Uncle Joe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit! FDR was dead when the bomb was dropped you moron and Truman was president. But FDR uas indeed a commie asshole. Still Japan got the nuke, they needed the nuke and they deserved the nuke. Hell they weren't nuked enough and if they hadn't already nuked themselves with Fukushima I'd say we should go and nuke the assholes again. At least till they owned up to all the crap they did back then which the assholes still won't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh man are you crazy. Seek help.
Click to expand...

I may be crazy but I'm not stupid like you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Another book excerpt dealing specifically with all the supposed peace offers. It is a long read but basically it states that at NO time did the big 6 or the Emperor EVER offer peace BEFORE the surrender. All the other attempts were NOT Government sanctioned the only sanctioned attempts were to the Soviets and there they tried to bribe the Soviets into helping them with an offer of alliance against the US.

Did Japan really try to surrender before the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima? - Quora


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Another book excerpt dealing specifically with all the supposed peace offers. It is a long read but basically it states that at NO time did the big 6 or the Emperor EVER offer peace BEFORE the surrender. All the other attempts were NOT Government sanctioned the only sanctioned attempts were to the Soviets and there they tried to bribe the Soviets into helping them with an offer of alliance against the US.
> 
> Did Japan really try to surrender before the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima? - Quora


Why would you believe liars trying to cover up world history’s greatest crime?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another book excerpt dealing specifically with all the supposed peace offers. It is a long read but basically it states that at NO time did the big 6 or the Emperor EVER offer peace BEFORE the surrender. All the other attempts were NOT Government sanctioned the only sanctioned attempts were to the Soviets and there they tried to bribe the Soviets into helping them with an offer of alliance against the US.
> 
> Did Japan really try to surrender before the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima? - Quora
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you believe liars trying to cover up world history’s greatest crime?
Click to expand...

So a Japanese Historian that survived the Tokyo fire bombings is trying to cover up what the US did ehh?


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid journalists of Chicago Tribune can't even match the number of the terms. First they wrote about "five unofficial Japanese peace overtures", but then they wrote about 7 terms of capitulation. And yes, actual instrument of surrender was different:
Click to expand...


Are you kidding? 

If you understood English a little better, it would be obvious to you that "five unofficial Japanese peace overtures" refers to how many times attempts were made to open discussions about a negotiated surrender and "7 terms of capitulation" refers to the terms offered as part of said overtures. You need to go back and start at "Introductory ESL" again.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bomb just for the “ death marches on Americans “
> 
> 
> 
> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs would have fought to the end .
> Millions would die in the  coming US land invasion
> It had to be done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what is worse we don't know, would they have surrendered to our troops or to the Russians? The divided Japan, as divided Germany, would dramatically change scenarios of Korean and Vietnam wars.
> Yes, thousands of Japans died, but millions of them didn't become communists. And it is much better to be dead than red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dupe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Let's play game. There were three main reasons for Japan's surrender in our reality:
> 1) Defeat of their Navy and naval blocade;
> 2) Nuclear attack;
> 3) Russia's entry into the war.
> If we don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Russians capture Sakhalin, Hokkaido and Northern Honshu and create another puppet Communistic state.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except these RETARDS keep claiming Japan offered to surrender to all demands except the Emperor before the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly they did try to surrender as early as 1944, before Stalin’s Stooge died. You’re just too dumb to comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) They didn't try to "surrender". They were searching for the "peace on their terms".
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the fucking link for cryin' out loud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They won’t. They are all pussies. They can’t accept the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) The article in Chicago Tribune proves nothing. They are well-known liars. Do you have real documents?
> ...
Click to expand...

Read the entire thread.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ...
> 
> 2) Peace with Japan in 1944 means another big war in Pacific in next ten-twenty years. ...




More speculation...


----------



## Unkotare

Dick Foster said:


> ...
> Bullshit! FDR was dead when the bomb was dropped ...


No one  has said otherwise, genius.


----------



## Unkotare

Dick Foster said:


> ...Still Japan got the nuke, they needed the nuke and they deserved the nuke. Hell they weren't nuked enough and if they hadn't already nuked themselves with Fukushima I'd say we should go and nuke the assholes again. ...


The actual military leaders of the day did not share your idiotic self-indulgent view of things, little boy. Empty self-indulgence from irrelevant, big mouth nobodies like you on the internet means exactly nothing. Real military leaders then and now do not sacrifice their humanity for a moment of 'crush an empty bud light can on the forehead' masturbatory moment. Grow the fuck up.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid journalists of Chicago Tribune can't even match the number of the terms. First they wrote about "five unofficial Japanese peace overtures", but then they wrote about 7 terms of capitulation. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. What is your first language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is yours? ...
Click to expand...

English.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff said the following....
> 
> *...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.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is nothing but his "feelings". Can you suggest any arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "[W]*ars cannot be won by destroying women and children" *_*sounds like an argument.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the stupid "argument". There were plenty of wars, won by destroying women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them. Starting from Jewish conquer of the lands of modern Israel and finishing by Kosovo war.
Click to expand...

Pick one and prove how it was won mainly due to destroying women and children rather than defeating a foe on the battlefield.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid journalists of Chicago Tribune can't even match the number of the terms. First they wrote about "five unofficial Japanese peace overtures", but then they wrote about 7 terms of capitulation. And yes, actual instrument of surrender was different:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?
> 
> If you understood English a little better, it would be obvious to you that "five unofficial Japanese peace overtures" refers to how many times attempts were made to open discussions about a negotiated surrender and "7 terms of capitulation" refers to the terms offered as part of said overtures. You need to go back and start at "Introductory ESL" again.
Click to expand...

NOT one of those attempts were backed by the ruling 6 and the Emperor remained silent. No offer was made AT all except buy unofficial people with no backing from the people running the Government. And as was evidenced by what they offered after the 1st atomic bomb NONE of them would have ever been official.


----------



## Regent23

It seems only fair that the generation that fights the war should decide on how to fight it, what weapons to use, and how to conduct the war.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
Click to expand...

Again RETARD NONE of those were from the Government of Japan. NONE NADA ZIP. In fact the response from the big 6 after the Atomic bomb first dropped proves NONE of them would have been accepted by the big 6.  Thats like claiming because Ralph down the block offered japan a surrender the Government was some how beholden to honor it.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again RETARD NONE of those were from the Government of Japan. NONE NADA ZIP. In fact the response from the big 6 after the Atomic bomb first dropped proves NONE of them would have been accepted by the big 6.  Thats like claiming because Ralph down the block offered japan a surrender the Government was some how beholden to honor it.
Click to expand...

You don’t understand how propaganda works.  Don’t you think the powers-that-be can’t accept it either?  They knew then and now that they had to cover up the war crime Truman committed. This is why the US military censored all reports and photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They knew the American people would be disgusted by the wanton killing of civilians.

Ralph Raico is much more intelligent than your compromised sources. I’ll believe him since after all, he has the facts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again RETARD NONE of those were from the Government of Japan. NONE NADA ZIP. In fact the response from the big 6 after the Atomic bomb first dropped proves NONE of them would have been accepted by the big 6.  Thats like claiming because Ralph down the block offered japan a surrender the Government was some how beholden to honor it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand how propaganda works.  Don’t you think the powers-that-be can’t accept it either?  They knew then and now that they had to cover up the war crime Truman committed. This is why the US military censored all reports and photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They knew the American people would be disgusted by the wanton killing of civilians.
> 
> Ralph Raico is much more intelligent than your compromised sources. I’ll believe him since after all, he has the facts.
Click to expand...

LOL yup a Japanese man that survived the fire bombings would lie for the US sure thing RETARD.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again RETARD NONE of those were from the Government of Japan. NONE NADA ZIP. In fact the response from the big 6 after the Atomic bomb first dropped proves NONE of them would have been accepted by the big 6.  Thats like claiming because Ralph down the block offered japan a surrender the Government was some how beholden to honor it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand how propaganda works.  Don’t you think the powers-that-be can’t accept it either?  They knew then and now that they had to cover up the war crime Truman committed. This is why the US military censored all reports and photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They knew the American people would be disgusted by the wanton killing of civilians.
> 
> Ralph Raico is much more intelligent than your compromised sources. I’ll believe him since after all, he has the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL yup a Japanese man that survived the fire bombings would lie for the US sure thing RETARD.
Click to expand...

There isn’t a Japanese person alive who would agree with you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again RETARD NONE of those were from the Government of Japan. NONE NADA ZIP. In fact the response from the big 6 after the Atomic bomb first dropped proves NONE of them would have been accepted by the big 6.  Thats like claiming because Ralph down the block offered japan a surrender the Government was some how beholden to honor it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand how propaganda works.  Don’t you think the powers-that-be can’t accept it either?  They knew then and now that they had to cover up the war crime Truman committed. This is why the US military censored all reports and photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They knew the American people would be disgusted by the wanton killing of civilians.
> 
> Ralph Raico is much more intelligent than your compromised sources. I’ll believe him since after all, he has the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL yup a Japanese man that survived the fire bombings would lie for the US sure thing RETARD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There isn’t a Japanese person alive who would agree with you.
Click to expand...

LOL I guess you missed the link to the Japanese Historian ehh?


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again RETARD NONE of those were from the Government of Japan. NONE NADA ZIP. In fact the response from the big 6 after the Atomic bomb first dropped proves NONE of them would have been accepted by the big 6.  Thats like claiming because Ralph down the block offered japan a surrender the Government was some how beholden to honor it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand how propaganda works.  Don’t you think the powers-that-be can’t accept it either?  They knew then and now that they had to cover up the war crime Truman committed. This is why the US military censored all reports and photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They knew the American people would be disgusted by the wanton killing of civilians.
> 
> Ralph Raico is much more intelligent than your compromised sources. I’ll believe him since after all, he has the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL yup a Japanese man that survived the fire bombings would lie for the US sure thing RETARD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There isn’t a Japanese person alive who would agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL I guess you missed the link to the Japanese Historian ehh?
Click to expand...

You’ve been missing links for years on this board. You’ve got some nerve saying that to me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> archive.ph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again RETARD NONE of those were from the Government of Japan. NONE NADA ZIP. In fact the response from the big 6 after the Atomic bomb first dropped proves NONE of them would have been accepted by the big 6.  Thats like claiming because Ralph down the block offered japan a surrender the Government was some how beholden to honor it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand how propaganda works.  Don’t you think the powers-that-be can’t accept it either?  They knew then and now that they had to cover up the war crime Truman committed. This is why the US military censored all reports and photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They knew the American people would be disgusted by the wanton killing of civilians.
> 
> Ralph Raico is much more intelligent than your compromised sources. I’ll believe him since after all, he has the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL yup a Japanese man that survived the fire bombings would lie for the US sure thing RETARD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There isn’t a Japanese person alive who would agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL I guess you missed the link to the Japanese Historian ehh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’ve been missing links for years on this board. You’ve got some nerve saying that to me.
Click to expand...

LOL yet you can not deny that a Japanese Historian that survived the fire bombings of Tokyo disagrees with your ludicrous claims. At NO TIME did the Government of Japan offer to surrender before the 2nd atomic bomb,


----------



## jackflash

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


You're close but did'nt score a homerun. It's not weapons that are immoral. It is war that IS immoral.


----------



## Unkotare

Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Why would you call General McArthur, a true America hero, a liar?


If General McArthur claimed that Japan was set to surrender before the second bomb, then he _is_ a *liar*.


gipper said:


> Are you a commie traitor?


Are you a progressive? Only leftists accuse people of being “racist/communist/etc.” after they’ve been proven wrong.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.


Ironic, since you appear to be the board devout statist. Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor and you cry for them.


----------



## P@triot

Flash said:


> I am a Conservative non interventionists for the most part.  It was wrong for FDR to put sanctions on the Japs for what they were doing in China.  *It was none of our business*.


That is the exact same ignorance used before the attack. After the attack, the entire world said “we should have stopped Hitler sooner”.

Those who are too lazy to study history and learn from it are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.


We were invaded. At Pearl Harbor. Our response was 2 well-deserved nuclear bombs. Get over it already, snowflake.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> ...
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor ...


Say what now?  Care to repeat that, Professor?


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using the race card when you couldn't address my points? LOL! typical.
> 
> PS.  Japan is a country, not a race.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay now I know you’re dumb. You referred to Japanese as Jap shitheads and filthy assed Japs. Do you know what this means?
> 
> BANNED
Click to expand...

Holy shit...aren’t you just the delicate ‘lil flower? Free speech upsets you so much as a statist that you “ban” anyone who exercises it?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> ...
> We were invaded. At Pearl Harbor. ...



You sure about that?


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> Say what now?  Care to repeat that, Professor?
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension isn’t your strong point? Well color me shocked!


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> Say what now?  Care to repeat that, Professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading comprehension isn’t your strong point? ...
Click to expand...


Actually, it is. History and geography are clearly not yours.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> Say what now?  Care to repeat that, Professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading comprehension isn’t your strong point? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it is
Click to expand...

It’s _clearly_ not, Sensei Snowflake


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> Say what now?  Care to repeat that, Professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading comprehension isn’t your strong point? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is. History and geography are clearly not yours.
Click to expand...

Ok how about the Philippines smart guy? Or the Dutch East Indies or the Australian islands? Were those invasions?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> Say what now?  Care to repeat that, Professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading comprehension isn’t your strong point? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s _clearly_ not, Sensei Snowflake
Click to expand...

You’re still not getting this, huh?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> ...
> We were invaded. At Pearl Harbor. ...



One last chance for you to save face. You don’t want to edit that comment?


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic, since you appear to be the board devout statist. Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor and you cry for them.
Click to expand...

No.  The US invaded Japan. Read a second grade history book. It might even have color drawings for you.


----------



## esalla

gipper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic, since you appear to be the board devout statist. Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor and you cry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The US invaded Japan. Read a second grade history book. It might even have color drawings for you.
Click to expand...

Japan attacked the USA and declared war on the USA.

Really try reading a history book sometime


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.
> 
> 
> 
> We were invaded. At Pearl Harbor. Our response was 2 well-deserved nuclear bombs. Get over it already, snowflake.
Click to expand...

Once again, comparing the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base in which 2,000 military personnel died, to the a-bombings of defenseless women and children mass murdering 200,000, is pure unadulterated ignorance.


----------



## gipper

esalla said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic, since you appear to be the board devout statist. Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor and you cry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The US invaded Japan. Read a second grade history book. It might even have color drawings for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan attacked the USA and declared war on the USA.
> 
> Really try reading a history book sometime
Click to expand...

You mean you don’t know the US invaded Japan. Wow?


----------



## esalla

gipper said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic, since you appear to be the board devout statist. Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor and you cry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The US invaded Japan. Read a second grade history book. It might even have color drawings for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan attacked the USA and declared war on the USA.
> 
> Really try reading a history book sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you don’t know the US invaded Japan. Wow?
Click to expand...

Actually retard my father went up the beach on Okinawa, so you can go fuck yourself commy

Too bad the slant eyes surrendered on their knees because Tokyo was next

I got great pics of my father in law on Leyte, he is the one with the flag


----------



## gipper

esalla said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic, since you appear to be the board devout statist. Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor and you cry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The US invaded Japan. Read a second grade history book. It might even have color drawings for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan attacked the USA and declared war on the USA.
> 
> Really try reading a history book sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you don’t know the US invaded Japan. Wow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually retard my father went up the beach on Okinawa, so you can go fuck yourself commy
> 
> Too bad the slant eyes surrendered on their knees because Tokyo was next
Click to expand...

So you are aware the US invaded Japan. Good for you. We are making progress.

You can go back to bed now. You need your rest.


----------



## esalla

gipper said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic, since you appear to be the board devout statist. Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor and you cry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The US invaded Japan. Read a second grade history book. It might even have color drawings for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan attacked the USA and declared war on the USA.
> 
> Really try reading a history book sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you don’t know the US invaded Japan. Wow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually retard my father went up the beach on Okinawa, so you can go fuck yourself commy
> 
> Too bad the slant eyes surrendered on their knees because Tokyo was next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are aware the US invaded Japan. Good for you. We are making progress.
> 
> You can go back to bed now. You need your rest.
Click to expand...

My father in law says do you want your flag back little piggy?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor




Anyone want to tell shit for brains that Pearl Harbor was not in the US at the time?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to tell shit for brains that Pearl Harbor was not in the US at the time?
Click to expand...

It won’t do any good.


----------



## esalla

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to tell shit for brains that Pearl Harbor was not in the US at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won’t do any good.
Click to expand...

So says Duke Nukem


----------



## gipper

esalla said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to tell shit for brains that Pearl Harbor was not in the US at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won’t do any good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So says Duke Nukem
Click to expand...

BANNED.


----------



## esalla

gipper said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to tell shit for brains that Pearl Harbor was not in the US at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won’t do any good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So says Duke Nukem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BANNED.
Click to expand...


So you have no argument at all.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic, since you appear to be the board devout statist. Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor and you cry for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The US invaded Japan. Read a second grade history book. It might even have color drawings for you.
Click to expand...

LOL ya Japan did NOT suprise attack the US at Hawaii Guam and the Philippines and Wake, they did not attack Britain France and the Dutch East Indies, damn where did you learn your history from? Good god I knew you were ignorant BUT this takes the cake, you LITERALLY could not be more stupid about ww2 History, what next gonna claim Poland invaded Germany?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded. Think. Please think.
> 
> 
> 
> We were invaded. At Pearl Harbor. Our response was 2 well-deserved nuclear bombs. Get over it already, snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, comparing the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base in which 2,000 military personnel died, to the a-bombings of defenseless women and children mass murdering 200,000, is pure unadulterated ignorance.
Click to expand...

Ya I mean Japan ONLY attacked Pearl harbor they did not invade and murder millions in China the Philippines ( a US POSSESSION) Wake Guam Dutch east Indies Malaysia Indochina and the Borneo Islands. Keep proving just how FUCKING STUPID you are.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to tell shit for brains that Pearl Harbor was not in the US at the time?
Click to expand...

Hey STUPID it was a US Territory just Like Guam and the Philippines and even Wake. That means it was IN FACT part of the US.


----------



## Regent23

Let us suppose that the A bombs were not  used, and America went ahead with it's plan to invade Japan. When the tremendous American casualties predicted came to pass with the invasion and then America discovered we had a couple of bombs that would have ended the war with no invasion, I wonder how America and all those new Gold Star mothers and the public would have reacted? I also wonder how many more Japanese women men and children would have been killed with our invasion than the A bombs?


----------



## Unkotare

Regent23 said:


> Let us suppose that the A bombs were not  used, and America went ahead with it's plan to invade Japan. ...



Those were not the only two options.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us suppose that the A bombs were not  used, and America went ahead with it's plan to invade Japan. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were not the only two options.
Click to expand...

Answer the question poop boy, how was Hawaii NOT part of the US, How was Guam NOT part of the US, How was the Philippines NOT part of the US, How was Wake NOT part of the US?


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to tell shit for brains that Pearl Harbor was not in the US at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey STUPID it was a US Territory just Like Guam and the Philippines and even Wake. That means it was IN FACT part of the US.
Click to expand...


I find it absolutely amazing that so many apologists for one of the nations responsible for the most deaths in history really do not care how many millions of "little brown people" are killed.  They are apparently not "real White Americans", so they could not give a fuck about them.

It is no wonder that I regard them with complete contempt.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Mushroom said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan literally invaded the U.S. at Pearl Harbor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to tell shit for brains that Pearl Harbor was not in the US at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey STUPID it was a US Territory just Like Guam and the Philippines and even Wake. That means it was IN FACT part of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it absolutely amazing that so many apologists for one of the nations responsible for the most deaths in history really do not care how many millions of "little brown people" are killed.  They are apparently not "real White Americans", so they could not give a fuck about them.
> 
> It is no wonder that I regard them with complete contempt.
Click to expand...

Poop boy does this all through the thread makes ignorant claims gets called on them disappears for a couple days and comes back and makes the same claims again.


----------



## Mushroom

gipper said:


> Once again, comparing the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base in which 2,000 military personnel died, to the a-bombings of defenseless women and children mass murdering 200,000, is pure unadulterated ignorance.



Of course, Japan was full of innocents as we all know.  I suppose the Rape of Nanking never happened.  And half a million or more were not butchered in that attack.

Of course, we also have first hand accounts of that atrocity.  Warning first, this is a very brutal and graphic description that follows.



> During the Japanese reign of terror in Nanking – which, by the way, continues to this day to a considerable degree – the Reverend John Magee, a member of the American Episcopal Church Mission who has been here for almost a quarter of a century, took motion pictures that eloquently bear witness to the atrocities committed by the Japanese.… One will have to wait and see whether the highest officers in the Japanese army succeed, as they have indicated, in stopping the activities of their troops, which continue even today.
> 
> On December 13, about 30 soldiers came to a Chinese house at No. 5 Hsing Lu Koo in the southeastern part of Nanking, and demanded entrance. The door was open by the landlord, a Mohammedan named Ha. They killed him immediately with a revolver and also Mrs. Ha, who knelt before them after Ha's death, begging them not to kill anyone else. Mrs. Ha asked them why they killed her husband and they shot her. Mrs. Hsia was dragged out from under a table in the guest hall where she had tried to hide with her 1 year old baby. After being stripped and raped by one or more men, she was bayoneted in the chest, and then had a bottle thrust into her vagina. The baby was killed with a bayonet. Some soldiers then went to the next room, where Mrs. Hsia's parents, aged 76 and 74, and her two daughters aged 16 and 14 [were]. They were about to rape the girls when the grandmother tried to protect them. The soldiers killed her with a revolver. The grandfather grasped the body of his wife and was killed. The two girls were then stripped, the elder being raped by 2–3 men, and the younger by 3. The older girl was stabbed afterwards and a cane was rammed in her vagina. The younger girl was bayoneted also but was spared the horrible treatment that had been meted out to her sister and mother. The soldiers then bayoneted another sister of between 7–8, who was also in the room. The last murders in the house were of Ha's two children, aged 4 and 2 respectively. The older was bayoneted and the younger split down through the head with a sword.



And before anybody even tries to scream this is a lie, let's examine the source.

This is a letter to the Foreign Minister of Germany in Berlin.  Written and sent by the Legation Secretary of the German Embassy.  Georg Rosen, one of several Germans who helped set up the Nanking Safety Zone.  Even the German diplomats and citizens were sickened at the behavior of their own "Allies" during that atrocity.

Does anybody really think a German Diplomat would lie about such things in a private letter to his own Foreign Minister?


----------



## gipper

Mushroom said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, comparing the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base in which 2,000 military personnel died, to the a-bombings of defenseless women and children mass murdering 200,000, is pure unadulterated ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, Japan was full of innocents as we all know.  I suppose the Rape of Nanking never happened.  And half a million or more were not butchered in that attack.
> 
> Of course, we also have first hand accounts of that atrocity.  Warning first, this is a very brutal and graphic description that follows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the Japanese reign of terror in Nanking – which, by the way, continues to this day to a considerable degree – the Reverend John Magee, a member of the American Episcopal Church Mission who has been here for almost a quarter of a century, took motion pictures that eloquently bear witness to the atrocities committed by the Japanese.… One will have to wait and see whether the highest officers in the Japanese army succeed, as they have indicated, in stopping the activities of their troops, which continue even today.
> 
> On December 13, about 30 soldiers came to a Chinese house at No. 5 Hsing Lu Koo in the southeastern part of Nanking, and demanded entrance. The door was open by the landlord, a Mohammedan named Ha. They killed him immediately with a revolver and also Mrs. Ha, who knelt before them after Ha's death, begging them not to kill anyone else. Mrs. Ha asked them why they killed her husband and they shot her. Mrs. Hsia was dragged out from under a table in the guest hall where she had tried to hide with her 1 year old baby. After being stripped and raped by one or more men, she was bayoneted in the chest, and then had a bottle thrust into her vagina. The baby was killed with a bayonet. Some soldiers then went to the next room, where Mrs. Hsia's parents, aged 76 and 74, and her two daughters aged 16 and 14 [were]. They were about to rape the girls when the grandmother tried to protect them. The soldiers killed her with a revolver. The grandfather grasped the body of his wife and was killed. The two girls were then stripped, the elder being raped by 2–3 men, and the younger by 3. The older girl was stabbed afterwards and a cane was rammed in her vagina. The younger girl was bayoneted also but was spared the horrible treatment that had been meted out to her sister and mother. The soldiers then bayoneted another sister of between 7–8, who was also in the room. The last murders in the house were of Ha's two children, aged 4 and 2 respectively. The older was bayoneted and the younger split down through the head with a sword.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And before anybody even tries to scream this is a lie, let's examine the source.
> 
> This is a letter to the Foreign Minister of Germany in Berlin.  Written and sent by the Legation Secretary of the German Embassy.  Georg Rosen, one of several Germans who helped set up the Nanking Safety Zone.  Even the German diplomats and citizens were sickened at the behavior of their own "Allies" during that atrocity.
> 
> Does anybody really think a German Diplomat would lie about such things in a private letter to his own Foreign Minister?
Click to expand...

Yes...the old kill those dirty innocent defenseless Japanese WOMEN AND CHILDREN because the Japanese military committed heinous acts.

Can’t fix stupid.


----------



## gipper

Regent23 said:


> Let us suppose that the A bombs were not  used, and America went ahead with it's plan to invade Japan. When the tremendous American casualties predicted came to pass with the invasion and then America discovered we had a couple of bombs that would have ended the war with no invasion, I wonder how America and all those new Gold Star mothers and the public would have reacted? I also wonder how many more Japanese women men and children would have been killed with our invasion than the A bombs?


As has been proven, your premise is bull shit. There was no need to invade and no need to drop the bombs. They were done.  Accept their surrender and go home.


----------



## Regent23

gipper said:


> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us suppose that the A bombs were not  used, and America went ahead with it's plan to invade Japan. When the tremendous American casualties predicted came to pass with the invasion and then America discovered we had a couple of bombs that would have ended the war with no invasion, I wonder how America and all those new Gold Star mothers and the public would have reacted? I also wonder how many more Japanese women men and children would have been killed with our invasion than the A bombs?
> 
> 
> 
> As has been proven, your premise is bull shit. There was no need to invade and no need to drop the bombs. They were done.  Accept their surrender and go home.
Click to expand...

So when did Japan surrender after  the bombs were dropped or after  we invaded?


----------



## gipper

Regent23 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us suppose that the A bombs were not  used, and America went ahead with it's plan to invade Japan. When the tremendous American casualties predicted came to pass with the invasion and then America discovered we had a couple of bombs that would have ended the war with no invasion, I wonder how America and all those new Gold Star mothers and the public would have reacted? I also wonder how many more Japanese women men and children would have been killed with our invasion than the A bombs?
> 
> 
> 
> As has been proven, your premise is bull shit. There was no need to invade and no need to drop the bombs. They were done.  Accept their surrender and go home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when did Japan surrender after  the bombs were dropped or after  we invaded?
Click to expand...

Lol


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...   I suppose the Rape of Nanking never happened. ...


So, the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in revenge for Nanking? Got a link to anything proving that? A quote from any military or political leader indicating that?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...  And half a million or more were not butchered in that attack.
> ...



In which attack?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us suppose that the A bombs were not  used, and America went ahead with it's plan to invade Japan. When the tremendous American casualties predicted came to pass with the invasion and then America discovered we had a couple of bombs that would have ended the war with no invasion, I wonder how America and all those new Gold Star mothers and the public would have reacted? I also wonder how many more Japanese women men and children would have been killed with our invasion than the A bombs?
> 
> 
> 
> As has been proven, your premise is bull shit. There was no need to invade and no need to drop the bombs. They were done.  Accept their surrender and go home.
Click to expand...

Again RETARD they never offered to surrender, or be specific now and LINK to a source where the 6 men that ran the Government of Japan offered a surrender BEFORE the Emperor ordered it done.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  And half a million or more were not butchered in that attack.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which attack?
Click to expand...

Answer the question, WHO declared war on whom? Who invaded WHOM? Which actual Government, you know the big 6, offered to surrender, LINK to an actual offer made by these men that ran the Government.


----------



## eagle1462010

Jesus this wanker thread is still going............OMFG

Hey..............it's over .........they started it.............and LOST.......

Now people whine.......look what the Americans did...........well they picked a fight they couldn't win.......cry to your mother.


----------



## Regent23

During the campaign to retake Manila: little Filipino girls would try to bring water to the American GI's and the Japanese would shoot them.
Just little girls trying to help Americans retake their homeland.


----------



## HenryBHough

Orientals are supposed to be damn smart.

So North Koreans and Chinks are suddenly NOT orientals?

Obviously they've learned nothing.

Perhaps an experiment to find out if they are capable of learning?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.
Click to expand...

Exactly,we’ll said,gives standing ovation,could not have said it better myself.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Flash said:


> Who gives a fuck?  They were a murderous nation back then.  As bad as the Nazis.


  We can always count on you for comedy.lol


----------



## Mac-7

sparky said:


> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals


Without the atomic bomb an invasion would be necessary and even more japanese would have died


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward.


Japan would never have surrendered

they had to be defeated


----------



## Flash

Mac-7 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan would never have surrendered
> 
> they had to be defeated
Click to expand...



They proved that at Okinawa and that is why we really nuked them.

The stupid little bastards thought they were sacrificing to the Emperor but in fact they were sealing their own fate.


----------



## Mushroom

Here is a real question I have, and ultimately it all boils down to one thing.

In order to defeat Germany, we not only had to stomp through the entire country from 2 directions, we quite literally had to pound on the door of the hole their leader was hiding in.  Only at that time did he do the world a favor and assume room temperature and the war ended.

For Italy it was the same thing.  We had to stomp all the way through the country.  Their leader, Ill Douche had to loose his office twice, and the Italians did not surrender until after he was turned into a very pretty light ornament.

Now why in the hell would anybody be so stupid as to believe that Japan would somehow magically surrender, when not a single soldier had yet to even set foot on their home islands?

It makes absolutely no sense.  It defies all logic.  In fact, to me only an incredibly retarded person could ever believe such a thing.  Either that, or somebody that does not give a fuck about things like facts and only wants others to believe what they want for other reasons.

But I would love for somebody to try and explain it to me why both Germany and Italy (and almost every other nation in history) literally had to have their teeth kicked in at home before they surrendered.  Yet somehow, Japan was going to be different.  That somehow we had shown ourselves to all-powerful that they were just going to up and quit.  Because...???

Needless to say, ultimately I find the other side of the coin is really rather racist.  That they just "know" that Japan "could not stand up to" what was coming, so was going to throw in the towel before a single Marine landed.

Yea, that is the kind of bedtime story I used to tell my son.  When he was 3.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> Here is a real question I have, and ultimately it all boils down to one thing.
> 
> In order to defeat Germany, we not only had to stomp through the entire country from 2 directions, we quite literally had to pound on the door of the hole their leader was hiding in.  Only at that time did he do the world a favor and assume room temperature and the war ended.
> 
> For Italy it was the same thing.  We had to stomp all the way through the country.  Their leader, Ill Douche had to loose his office twice, and the Italians did not surrender until after he was turned into a very pretty light ornament.
> 
> Now why in the hell would anybody be so stupid as to believe that Japan would somehow magically surrender, when not a single soldier had yet to even set foot on their home islands?
> 
> It makes absolutely no sense.  It defies all logic.  In fact, to me only an incredibly retarded person could ever believe such a thing.  Either that, or somebody that does not give a fuck about things like facts and only wants others to believe what they want for other reasons.
> 
> But I would love for somebody to try and explain it to me why both Germany and Italy (and almost every other nation in history) literally had to have their teeth kicked in at home before they surrendered.  Yet somehow, Japan was going to be different.  That somehow we had shown ourselves to all-powerful that they were just going to up and quit.  Because...???
> 
> Needless to say, ultimately I find the other side of the coin is really rather racist.  That they just "know" that Japan "could not stand up to" what was coming, so was going to throw in the towel before a single Marine landed.
> 
> Yea, that is the kind of bedtime story I used to tell my son.  When he was 3.




You seem to be forgetting something


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan would never have surrendered
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Proven by the fact that they DID surrender?


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals
> 
> 
> 
> Without the atomic bomb an invasion would be necessary and even more japanese would have died
Click to expand...


Speculation to hide behind.


----------



## anynameyouwish

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.




you are missing the point completely

i'm guessing you must be a conservative.....


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Proven by the fact that they DID surrender?


It took two nuclear explosions to convince the emperor that surrender was the only option


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Speculation to hide behind.


Your position is also based on speculation


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Unkotare said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals
> 
> 
> 
> Without the atomic bomb an invasion would be necessary and even more japanese would have died
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculation to hide behind.
Click to expand...

Why are we discussing morality of the 1940s? Seems crazy.


----------



## candycorn

anynameyouwish said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are missing the point completely
> 
> i'm guessing you must be a conservative.....
Click to expand...


Try again Columbo.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation to hide behind.
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is also based on speculation
Click to expand...


What speculation do you imagine you see?


----------



## Unkotare

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals
> 
> 
> 
> Without the atomic bomb an invasion would be necessary and even more japanese would have died
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculation to hide behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are we discussing morality of the 1940s? Seems crazy.
Click to expand...


The 1940s was not so long ago. People still understood morality in the 1940s.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proven by the fact that they DID surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> It took two nuclear explosions to convince the emperor that surrender was the only option
Click to expand...

You are ignorant of the facts of history.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Unkotare said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals
> 
> 
> 
> Without the atomic bomb an invasion would be necessary and even more japanese would have died
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculation to hide behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are we discussing morality of the 1940s? Seems crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1940s was not so long ago. People still understood morality in the 1940s.
Click to expand...

Blacks weren’t allowed in MLB until 1947 and it wasn’t easy. To me, the 40s is ancient history


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> What speculation do you imagine you see?


You are speculating that the war would have ended any other way than it did


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> The 1940s was not so long ago. People still understood morality in the 1940s.


War is a dirty brutal business

the japanese are lucky that we dropped the bomb instead of invading


----------



## Unkotare

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals
> 
> 
> 
> Without the atomic bomb an invasion would be necessary and even more japanese would have died
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculation to hide behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are we discussing morality of the 1940s? Seems crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1940s was not so long ago. People still understood morality in the 1940s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks weren’t allowed in MLB until 1947 and it wasn’t easy. To me, the 40s is ancient history
Click to expand...

When there are people from that time still around, it isn't ancient history. It certainly isn't an era lost to the misty shroud of time such that morality was unknown to people of that forgotten epoch.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What speculation do you imagine you see?
> 
> 
> 
> You are speculating that the war would have ended any other way than it did
Click to expand...

No, I am recognizing that there were other possibilities. I am not drawing conclusions like you, illogically, are.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1940s was not so long ago. People still understood morality in the 1940s.
> 
> 
> 
> War is a dirty brutal business
> 
> the japanese are lucky that we dropped the bomb instead of invading
Click to expand...



Do you still think the attack on the US military base at Pearl Harbor was an "invasion"? You never did address that claim of yours.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Unkotare said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals
> 
> 
> 
> Without the atomic bomb an invasion would be necessary and even more japanese would have died
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculation to hide behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are we discussing morality of the 1940s? Seems crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1940s was not so long ago. People still understood morality in the 1940s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks weren’t allowed in MLB until 1947 and it wasn’t easy. To me, the 40s is ancient history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When there are people from that time still around, it isn't ancient history. It certainly isn't an era lost to the misty shroud of time such that morality was unknown to people of that forgotten epoch.
Click to expand...

Very few are still around. It’s ancient history.


----------



## Unkotare

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals
> 
> 
> 
> Without the atomic bomb an invasion would be necessary and even more japanese would have died
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculation to hide behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are we discussing morality of the 1940s? Seems crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1940s was not so long ago. People still understood morality in the 1940s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks weren’t allowed in MLB until 1947 and it wasn’t easy. To me, the 40s is ancient history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When there are people from that time still around, it isn't ancient history. It certainly isn't an era lost to the misty shroud of time such that morality was unknown to people of that forgotten epoch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very few are still around. It’s ancient history.
Click to expand...

If you want to get technical about it, that is nowhere near "ancient history."


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Unkotare said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals
> 
> 
> 
> Without the atomic bomb an invasion would be necessary and even more japanese would have died
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculation to hide behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are we discussing morality of the 1940s? Seems crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1940s was not so long ago. People still understood morality in the 1940s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks weren’t allowed in MLB until 1947 and it wasn’t easy. To me, the 40s is ancient history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When there are people from that time still around, it isn't ancient history. It certainly isn't an era lost to the misty shroud of time such that morality was unknown to people of that forgotten epoch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very few are still around. It’s ancient history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to get technical about it, that is nowhere near "ancient history."
Click to expand...

Hyperbole by me but you know what I mean. The world is a much different place now. We should learn from it but not overly criticize it.


----------



## Unkotare

AzogtheDefiler said:


> ... The world is a much different place now. ...



How so, relative to the topic at hand?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Unkotare said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The world is a much different place now. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so, relative to the topic at hand?
Click to expand...

We just have a lot more knowledge and easier communication skills.


----------



## Unkotare

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The world is a much different place now. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so, relative to the topic at hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We just have a lot more knowledge and easier communication skills.
Click to expand...


If they had our knowledge and communication skills and technology, how do you think that would have affected decisions related to the war?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Unkotare said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The world is a much different place now. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so, relative to the topic at hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We just have a lot more knowledge and easier communication skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they had our knowledge and communication skills and technology, how do you think that would have affected decisions related to the war?
Click to expand...

There likely would not have been a war with Japan. Holocaust would have likely not happened either.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1940s was not so long ago. People still understood morality in the 1940s.
> 
> 
> 
> War is a dirty brutal business
> 
> the japanese are lucky that we dropped the bomb instead of invading
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you still think the attack on the US military base at Pearl Harbor was an "invasion"? You never did address that claim of yours.
Click to expand...

Do you still think Japan did not Invade the US? You still haven't answered that question.


----------



## Unkotare

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The world is a much different place now. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so, relative to the topic at hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We just have a lot more knowledge and easier communication skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they had our knowledge and communication skills and technology, how do you think that would have affected decisions related to the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There likely would not have been a war with Japan. Holocaust would have likely not happened either.
Click to expand...


Interesting. How would the questions of blocking Japanese access to gulf oil and Japan's Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere plan have been prevented? How would global knowledge of Hitler's machinations have stopped his genocidal schemes? I'd like to think you're right, but am curious as to the details.


----------



## airplanemechanic

The idea behind war is to quickly and completely defeat your enemy with the minimal loss of your own troops.

I'd say those nukes did that well.


----------



## airplanemechanic

What I tell the Japs:

Don't start a war you can't finish.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> No, I am recognizing that there were other possibilities. I am not drawing conclusions like you, illogically, are.


Isnt this your headline?

Its drawing conclusions


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Do you still think the attack on the US military base at Pearl Harbor was an "invasion"? You never did address that claim of yours.


I never called the bombing of Pearl Harbor an invasion

but if you need a japanese invasion of IS territory for justification try Wake Island


----------



## Regent23

Generals usually have different goals than the enlisted pukes.  The general's fame rests on winning battles and the enlisted man wants to  get home alive, with all his body parts.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Do you still think the attack on the US military base at Pearl Harbor was an "invasion"? You never did address that claim of yours.



Not at all.

But what happened to the Philippines, Wake, and Guam was undoubtedly w as an invasion.


----------



## Mushroom

AzogtheDefiler said:


> There likely would not have been a war with Japan.



Oh, the war would have happened.

Japan started drafting the plans for the opening shots way back in January 1941.  By March they had built a lagoon that replicated in scale Pearl Harbor, complete with ships (that they moved in and out daily as reports came in as of their movements).

By April the war plan was down to 2 choices, if the attack on Hawaii was to be followed by an amphibious assault and occupation (Genda Plan), or just an attack.  Aviation squadron commanders started doing walkthroughs of the scale lagoon.

By late April, the final plan was decided.

In May, operational orders were being sent to units, individual pilots were starting "walkthroughs" of the lagoon to plan attack routes and profiles.  The mock lagoon was updated daily thanks to updated by Japanese spy Takeo Yoshikawa.







By June, operational planning was in the final stages.  Modified torpedoes were approved for the shallow waters of the harbor and were being modified.

In August, the embargo started.

No, the attack was going to happen, way back in January when it was first drafted it was estimated that it would commence by the end of the year.  They had already made up their minds there would be war, even before the US and UK ran them off from the Dutch East Indies, or the oil embargo.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Mushroom said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There likely would not have been a war with Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the war would have happened.
> 
> Japan started drafting the plans for the opening shots way back in January 1941.  By March they had built a lagoon that replicated in scale Pearl Harbor, complete with ships (that they moved in and out daily as reports came in as of their movements).
> 
> By April the war plan was down to 2 choices, if the attack on Hawaii was to be followed by an amphibious assault and occupation (Genda Plan), or just an attack.  Aviation squadron commanders started doing walkthroughs of the scale lagoon.
> 
> By late April, the final plan was decided.
> 
> In May, operational orders were being sent to units, individual pilots were starting "walkthroughs" of the lagoon to plan attack routes and profiles.  The mock lagoon was updated daily thanks to updated by Japanese spy Takeo Yoshikawa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By June, operational planning was in the final stages.  Modified torpedoes were approved for the shallow waters of the harbor and were being modified.
> 
> In August, the embargo started.
> 
> No, the attack was going to happen, way back in January when it was first drafted it was estimated that it would commence by the end of the year.  They had already made up their minds there would be war, even before the US and UK ran them off from the Dutch East Indies, or the oil embargo.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If we had modern media tech then the US would have known and have been well prepared.


----------



## Mushroom

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I disagree. If we had modern media tech then the US would have known and have been well prepared.



Yea.  And if Pierre Villeneuve  had an aircraft carrier he would not have lost at Trafalgar.

And no, we would not.  That is what OPSEC is all about.  That is why AQ was so effective in 2000-2001.  They knew better than to send electronic messages so everything of importance was hand delivered.

Japan never sent a single radio message about "Operation Z", for this reason.  Everything related to it was hand carry only.  We only knew something was up because the "radio chatter" increased, and the few intercepts we had talked about an operation.  But not where it was to take place.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Mushroom said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If we had modern media tech then the US would have known and have been well prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.  And if Pierre Villeneuve  had an aircraft carrier he would not have lost at Trafalgar.
> 
> And no, we would not.  That is what OPSEC is all about.  That is why AQ was so effective in 2000-2001.  They knew better than to send electronic messages so everything of importance was hand delivered.
> 
> Japan never sent a single radio message about "Operation Z", for this reason.  Everything related to it was hand carry only.  We only knew something was up because the "radio chatter" increased, and the few intercepts we had talked about an operation.  But not where it was to take place.
Click to expand...

I disagree and we ll never know. Many suspected an attack on Pearl Harbor so it wasn’t a shock.


----------



## Unkotare

AzogtheDefiler said:


> If we had modern media tech then the US would have known and have been well prepared.



fdr knew conflict was coming and he did nothing to prepare (or deliberately made sure nothing was done).


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If we had modern media tech then the US would have known and have been well prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.  And if Pierre Villeneuve  had an aircraft carrier he would not have lost at Trafalgar.
> 
> And no, we would not.  That is what OPSEC is all about.  That is why AQ was so effective in 2000-2001.  They knew better than to send electronic messages so everything of importance was hand delivered.
> 
> Japan never sent a single radio message about "Operation Z", for this reason.  Everything related to it was hand carry only.  We only knew something was up because the "radio chatter" increased, and the few intercepts we had talked about an operation.  But not where it was to take place.
Click to expand...


Bull crap. A week before Pearl Harbor a story was published on the front page of the New York Herald Tribune quoting Tojo warning that war was coming in no uncertain terms.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Unkotare said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we had modern media tech then the US would have known and have been well prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fdr knew conflict was coming and he did nothing to prepare (or deliberately made sure nothing was done).
Click to expand...

Yeah and with social media these days he would have never lived it down.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Unkotare said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If we had modern media tech then the US would have known and have been well prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea.  And if Pierre Villeneuve  had an aircraft carrier he would not have lost at Trafalgar.
> 
> And no, we would not.  That is what OPSEC is all about.  That is why AQ was so effective in 2000-2001.  They knew better than to send electronic messages so everything of importance was hand delivered.
> 
> Japan never sent a single radio message about "Operation Z", for this reason.  Everything related to it was hand carry only.  We only knew something was up because the "radio chatter" increased, and the few intercepts we had talked about an operation.  But not where it was to take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull crap. A week before Pearl Harbor a story was published on the front page of the New York Herald Tribune quoting Tojo warning that war was coming in no uncertain terms.
Click to expand...

Yeah but info was slow back then. Now everyone in the US would know in 5 seconds. I just think war is harder to wage these days.


----------



## Regent23

Unkotare said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The world is a much different place now. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so, relative to the topic at hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We just have a lot more knowledge and easier communication skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they had our knowledge and communication skills and technology, how do you think that would have affected decisions related to the war?
Click to expand...

Our bombs would have been more lethal, and would have been delivered in  a different fashion.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

whitehall said:


> The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.


That first sentence with those six words you sole could not be more true about how the victors always get to rewrite history,excellent post on everything you said.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are beyond stupid when you listen to revisionist stories about how Japan was gonna surrender, lets talk FACTS shall we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure
> 
> Truman was as racist as a human being could get, used the N word , and considered Asians _below_ the N word
> 
> Manchuria ,along with Japans back yard was up for grabs
> 
> And the Russians , who offe'd their OWN czar, would have thought nothing of publicly executing an emperor
> 
> Now the Japanese did have quite the squabble among higher up's after Fat man and Little boy debuted, but it was all about a surrender negotiation that had BEEN on the table, vs. one they (the bomb) created for them
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Exactly,you nailed it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LA RAM FAN said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.
> 
> 
> 
> That first sentence with those six words you sole could not be more true about how the victors always get to rewrite history,excellent post on everything you said.
Click to expand...

Simply NOT true. The Japanese were offering to Stalin an alliance against the US if they the Soviets would convince the allies to let Japan get a ceasefire and no consequences for the war. I have linked repeatedly to the facts and people conveniently ignore them. You are either IGNORANT or liars.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Stimson, Secretary of War
> 
> http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is obscenely absurd and revisionist. Stimson didn't even really write that article. He was pressured into "writing" it, and then his "draft" was heavily edited by others. By the time he "wrote" it, he was quite ill.
> 
> Months before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already prostrate, starving, and virtually powerless. The home islands were cut off from China. The Japanese people were approaching the point of starvation. Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attacks. Consider:
> 
> -- 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.
> 
> -- By October 1944, many new fighter pilots were being trained with films instead of live flight training in order to save fuel:
> 
> The Toho Motion Picture Company constructed a lake in Setagaya and filled it with six-foot models of U.S. warships. Atop a tower a movie camera on a boom took pictures of the vessels from various angles, simulating different speeds of approach. These films were shown as a substitute for flight training in order to save fuel. (John Toland, _The Rising Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, _New York: Random House, 2003 Modern Library Paperback Edition, p. 536)​
> -- 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. Many 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 Navy’s 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 air force 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 and the Air Force. 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 in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.
> 
> Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.
> 
> 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)​
> So this nonsense that we had to use nukes to "save hundreds of thousands of lives" is gross revisionism of the basest kind. Again, weeks before Hiroshima, we knew from multiple sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that their only condition was that the emperor not be deposed, which was exactly the arrangement that we later accepted--after we had nuked two cities.
Click to expand...

Excellent stuff there,thanks for posting it,you so much took the revisionist apologists to school there and checkmated them,great job.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

RetiredGySgt said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.
> 
> 
> 
> That first sentence with those six words you sole could not be more true about how the victors always get to rewrite history,excellent post on everything you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply NOT true. The Japanese were offering to Stalin an alliance against the US if they the Soviets would convince the allies to let Japan get a ceasefire and no consequences for the war. I have linked repeatedly to the facts and people conveniently ignore them. You are either IGNORANT or liars.
Click to expand...

This coming from one of the biggest coward lying trolls I know At USMB From Langley who worships  EVERYTHING the government tells him ignoring what credible witnesses  say that we’re there that contradicts the bs lies of the governments lol but according to your warped fucked up logic you always sprout out,the witnesses there to the past events of government corruption are all lying and our corrupt governments version of events that you worship as gospel truth NEVER lie to us. LOL.  Yeah you posted some Government link from Langley your bosses instructed you to do lying troll.lol

Go tell your bs lies like you like to,lie to people all the time about everyday to someone elseou might fool them,you can’t fool me though nor do I ever bother with your bullshit anymore the way you cowardly evade evidence and witness testimony that contradicts the governments version like the coward troll you are never addressing it and pretending experts and witness testimony does not count coward.

You are too idiotic to understand I stopped bothering with feeding you troll Ages ago.


----------



## John T. Ford

I thank God everyday for Harry Truman's decision to drop the Atomic bomb on Japan ...

Hundreds of Thousands of American Lives were spared by his leadership ....

A true American hero .....

It's truly a shame that today's psycho Leftist and history revisionist could not have been included in that death toll ....


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was on the table? Care to enlighten us so that there is at least a bit of revisionist history to converse about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

These revisionist trolls of course won’t watch that  sparky  sense it proves them wrong and they would rather commit suicide rather than ever admitting to being proven wrong.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.
> 
> We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric, but in the Pacific War we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in our air raids on Japanese cities.
> 
> As for Japanese occupation, go read Hildi Kang's book _Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945_. Kang interviewed a large group of Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea and was rather stunned to discover that most of them never experienced cruelty and that quite a few of them said they had no problems with the Japanese. Yes, there were some cases of abuse and cruelty, but these were the exception, not the rule.
> 
> Or, read General Elliott Thorpe's book _East Wind, Rain. _Thorpe was very critical of the Japanese, but even he was willing to admit that the Japanese treated Dutch prisoners from Java better than Sukarno's soldiers treated them.
> 
> When the Japanese took over Korea, they spent billions of dollars building schools, bridges, power grids, water works, roads, etc. Korea's economy improved tremendously under the Japanese, thanks to these investments.
> 
> Similarly, when the Japanese took over Manchuria, they invested billions in infrastructure. Under Japanese rule, Manchuria became an economic miracle and attracted workers from all over Asia because word got out that there were jobs to be had there. Before the Japanese came to Manchuria, the region had been divided into tribal areas ruled by warlords. One of the reasons the Japanese moved on Manchuria was that the Soviets were trying to bring Communism to the region. The Japanese were fiercely anti-communist and pro-private property.
> 
> Now, was Japanese rule in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan identical to American rule in the Philippines? No, it was not. But, it was a whole lot better than Chinese Communist rule, Nazi rule, and Soviet rule.


They of course like to pretend this post is not truthful and that they did not see it mike.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been better if we nuked those heathen Buddhists?
> 
> Again, at the time, it was seen as "just another weapon".  70 million people had died on all sides at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't kill another batch of tens of thousands of civilians of an enemy who you know wants to surrender and who is virtually defenseless and starving. That is just basic human decency, and it is sad that you can't grasp that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your post is a lot of apologetic nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. It is a presentation of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in China - Wikipedia
> 
> According to a 2017 BBC World Service Poll, mainland Chinese people hold the largest anti-Japanese sentiment in the world, with 75% of Chinese people viewing Japan's influence negatively, and 22% expressing a positive view. Anti-Japanese sentiment in China was at its highest in 2014 since the poll was first conducted in 2006 and was up 16 percent over the previous year
> 
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea - Wikipedia
> 
> The origins of anti-Japanese attitudes in Korea can be traced back to the effects of Japanese pirate raids and later to the 1592−98 Japanese invasions of Korea. Sentiments in contemporary society are largely attributed to the Japanese rule in Korea from 1910–45. According to a BBC World Service Poll conducted in 2013, 67% of South Koreans view Japan's influence negatively, and 21% express a positive view, making South Korea, behind mainland China, the country with the second most negative feelings of Japan in the world.[1]
> 
> sorry these folks don't sound particularly grateful...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yeah, given the fact that the Chinese Communists have long been brainwashing the Chinese people with anti-Japanese propaganda, I'm not a bit surprised by those numbers.
> 
> South Korea's anti-Japanese propaganda has not been as bad or as pervasive as China's, which perhaps explains the difference in the survey numbers. Another fact to keep in mind is that after WW II, millions of Koreans emigrated to the United States. So any poll done in South Korea is not going to include those Koreans who moved to America, nor will it include the children of those Koreans who moved to America.
> 
> Again, read Hildi Kang's book _Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945_. Kang interviewed numerous Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea. She expresses surprise that most of them never experienced cruelty. At one point, she asks, "Where are all the atrocities?" It is an eye-opening book.
Click to expand...

Joe has never been able to grasp any of that of course,he just likes to cling to the governments revisionist history No mater how much they have been caught lying.lol


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LA RAM FAN said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.
> 
> 
> 
> That first sentence with those six words you sole could not be more true about how the victors always get to rewrite history,excellent post on everything you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply NOT true. The Japanese were offering to Stalin an alliance against the US if they the Soviets would convince the allies to let Japan get a ceasefire and no consequences for the war. I have linked repeatedly to the facts and people conveniently ignore them. You are either IGNORANT or liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This coming from one of the biggest coward lying trolls I know At USMB From Langley who worships  EVERYTHING the government tells him ignoring what credible witnesses  say that we’re there that contradicts the bs lies of the governments lol but according to your warped fucked up logic you always sprout out,the witnesses there to the past events of government corruption are all lying and our corrupt governments version of events that you worship as gospel truth NEVER lie to us. LOL.  Yeah you posted some Government link from Langley your bosses instructed you to do lying troll.lol
> 
> Go tell your bs lies like you like to,lie to people all the time about everyday to someone elseou might fool them,you can’t fool me though nor do I ever bother with your bullshit anymore the way you cowardly evade evidence and witness testimony that contradicts the governments version like the coward troll you are never addressing it and pretending experts and witness testimony does not count coward.
> 
> You are too idiotic to understand I stopped bothering with feeding you troll Ages ago.
Click to expand...

Go ahead retard link to any attempt by Japanese Government to surrender. One will do. Just one. Remember the Government was the Big 6.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

NOT ONE of the people claiming Japan tried to surrender has EVER linked to ANY communique or statement from the Big 6 EVER. NOT ONE SINGLE LINK, what they do is link to all the attempts by supernumerary's that had no standing with the Government that made offers. These offers are worthless on their face as the US stated by not addressing them. ONLY the big 6 and the Emperor determined what Japan would do. Not some marginalized Ambassador in Europe that was told to shut up by the Government, Not any business man   with absolutely no connection to the Big 6 or the Emperor. Not some low level Government Official with no official link to the Big 6 or the Emperor.

What the Big 6 said after the atomic bombs was WE WILL NOT SURRENDER, now assuming all these supposed offers BEFORE the bombs why would they refuse after? The Big 6 were over ridden by the Emperor after the 2nd Bomb and when he tried to surrender the Army staged a COUP to stop him, they failed. Again one has to ask if the Japanese Government was so hot to surrender why did it take 2 bombs and surviving a Coup attempt for the Emperor to do it?

I have linked to official documents from the US and Japan, I have linked to historians that researched the claims I have even linked to a Japanese Historian that survived the Tokyo Firebombs and he said Japan never attempted to surrender. What  Japan did is try and make a deal with the Soviets to ally with them against the US IF the Soviets would convince the allies to accept a CEASEFIRE return to 41 start lines and NO CONCESSIONS in China.


----------



## Unkotare

75 years as of now...


As human beings, we need to take stock...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You need to actually link to any offer by the JAPANESE Government to surrender.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> fdr knew conflict was coming and he did nothing to prepare (or deliberately made sure nothing was done).



In the weeks prior to the attack, we had added over a division in forces to the Philippines.  The most recent was the 4th Marine Regiment, which arrived just over a week before the attack.

We were still in the process of moving an entire Bomber group to the Philippines, and ha almost doubled the number of fighters.  And more bombers were going there almost as soon as they arrived at Pearl and could be fitted with equipment.

The USS Enterprise was enroute back to Hawaii after delivering a load of WIldcats to Wake.  It was expected that after a few days in Pearl it would steam to the Philippines to deliver more WIldcats there.

The USS Lexington was enroute to Midway with a load of Vindicator bombers.  It's next run was to be to Guam.

The USS Saratoga had completed sea trials after a major refit that morning.  After resupply in San Diego it was to deliver a full deck load of Marine Fighters to Hawaii, for shipment to other islands.

You know, in wake of this massive effort to add more aircraft to every island base we had (and infantry to the Philippines), your claim that nothing was done is proven to be a lie.  Our carriers has been working for over a month, doing nothing but ferry runs.  Racing back and forth from Hawaii to those islands and delivering fighters as fast as they could.

Oh, and everybody should know the story of the 6 B-17 bombers that arrived over Hawaii during the attack.  They were flying "light" from California, the paint barely being dry on them before taking off.  Once in Hawaii they were to have their weapons mounted, then they were to fly to the Philippines.

Holy crap, looks like a hell of a lot was being done to prepare.  Especially in the Philippines.  A Coast Artillery regiment, 2 Tank battalions, a 75mm self propelled howitzer regiment, they had all arrived in the month before the attack.

And enroute already was the 34th Infantry Regiment, 26th Field Artillery Brigade, and 6 other Artillery units, ranging from Battalion to Regimental size.  52 A-24 bombers.  18 P-40 fighters, and the entire 7th Bombardment Group (that is who those B-17s belonged to).  And over 1 million tons of supplies and material, waiting for cargo ships to take it there.

Holy crap, that was going to well over double the size and capabilities of the US forces, and was increasing their air power by almost 4 times.  Yet, nothing was done.

OK, Jon Snow.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Bull crap. A week before Pearl Harbor a story was published on the front page of the New York Herald Tribune quoting Tojo warning that war was coming in no uncertain terms.



And we were already frantically reinforcing the Philippines, Wake, Guam, and Midway.  Had been for well over a month already.

So what exactly is your point here?


----------



## Regent23

LA RAM FAN said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target, a target that happened to have had the largest Christian population of any Japanese city.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been better if we nuked those heathen Buddhists?
> 
> Again, at the time, it was seen as "just another weapon".  70 million people had died on all sides at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't kill another batch of tens of thousands of civilians of an enemy who you know wants to surrender and who is virtually defenseless and starving. That is just basic human decency, and it is sad that you can't grasp that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your post is a lot of apologetic nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. It is a presentation of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in China - Wikipedia
> 
> According to a 2017 BBC World Service Poll, mainland Chinese people hold the largest anti-Japanese sentiment in the world, with 75% of Chinese people viewing Japan's influence negatively, and 22% expressing a positive view. Anti-Japanese sentiment in China was at its highest in 2014 since the poll was first conducted in 2006 and was up 16 percent over the previous year
> 
> Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea - Wikipedia
> 
> The origins of anti-Japanese attitudes in Korea can be traced back to the effects of Japanese pirate raids and later to the 1592−98 Japanese invasions of Korea. Sentiments in contemporary society are largely attributed to the Japanese rule in Korea from 1910–45. According to a BBC World Service Poll conducted in 2013, 67% of South Koreans view Japan's influence negatively, and 21% express a positive view, making South Korea, behind mainland China, the country with the second most negative feelings of Japan in the world.[1]
> 
> sorry these folks don't sound particularly grateful...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yeah, given the fact that the Chinese Communists have long been brainwashing the Chinese people with anti-Japanese propaganda, I'm not a bit surprised by those numbers.
> 
> South Korea's anti-Japanese propaganda has not been as bad or as pervasive as China's, which perhaps explains the difference in the survey numbers. Another fact to keep in mind is that after WW II, millions of Koreans emigrated to the United States. So any poll done in South Korea is not going to include those Koreans who moved to America, nor will it include the children of those Koreans who moved to America.
> 
> Again, read Hildi Kang's book _Under the Black Umbrella: Voices from Colonial Korea, 1910–1945_. Kang interviewed numerous Koreans who lived under Japanese rule in Korea. She expresses surprise that most of them never experienced cruelty. At one point, she asks, "Where are all the atrocities?" It is an eye-opening book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joe has never been able to grasp any of that of course,he just likes to cling to the governments revisionist history No mater how much they have been caught lying.lol
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

RetiredGySgt said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.
> 
> 
> 
> That first sentence with those six words you sole could not be more true about how the victors always get to rewrite history,excellent post on everything you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply NOT true. The Japanese were offering to Stalin an alliance against the US if they the Soviets would convince the allies to let Japan get a ceasefire and no consequences for the war. I have linked repeatedly to the facts and people conveniently ignore them. You are either IGNORANT or liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This coming from one of the biggest coward lying trolls I know At USMB From Langley who worships  EVERYTHING the government tells him ignoring what credible witnesses  say that we’re there that contradicts the bs lies of the governments lol but according to your warped fucked up logic you always sprout out,the witnesses there to the past events of government corruption are all lying and our corrupt governments version of events that you worship as gospel truth NEVER lie to us. LOL.  Yeah you posted some Government link from Langley your bosses instructed you to do lying troll.lol
> 
> Go tell your bs lies like you like to,lie to people all the time about everyday to someone elseou might fool them,you can’t fool me though nor do I ever bother with your bullshit anymore the way you cowardly evade evidence and witness testimony that contradicts the governments version like the coward troll you are never addressing it and pretending experts and witness testimony does not count coward.
> 
> You are too idiotic to understand I stopped bothering with feeding you troll Ages ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go ahead retard link to any attempt by Japanese Government to surrender. One will do. Just one. Remember the Government was the Big 6.
Click to expand...

You are in no position to call anybody a retard retired moron the fact you won’t get off the drugs your on always defending the lies of the government that fires brought down the towers Always ignoring the evidence that explosives did,ignoring bld 7 the crux of the coverup,ignoring architects and engineers,and even demolition experts or witnesses that heard explosions and when they publicly mentioned it,they started dying off,oh but all those people are ALL wrong and lying and YOU are right,they are all wrong according to your arrogant fucked up mind.lay off the crackcomedy gold,hee heeand grow up and stop being juvenile for once in your sad life shill

Oh and have fun talking to yourself,normally I never waste my time with you troll but I had to prove to the whole board what a lying government troll you are who thinks eveybody else is wrong including people that witnessed historical events,and you are right,you’ll never grow up obviously.

Again,enjoy talking to yourself,I should not have fed the troll as I just did.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure--FDR wanted the Japanese to attack the US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yes, FDR absolutely wanted the Japanese to attack us. He wanted to provoke them to fire the first shot so that he would have an excuse to get us into WW II. Harry Stimson's diary confirms this. We also know this from the McCollum Memo. We also have hard evidence that FDR knew the Japanese were considering attacking Pearl Harbor in the event of war, and that he and others in high places knew a Japanese fleet was heading toward Pearl Harbor in late November (but they carefully avoided warning the commanders in Hawaii about any of this information).
> 
> FDR believed that the Japanese would do little damage in attacking Pearl Harbor. FDR, like many other Americans, believed the Japanese were inferior, that they were lousy soldiers, that they were lousy pilots, and that they would be a pushover in any armed conflict. FDR believed that any Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the Philippines would do minimal damage.
Click to expand...

You nailed it an. Did an excellent job taking everyone to school.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yours is one of the most laughably uninformed, head-in-the-sand posts I've read. Have you heard of Stimson's diary, where he talks about FDR saying that we needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot? Have you heard of the McCollum Memo, which laid out a strategy for provoking Japan to war, and that even said that if the steps could provoke Japan to war it would be "all the better"? Have you heard of the declassified FBI Hoover-Ladd memos, where we learn that Army Intelligence knew "almost the entire plans" for the attack on Pearl Harbor days before the attack? Have you heard of Admiral Raneft's diary, where he talks about U.S. Navy Intelligence advising him that there was a Japanese fleet a few hundred miles from Pearl Harbor? Have you heard of the intercepted phone conversation between FDR and Churchill, where Churchill warned FDR that British Intelligence had intercepted Japanese naval messages that indicated Pearl Harbor would be attacked? (This fact was confirmed by former CIA Director William Casey in his memoir, by the way.) Have you heard of any of these things?
> 
> Here are some books you might wanna read:
> 
> James Johns, _Reassessing Pearl Harbor: Scapegoats, a False Hero and the Myth of Surprise Attack_
> 
> Dr. George Victor, _The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable_
> 
> Dr. Timothy Wilford, _Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941_
> 
> Here are some online sources you might wanna break down and read:
> 
> Evidence of Foreknowledge: The Attack Was No Surprise to FDR
Click to expand...

Obviously he has not,great stuff thanks for posting it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> James Byrnes and the Atomic Bombing of Japan
> 
> MacArthur vs. Truman: The Showdown That Changed America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman’s decision not only ended MacArthur’s military career, it ended the president’s political career as well, setting the stage for the subsequent presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. In the first 24 hours after the president’s announcement, the White House received more than 5,000 telegrams—three-quarters of them backing the popular MacArthur, who had been named the greatest living American in a 1946 poll. “In the wake of the firing, T*ruman’s popular approval rating set a record not matched before or ever since—22 percent—lower even than Nixon’s at the depth of the Watergate scandal,”* Brands says. After what the historian calls “political suicide,” Truman did not even pursue his party’s nomination in 1952.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Excellent piece there sparky thanks for sharing that with us.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> Anyone who does any serious, balanced reading on the Pacific War will learn the following facts:
> 
> * Most of Japan's leaders, military and civilian, did not want war with the U.S.
> 
> * Japan's leaders offered very reasonable concessions to try to get FDR to lift his draconian sanctions, which were crippling Japan's economy.
> 
> * The majority of Japan's leaders opposed the hardliners in the Army, but the hardliners were a powerful faction in the government that was sometimes beyond the immediate control of the government.
> 
> * Even some of the hardliners did not want war with the U.S. They, like many others in the government, wanted to invade Russia or to focus on French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies.
> 
> * At every turn, FDR aided the hardliners and impeded the moderates in the year leading up to Pearl Harbor.
> 
> * Similarly, at every turn, Truman aided the hardliners and impeded the moderates in the months leading up to Hiroshima.
> 
> * The Soviets were thrilled when the U.S. and Japan went to war. When Stalin was assured that Japan would not attack Russia, he was able to move hundreds of thousands of troops from his eastern front just in time to halt the German advance on his western front.
> 
> * The Soviets did not want Japan to surrender to the U.S. until Soviet forces were able to attack the Japanese army in Manchuria.
> 
> * Whether because of incompetence, and/or anti-Japanese bias, and/or the influence of the numerous Soviet spies and sympathizers in their administrations, FDR and Truman carried out Soviet aims in Japanese-American relations in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor and in the months leading up to Hiroshima.
> 
> * The Soviets were able to gather sufficient forces and equipment to invade Japan's northern and central Kuril Islands, in addition to invading Manchuria, thanks to Truman's stalling on the Japanese surrender. If the Soviets had not met such fierce resistance in their assaults on the Kuriles, such as at the Battle of Shumshu, they might have followed through with their plans to invade Hokkaido, one of Japan's four main home islands. According to some sources, the Soviets were about to carry out their planned invasion of Hokkaido when Truman suddenly awoke from his stupor and realized what a blunder it had been to stall the Japanese surrender so the Soviets could join the war against Japan. Eisenhower had warned Truman against involving the Soviets, and, supposedly, Truman warned the Soviets not to land on Hokkaido. That's one version. Another version is that the heavy losses the Soviets incurred at Shumshu persuaded them to focus on the Kuril Islands and to abandon their plans to invade Hokkaido. It might have been a combination of both.
> 
> * Truman and his inner circle knew from Japanese intercepts that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that the only real sticking point was the emperor's status in a surrender. Numerous military and civilian officials told Truman that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, they would surrender on acceptable terms.
> 
> * Japanese rule in Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria, though not up to Western standards, was certainly better than Soviet rule, Chinese Communist rule, and Nazi rule. Anyone with adequate knowledge on this subject who had to choose to live in one of the above areas would choose to live under Japanese rule in a heartbeat, hands down.


Great stuff again in taking everyone to school here,thanks for posting it


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and all you have are opinion pieces while I have ACTUAL Government documents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not from ACTUAL top military>>>
> 
> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.… in being the first to use it, we…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.”
> 
> &&&
> 
> The commanding general of the *US Army Air Forces*, *Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “*the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.*
> _
> &&&_
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr.*, Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. *It was a mistake to ever drop it*…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> _
> _
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that *“the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…*”
> 
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower,* for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…” He later publicly declared “…*it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”*
> 
> &&&
> 
> 
> Even the famous “hawk” *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “*the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...

Well done sparky.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again yu have never presented a single official document EVER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, he has presented you with documented statements by senior American military leaders that using the atomic bomb was unnecessary and wrong.
> 
> Second, **so what** if you have "official government documents"??? Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete, and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent.
> 
> Anyway, I see a big part of the problem is that you and others are projecting the actions of _part _of the Japanese army onto most/all Japanese in that period. The vast majority of Japan's civilian leaders were good and decent men. They were aghast and ashamed when war-crimes tribunals revealed the atrocities committed by _some _Japanese forces.
> 
> Similarly, many senior Japanese military officers were good and decent men who did what they could to halt and punish war crimes when they learned of them. General Homma, for example, was very pro-American and exerted great efforts to ensure that Japanese rule in the Philippines was moderate and tolerant, but he was eventually overruled by hardliners above him. And General Homma was horrified when he heard the accounts of Japanese cruelty during the Bataan Death March at his trial. Given the structure of Japanese army command and operations, it is not at all surprising that he was unaware of the incidents of cruelty when they occurred. His HQ was hundreds of yards from any point of the march, and for long stretches of the march there were no acts of cruelty--in fact, at some halt points, Japanese soldiers gave the prisoners food and water and let them rest briefly.
> 
> Finally, it bears repeating that not all Japanese officers and soldiers committed war crimes. Many did not. The diaries of American and Allied soldiers in the Pacific contain numerous accounts of kindness and decency shown to them by Japanese soldiers. See, for example, Richard Aldrich's award-winning book _The Far Away War: Personal Diaries of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific._
Click to expand...

Well done excellent stuff from you as always mike.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LA RAM FAN said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.
> 
> 
> 
> That first sentence with those six words you sole could not be more true about how the victors always get to rewrite history,excellent post on everything you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply NOT true. The Japanese were offering to Stalin an alliance against the US if they the Soviets would convince the allies to let Japan get a ceasefire and no consequences for the war. I have linked repeatedly to the facts and people conveniently ignore them. You are either IGNORANT or liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This coming from one of the biggest coward lying trolls I know At USMB From Langley who worships  EVERYTHING the government tells him ignoring what credible witnesses  say that we’re there that contradicts the bs lies of the governments lol but according to your warped fucked up logic you always sprout out,the witnesses there to the past events of government corruption are all lying and our corrupt governments version of events that you worship as gospel truth NEVER lie to us. LOL.  Yeah you posted some Government link from Langley your bosses instructed you to do lying troll.lol
> 
> Go tell your bs lies like you like to,lie to people all the time about everyday to someone elseou might fool them,you can’t fool me though nor do I ever bother with your bullshit anymore the way you cowardly evade evidence and witness testimony that contradicts the governments version like the coward troll you are never addressing it and pretending experts and witness testimony does not count coward.
> 
> You are too idiotic to understand I stopped bothering with feeding you troll Ages ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go ahead retard link to any attempt by Japanese Government to surrender. One will do. Just one. Remember the Government was the Big 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are in no position to call anybody a retard retired moron the fact you won’t get off the drugs your on always defending the lies of the government that fires brought down the towers Always ignoring the evidence that explosives did,ignoring bld 7 the crux of the coverup,ignoring architects and engineers,and even demolition experts or witnesses that heard explosions and when they publicly mentioned it,they started dying off,oh but all those people are ALL wrong and lying and YOU are right,they are all wrong according to your arrogant fucked up mind.lay off the crackcomedy gold,hee heeand grow up and stop being juvenile for once in your sad life shill
> 
> Oh and have fun talking to yourself,normally I never waste my time with you troll but I had to prove to the whole board what a lying government troll you are who thinks eveybody else is wrong including people that witnessed historical events,and you are right,you’ll never grow up obviously.
> 
> Again,enjoy talking to yourself,I should not have fed the troll as I just did.
Click to expand...

So you ADMIT you can not link to any actual evidence thanks for that.


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> NOT ONE of the people claiming Japan tried to surrender has EVER linked to ANY communique or statement from the Big 6 EVER. NOT ONE SINGLE LINK, what they do is link to all the attempts by supernumerary's that had no standing with the Government that made offers. These offers are worthless on their face as the US stated by not addressing them. ONLY the big 6 and the Emperor determined what Japan would do. Not some marginalized Ambassador in Europe that was told to shut up by the Government, Not any business man   with absolutely no connection to the Big 6 or the Emperor. Not some low level Government Official with no official link to the Big 6 or the Emperor.
> 
> What the Big 6 said after the atomic bombs was WE WILL NOT SURRENDER, now assuming all these supposed offers BEFORE the bombs why would they refuse after? The Big 6 were over ridden by the Emperor after the 2nd Bomb and when he tried to surrender the Army staged a COUP to stop him, they failed. Again one has to ask if the Japanese Government was so hot to surrender why did it take 2 bombs and surviving a Coup attempt for the Emperor to do it?
> 
> I have linked to official documents from the US and Japan, I have linked to historians that researched the claims I have even linked to a Japanese Historian that survived the Tokyo Firebombs and he said Japan never attempted to surrender. What  Japan did is try and make a deal with the Soviets to ally with them against the US IF the Soviets would convince the allies to accept a CEASEFIRE return to 41 start lines and NO CONCESSIONS in China.



They were still shooting at us.
They could have layed down their arms.  They didn't.  And they got nuked.  Zero regret here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> one can set one's watch on how fast threads do this here>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~


That’s all the revisionist history trolls post here like the one I just got done talking to pst here indeed.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

anynameyouwish said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start with one study, it should be easy, quote and link to a study. I have never seen one, not that I have looked for one. So link to a study, quoted the study, with at least a page number, so that we can see exactly what you are talking about.
> 
> Simply stating, "study says so", does nobody any good, the least of all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it."
> 
> I am certain that had the 2 nukes been dropped on MILITARY INSTALLATIONS then the emperor would have been just as willing to surrender.
> 
> NOT cities full of old people
> 
> MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how no one cares about burning Japanese cities to the ground with incendiaries - but a nuke?  OMFG!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said no one cares? Many people have condemned our conventional bombing of Japanese cities.
> 
> Professor Sean Malloy has written a book on Henry Stimson’s role in the decision to nuke Japan. Therein he examines Truman’s failure to follow the advice of so many of his advisers who were telling him that clarifying the emperor’s status might very well induce Japan to surrender without an invasion. Malloy also notes Truman’s failure to include the Soviets in the Potsdam Declaration, even though he knew they were going to enter the war no later than mid-August. This is from Professor Malloy’s book _Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb Against Japan _(Cornell University Press, 2008):
> 
> The Potsdam Declaration issued on July 26, 1945, contained no guarantee or reassurance on the postwar status of the emperor. Nor was the Soviet Union invited to sign the document, despite the fact that Stalin had formally agreed to enter the war in mid-August and was eager to join in a public ultimatum to Japan. While the declaration did contain a partial clarification of what unconditional surrender would entail—denying that the Allies intended to exterminate the Japanese people or permanently occupy that country—it had been stripped of the two important incentives to surrender that Stimson and others had recommended earlier in the month. Without the immediate threat of Soviet entry or the atomic bomb and a clear statement on the postwar status of the emperor, the Potsdam Declaration was publicly dismissed by the Japanese government as representing nothing more than “a rehash of the Cairo Declaration.” As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has observed, the decision to release the declaration in a public broadcast, rather than through formal or informal diplomatic channels, further encouraged the belief in Japan that it was intended primarily for propaganda purposes.​
> Why Truman failed at Potsdam to make use of the full arsenal of diplomatic threats and incentives is a matter of some mystery. . . .​
> The failure to offer any reassurance on the emperor is particularly troublesome. Nobody on the American side could guarantee that such reassurance would lead to a speedy Japanese surrender. Diplomatic cables intercepted and decrypted by the Americans in summer 1945 revealed that the Japanese government was badly divided on the issue of surrender terms. But amid this uncertainty, it was widely agreed by American military and diplomatic experts that _failure _to clarify the emperor’s postwar status would almost certainly delay surrender and prolong the war. According to a State Department analysis from mid-June, “every evidence, without exception, that we are able to obtain of the views of the Japanese with regard to the institution of the throne indicates that the non-molestation of the person of the present emperor and the preservation of the institution of the throne _comprise irreducible Japanese terms_.” It was this belief that had led Stimson to push for such a reassurance on the grounds that “the country will not be satisfied unless every effort is made to shorten the war.” Recognizing the “irreducible” importance of the emperor, Truman did eventually allow Hirohito to remain on the throne _after _two atomic bombs and Soviet entry into the war in early August. Why did he not follow Stimson’s advice and make such an offer at Potsdam? Even if it did not produce immediate capitulation, it would at the very least have presented a clear set of terms to Japanese leaders in late July rather than forcing them to guess or intuit the American position on this pivotal question. (pp. 128-129)​
> 
> Indeed, giving reassurance on the emperor’s post-war status would have also taken away from the Japanese hardliners their main argument against surrender and would have greatly strengthened the position of the moderates.
> 
> Japan’s militarists and their backers seek to minimize Japanese war crimes. America’s militarists and their backers seek to deny that nuking Japan was unnecessary and immoral.
> 
> It is beyond obvious that, at the bare minimum, Truman blundered horrendously by allowing Byrnes to remove from the Potsdam Declaration the most powerful military threat (Soviet entry into the war) and the most powerful diplomatic incentive for surrender (an assurance about the emperor’s post-war status). Whether he did this because he was unable to withstand his own hardliners’ pressure or because he wanted to nuke Japan to exact revenge and to show the Soviets the bomb’s power, the fact remains that he tragically failed to use two powerful diplomatic tools that provided an excellent chance of ending the war early and without an invasion.
Click to expand...

Your an encycledia on this.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Adm. William Leahy*, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir _I Was There _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.…
> 
> *US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold*, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a _New York Times_reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
> 
> 
> *Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz*, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan
> 
> *Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr*., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”
> 
> *Gen. Dwight Eisenhower*, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “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…
> 
> *Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay*, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

As always he got taken to school by you as mike has taken him to school.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simpletons who can't help but hide from the central moral issue of this matter won't even bother to read these pertinent quotes. They have been presented with this evidence many, many times by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth _s*cks , a_nd some will simply do_ anything _to avoid it Unkotare
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not claim "senior american military leader" made statements that are documented that indicate the Atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary and wrong, and then state, "Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we can, because those senior officials _did_ make those statements, the Truman administration created a _gag order_ for them, them revised history to claim the bomb was entirely _necessary_ to save lives.
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

That’s why the revionist apologists here can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are sparky.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you believe you posted here? again it does not support anything you have posted previously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe a biography by a _biased _author written 40 odd years_ after _an incident trumps what the actual person was *quoted* at the time ?
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Obviously so,Lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his radio address to announce the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Harry Truman claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base," and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians." Either Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima or he was ignorantly repeating what others had told him.
> 
> Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:
> 
> Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."​
> 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 U.S. 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 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage." 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." Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​
> The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur. 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.” (The War Criminal Harry Truman - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com)​
> Many books incorrectly claim there were 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers stationed in Hiroshima, but there were actually only about 10,000, and they were reservists and supply troops (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 410).
> 
> The British scientific mission to Japan, aka the British Mission, concluded that at the time of the attack there were 10,000 soldiers in Hiroshima and that the city’s population might have been as high as 320,000:
> 
> The census figures quoted are probably what Japanese call the “registered” population, used for such purposes as rationing. This is usually thought to be about 80 per cent, of the actual population which, with about 10,000 troops, and perhaps 5,000 workers brought in to cut fire breaks, may therefore have been as high as 320,000 at the time of the attack. (_The Effects of the Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Report of the British Mission to Japan, _London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1946, p. 1)​
> I might add that Hiroshima had no fortifications and that its troops were garrison troops.
> 
> Why do we suppose that the _Enola Gay_ flew with no fighter escorts? There was a weather plane and another plane to take photos and footage of the blast. But there were no fighters. Why? Because we knew that Hiroshima was not a military target, certainly not a “military base,” and because we also knew that Japan was virtually defenseless against air attack.


Always fun watching you educate and school the revionist apologists here as you have.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, links, as the rule states, so we can keep you* lying liberal revisionists* at least address your posted bull shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misdirected comments like that are entirely WHY historic revisionism exists
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

QUOTE="sparky, post: 22936164, member: 12980"]


elektra said:


> And did you forget about linking to the quotes you posted?



meaning the top brass quotes

yes i've linked to them many times , in many threads

and so could YOU Einstein

welcome to my ignore list 

~S~
[/QUOTE]

A fact too complicated for their drugged up brains to comprehend.lol
Yeah next thing to do with the troll,he keeps ignoring all your links you HAVE posted he kept asking for,so best to  give him a taste of his OWN medicine,ignore his trolling posts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> I’m guessing that those who are defending the government’s version of Japan’s surrender have never read any of the mountain of scholarly research that has debunked that version. One such research piece is Professor Ward Wilson’s famous article “The Winning Weapon? Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima,” published in the prestigious journal _International Security _in 2007_._
> 
> Wilson documents what numerous other scholars have documented, namely, that Soviet entry into the war, not the atomic bombs, caused the moderates to push harder than ever for surrender and caused some key hardliners to soften their opposition to surrender. Wilson notes, for example, that after the nuking of Hiroshima was confirmed, this was _not_ enough to cause the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to meet (this council is commonly referred to as the Supreme Council or the Supreme War Council). However, when news of the Soviet invasion reached Tokyo, the Supreme War Council met almost immediately. Here is an excerpt from Wilson’s article:
> 
> When Japanese responses to the Hiroshima bombing are placed side by side with responses to the Soviet intervention, it is clear that the Soviet intervention touched off a crisis, while the Hiroshima bombing did not.​
> Japanese governing bodies did not display a sense of crisis after Hiroshima. First reports of an attack on that city reached Tokyo on August 6 and were confirmed the next day by fuller reports and an announcement by President Truman that a nuclear weapon had been used in the attack. Even after the attack was confirmed, however, the Supreme Council did not meet for two days. If the bombing of Hiroshima touched off a crisis, this delay is inexplicable. . . .​
> In all, three full days elapsed after the bombing of Hiroshima in which the Supreme Council did not meet to discuss the bombing. When the Soviets intervened on August 9 and word of the invasion reached Tokyo at around 4:30 a.m., on the other hand, the Supreme Council met by 10:30 that same morning. . . .​
> Following the bombing of Hiroshima, Emperor Hirohito took no action except to repeatedly request “more details.” When word of the Soviet invasion reached him, however, the emperor immediately summoned Lord Privy Seal Kido and told him, “In light of the Soviet entry . . . it was all the more urgent to “find a means to end the war.” He commanded Kido to “have a heart-to-heart talk” with Prime Minister Suzuki without delay. (https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/is3104_pp162-179_wilson.pdf)​
> Literally hundreds of other scholars have documented these same facts. For example, Dr. Noriko Kawamura, a professor of history at the University of Washington, in her recent book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, _using previously unexploited Japanese sources, presents additional evidence that it was the Soviet invasion, not the nukes, that caused the moderates to push harder for surrender than they had ever done before and that created the circumstances that enabled the emperor to order the military to surrender.
> 
> 
> Incidentally, Dr. Kawamura also debunks the slanted portrayals of Hirohito and the Japanese government painted by scholars like Herbert Bix and Robert Maddox. She points out that Bix mistranslated several of the Japanese sources that he used.


No they haven’t mikegriffith1


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Port. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is sick, especially coming from someone who claims to be a former Marine. Yes, Hiroshima had a port, since it was on a coast, but the port was hardly used anymore by then--it was somewhat clogged with sunken ships and port-bound ships that didn't dare leave the port. ALL Japanese civilians were being trained for an invasion, so that proves nothing, unless you're going to tell me that women and children wielding bamboo spears were a serious threat to us. Yes, Hiroshima had a fair amount of factories; most of them were on the outskirts of the city, and they were almost completely _unharmed _in the nuking because the nuke was dropped near the center of the city. Troops and an HQ? Yeah, they were garrison troops. An airbase?! Yeah, a small one. The city had no fortifications, no outer defenses, etc. I ask again, why do you suppose we felt confident enough to send the _Enola Gay _totally unprotected by any fighters? Hey? We both know the answer to that question.
> 
> It is sad and obscene to see an alleged former Marine trying to justify the murder of over 100,000 people, at least half of them women and children, by making the ludicrous claim that Hiroshima was a valid military target. The factories on the outskirts of the city were valid targets, and the small unfortified compound where the troops stayed was a fair target, but those were only a small part of the city and contained a very small part of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't bomb civilian centers. What is wrong with you? You are as inhumane as some of the Japanese soldiers you excoriate.
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000 civilians did not die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 200,000 died from those two nuke attacks, and tens of thousands more suffered from radiation effects for the rest of their lives.
> 
> FDR screamed because the Japanese bombed a handful of cities in China. We bombed dozens of cities in Japan and dropped far more bombs on them than the Japanese dropped on the cities they bombed.
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not provided a single Government document to prove your claims YET. And all you have on MacArthur is an unsourced book.
> 
> I have linked to the ACTUAL Japanese Government documents ACTUAL Intercepts of Japanese Government and ACTUAL US documents you have not done any of that at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you realize that Eisenhower and Leahy stated in their own memoirs that they had opposed nuking Japan and that they still thought it was wrong and unnecessary, right?  You realize that Admiral, the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, indicated in his memoir that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that Japan could have been defeated by naval blockade alone, right? We’re not talking about second-hand accounts in these cases.
> 
> Second, MacArthur’s opposition to nuking Japan was confirmed by his biographer, William Manchester, and by his former consultant during our occupation of Japan, Norman Cousins. What’s more, Richard Nixon said that MacArthur told him that he believed we should not have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Hiroshima: Quotes
> 
> We didn't need to drop the bomb -- and even our WW II military icons knew it
> 
> You wanna see a link to a “Government document”? Okay, how about the report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), which concluded that Japan would have surrendered without nukes and without an invasion by no later than December 1945, even if the Soviets had not invaded? The USSBS spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan, interviewing former Japanese officials, and interviewing former Japanese generals and admirals, and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:
> 
> 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. (page 26, available at United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War))​
Click to expand...

They are crying in defeat after you checkmated them and took their sorry asses to school. Lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have REPEATEDLY ASK you for a link to a credible source for that claim. The overtures to the Soviet Union were a Ceasefire, return to 41 start lines NO concessions in China and no disarmament or occupation. Keep lying it suits you.
Click to expand...

Oh my the irony.we both know you EXCEL at that,one troll yelling at another troll,priceless,l love it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LA RAM FAN said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have REPEATEDLY ASK you for a link to a credible source for that claim. The overtures to the Soviet Union were a Ceasefire, return to 41 start lines NO concessions in China and no disarmament or occupation. Keep lying it suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my the irony.we both know you EXCEL at that,one troll yelling at another troll,priceless,l love it.
Click to expand...

I have linked to ACTUAL HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS from the US Government. You have linked to NOTHING. I have linked to ACTUAL Historians and their books, you have linked to NOTHING.


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have linked to ACTUAL HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS from the US Government. You have linked to NOTHING. I have linked to ACTUAL Historians and their books, you have linked to NOTHING.



Hell, we have linked to actual speeches by the Emperor, and those 6 who were actually in charge at the time.  Even talked about the offers they had made, and they still reject them.

I love the fact that many in here go on and on about the "mysterious offer" that Mac had gotten in 1944.  Even though Mac never once said who made this offer, by who's authority the offer was made, why they went to him instead of the Government, or how he was even able to meet with such high Japanese officials in a time of war with nobody else knowing about it.

An offer that gave away a hell of a lot more than even the one we know they legitimately made through the Soviets just weeks before the bombs were used.  That armistice offer had advanced as far as they were "willing to stop fighting for Manchuko".  That was as far as they were willing to go in the last half of July 1945.  They still wanted all the rest of their land back, would continue to hold their captured territory, and might consider giving back the Philippines if it was demilitarized.

All that, in exchange for no longer fighting to keep Manchuko, and the war ending.

That was the July 1945 offer they made through the Soviets.  Now if the MacArthur offer of December 1944 was real, why not just propose that again?  It really was most of what the Allies wanted.  But they did not, they just rehashed their offer through the Swiss and Swedes from 2 yeas before, with Manchuko added.

I would love to know from some of these "experts" why the "Mac Proposal" was not routed through the Soviets, instead of the one they did send which even the Soviet Ambassador thought showed they were insane.


----------



## Picaro

It's all just rubbish in attempts to smear FDR, is all; they invent this crap and repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over ...., all because right wing sociopaths don't like Social Security and labor rights.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Picaro said:


> It's all just rubbish in attempts to smear FDR, is all; they invent this crap and repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over ...., all because right wing sociopaths don't like Social Security and labor rights.


Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.



Gunny, so many in here are so badly skewed that they would even see President Obama as a radical Right-Winger.

I am damned near the middle politically.  But I have been saying for a while now that the Left keeps pushing me to the right, because of how they treat almost anybody that does not automatically fall in step with some of their more loopy beliefs.

Of course, I also often chuckle when somebody who is way far to the kookoo Right tries to compare me to Stalin.


----------



## Picaro

RetiredGySgt said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all just rubbish in attempts to smear FDR, is all; they invent this crap and repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over ...., all because right wing sociopaths don't like Social Security and labor rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you're whining about, tard; it's right wingers for the most part spreading the bullshit. Gipper is a right wing 'libertarian', so is 'LA Fan', and Crusader FRank, not 'far left', and 'Unkotare' is a Republican; Griffith isn't a left winger, either.  Why would Democrats smear FDR??? You're the stupid one here, not me; I'm not one of those who are agreeing with the OP, dumbass.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Four farts in a row from the government paid shills.comedy gold.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all just rubbish in attempts to smear FDR, is all; they invent this crap and repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over ...., all because right wing sociopaths don't like Social Security and labor rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.
Click to expand...




Mushroom said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny, so many in here are so badly skewed that they would even see President Obama as a radical Right-Winger.
> 
> I am damned near the middle politically.  But I have been saying for a while now that the Left keeps pushing me to the right, because of how they treat almost anybody that does not automatically fall in step with some of their more loopy beliefs.
> 
> Of course, I also often chuckle when somebody who is way far to the kookoo Right tries to compare me to Stalin.
Click to expand...

Now for the truth, but dumb statists are too weak to accept it. They prefer believing lies because their government and the establishment  tell them to. Pitiful losers.


*The Hiroshima Myth*
By John V. Denson
Mises.org
August 12, 2020
Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the “patriotic” political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to 1 million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90 percent) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war.

The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is _The Decision to Use the Bomb_ by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable. The essential problem starts with President Franklin Roosevelt’s policy of unconditional surrender, which was reluctantly adopted by Churchill and Stalin, and which President Truman decided to adopt when he succeeded Roosevelt in April of 1945. Hanson Baldwin was the principal writer for the _New York Times_ who covered World War II and he wrote an important book immediately after the war entitled _Great Mistakes of the War_. Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy



> was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war….Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, cost us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace.


*The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. *The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history, dating back to 660 BC. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Hirohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The emperor, Hirohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. *Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, “Why then were the bombs dropped?”*

PLEASE READ MORE AT THE LINK, BUT ONLY IF YOU WANT THE TRUTH.
The Hiroshima Myth - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> *The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945.*



As you know, you are wrong again.

The condition Japan demanded their surrender was that the Emperor retain his power.  As you know, that was totally unacceptable.


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, you are wrong again.
> 
> The condition Japan demanded their surrender was that the Emperor retain his power.  As you know, that was totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Wrong, but your point is meaningless. If you think Truman was right to incinerate hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians because Japan wanted the emperor to stay in power, you’re an imperialist idiot. 

All they asked is that the emperor not be prosecuted and hung, which Dirty Harry agreed to after his war crime.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, you are wrong again.
> 
> The condition Japan demanded their surrender was that the Emperor retain his power.  As you know, that was totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...


But after deliberately targeting and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, we accepted the retention of the emperor anyway.


----------



## Mushroom

gipper said:


> PLEASE READ MORE AT THE LINK, BUT ONLY IF YOU WANT THE TRUTH.
> The Hiroshima Myth - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com



Let's see.  Somebody who claims that HIV does not cause AIDS, and is government created.  Somebody who believes that vaccines cause autism.  Who has even written articles which claim that the US started WWII, and the Confederacy was fully justified in starting the Civil War to protect their "property rights".

Yea, I think I'm good.  No reason to read a bunch of nutcase conspiracy theory crap.  But you know something?  There is a section of the forum just for that kind of nonsense, why not take this nonsense down there with you?

Yea, I am about to take an article written by Lew Rockwell or his National Socialist institute about as seriously as I do something posted by David Wolfe.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> But after deliberately targeting and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, we accepted the retention of the emperor anyway.



The Emperor was retained...WITHOUT POWER.  He became a figurehead.


----------



## gipper

Mushroom said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE READ MORE AT THE LINK, BUT ONLY IF YOU WANT THE TRUTH.
> The Hiroshima Myth - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.  Somebody who claims that HIV does not cause AIDS, and is government created.  Somebody who believes that vaccines cause autism.  Who has even written articles which claim that the US started WWII, and the Confederacy was fully justified in starting the Civil War to protect their "property rights".
> 
> Yea, I think I'm good.  No reason to read a bunch of nutcase conspiracy theory crap.  But you know something?  There is a section of the forum just for that kind of nonsense, why not take this nonsense down there with you?
> 
> Yea, I am about to take an article written by Lew Rockwell or his National Socialist institute about as seriously as I do something posted by David Wolfe.
Click to expand...

Idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> But after deliberately targeting and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, we accepted the retention of the emperor anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Emperor was retained...WITHOUT POWER.  He became a figurehead.
> ...
Click to expand...


Study some history. The emperor was a figurehead for many centuries, or some degree of same.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all just rubbish in attempts to smear FDR, is all; they invent this crap and repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over ...., all because right wing sociopaths don't like Social Security and labor rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid? I am right of center. And Gipper that claims the offers were real is far left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gunny, so many in here are so badly skewed that they would even see President Obama as a radical Right-Winger.
> 
> I am damned near the middle politically.  But I have been saying for a while now that the Left keeps pushing me to the right, because of how they treat almost anybody that does not automatically fall in step with some of their more loopy beliefs.
> 
> Of course, I also often chuckle when somebody who is way far to the kookoo Right tries to compare me to Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now for the truth, but dumb statists are too weak to accept it. They prefer believing lies because their government and the establishment  tell them to. Pitiful losers.
> 
> 
> *The Hiroshima Myth*
> By John V. Denson
> Mises.org
> August 12, 2020
> Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the “patriotic” political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to 1 million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90 percent) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war.
> 
> The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is _The Decision to Use the Bomb_ by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable. The essential problem starts with President Franklin Roosevelt’s policy of unconditional surrender, which was reluctantly adopted by Churchill and Stalin, and which President Truman decided to adopt when he succeeded Roosevelt in April of 1945. Hanson Baldwin was the principal writer for the _New York Times_ who covered World War II and he wrote an important book immediately after the war entitled _Great Mistakes of the War_. Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war….Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, cost us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. *The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history, dating back to 660 BC. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Hirohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The emperor, Hirohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. *Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, “Why then were the bombs dropped?”*
> 
> PLEASE READ MORE AT THE LINK, BUT ONLY IF YOU WANT THE TRUTH.
> The Hiroshima Myth - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Click to expand...

You keep checkmating all the trolls here that All have a farting problem unable to open their mouth without doing so.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yours is one of the most laughably uninformed, head-in-the-sand posts I've read. Have you heard of Stimson's diary, where he talks about FDR saying that we needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot? Have you heard of the McCollum Memo, which laid out a strategy for provoking Japan to war, and that even said that if the steps could provoke Japan to war it would be "all the better"? Have you heard of the declassified FBI Hoover-Ladd memos, where we learn that Army Intelligence knew "almost the entire plans" for the attack on Pearl Harbor days before the attack? Have you heard of Admiral Raneft's diary, where he talks about U.S. Navy Intelligence advising him that there was a Japanese fleet a few hundred miles from Pearl Harbor? Have you heard of the intercepted phone conversation between FDR and Churchill, where Churchill warned FDR that British Intelligence had intercepted Japanese naval messages that indicated Pearl Harbor would be attacked? (This fact was confirmed by former CIA Director William Casey in his memoir, by the way.) Have you heard of any of these things?
> 
> Here are some books you might wanna read:
> 
> James Johns, _Reassessing Pearl Harbor: Scapegoats, a False Hero and the Myth of Surprise Attack_
> 
> Dr. George Victor, _The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable_
> 
> Dr. Timothy Wilford, _Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941_
> 
> Here are some online sources you might wanna break down and read:
> 
> Evidence of Foreknowledge: The Attack Was No Surprise to FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being well read makes you a minority here Mike
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

Damn you ain’t kidding.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sparky said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you believe you posted here? again it does not support anything you have posted previously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe a biography by a _biased _author written 40 odd years_ after _an incident trumps what the actual person was *quoted* at the time ?
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

As he has proved in spades in the whole thread,obviously yes.lol


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yours is one of the most laughably uninformed, head-in-the-sand posts I've read. Have you heard of Stimson's diary, where he talks about FDR saying that we needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot? Have you heard of the McCollum Memo, which laid out a strategy for provoking Japan to war, and that even said that if the steps could provoke Japan to war it would be "all the better"? Have you heard of the declassified FBI Hoover-Ladd memos, where we learn that Army Intelligence knew "almost the entire plans" for the attack on Pearl Harbor days before the attack? Have you heard of Admiral Raneft's diary, where he talks about U.S. Navy Intelligence advising him that there was a Japanese fleet a few hundred miles from Pearl Harbor? Have you heard of the intercepted phone conversation between FDR and Churchill, where Churchill warned FDR that British Intelligence had intercepted Japanese naval messages that indicated Pearl Harbor would be attacked? (This fact was confirmed by former CIA Director William Casey in his memoir, by the way.) Have you heard of any of these things?
> 
> Here are some books you might wanna read:
> 
> James Johns, _Reassessing Pearl Harbor: Scapegoats, a False Hero and the Myth of Surprise Attack_
> 
> Dr. George Victor, _The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable_
> 
> Dr. Timothy Wilford, _Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941_
> 
> Here are some online sources you might wanna break down and read:
> 
> Evidence of Foreknowledge: The Attack Was No Surprise to FDR
Click to expand...

....you act like you are the only one who reads..I've been reading about WW2 for longer than you have been alive


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Frannie said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Your user name means what? Freudian slip?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a retarded art teacher who wants to be paid 200 grand a year for showing 3rd grade kids how to glue construction paper
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Strike 200000. Still out, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be fun living in pretend land
Click to expand...

Which you,and the rest revionist historians excel at. Lol


----------



## Unkotare

harmonica said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's one of the most insane/idiotic posts I've ever read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yours is one of the most laughably uninformed, head-in-the-sand posts I've read. Have you heard of Stimson's diary, where he talks about FDR saying that we needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot? Have you heard of the McCollum Memo, which laid out a strategy for provoking Japan to war, and that even said that if the steps could provoke Japan to war it would be "all the better"? Have you heard of the declassified FBI Hoover-Ladd memos, where we learn that Army Intelligence knew "almost the entire plans" for the attack on Pearl Harbor days before the attack? Have you heard of Admiral Raneft's diary, where he talks about U.S. Navy Intelligence advising him that there was a Japanese fleet a few hundred miles from Pearl Harbor? Have you heard of the intercepted phone conversation between FDR and Churchill, where Churchill warned FDR that British Intelligence had intercepted Japanese naval messages that indicated Pearl Harbor would be attacked? (This fact was confirmed by former CIA Director William Casey in his memoir, by the way.) Have you heard of any of these things?
> 
> Here are some books you might wanna read:
> 
> James Johns, _Reassessing Pearl Harbor: Scapegoats, a False Hero and the Myth of Surprise Attack_
> 
> Dr. George Victor, _The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable_
> 
> Dr. Timothy Wilford, _Pearl Harbor Redefined: USN Radio Intelligence in 1941_
> 
> Here are some online sources you might wanna break down and read:
> 
> Evidence of Foreknowledge: The Attack Was No Surprise to FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....you act like you are the only one who reads..I've been reading about WW2 for longer than you have been alive
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Kilroy2 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nation that professes such an affinity with god
> 
> In God we trust
> serving our Nation under *God* in peace as well as in war
> one Nation under *God*,
> do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me *God*.'"
> 
> Is this affinity a Velcro badge
> 
> One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
> convenient
> 
> then tear it off when its inconvenient
> 
> Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs
> 
> If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does
> 
> It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric
> 
> Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets
> 
> and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties
> 
> The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime
> 
> oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too  but do more of it
> 
> participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty
> 
> and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow
> 
> Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God
> 
> 
> So help me *God*
> 
> 
> 
> There are no civilians, all people are equal.  The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war.  Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your saying all people are equal when it comes to how they die
> 
> what a convenient morality
> 
> They had sites but by this time imports were cut off and it was just a matter of time before it all collapsed
> 
> Wiping out a city for a few factories at the expense of wiping out the population
> 
> I suppose that would work but most children weren't working in a factory
> 
> That Velcro comes off so easily
Click to expand...

You handed his lying ass Trolling to him on a platter.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Kilroy2 said:


> Even some generals thought that the bombing was unnecessary
> 
> There is a trove of information revealing that many senior U.S. military officials believed the bombs were not needed to end the war in the Pacific. President Truman approved of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s destruction, but many of the top-ranking brass, from Douglas MacArthur to Chester Nimitz, knew better.
> 
> In “Mandate for Change,” *Eisenhower’s autobiography*, Ike related this exchange: “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.’”
> 
> There are many more such testimonials, if someone takes the time to look:
> 
> 
> --“When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, *would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb*. *The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the Emperor.”* That’s from “The Pathology of Power,” by Norman Cousins.


MacArthur unlike Truman,was a humane human being.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> Some people continue to claim that the Japanese peace feelers in the months leading up to Hiroshima were all meaningless low-level approaches with no high-level support. In fact, this is a standard talking point among authors who defend the nuking of Japan. However, there are government records and plenty of scholarly studies that refute this claim. I will summarize some of the facts documented in those records and scholarship. These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender_, and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.
> 
> -- Very few books on WWII mention the fact that in May 1945, Radio Tokyo’s English-language broadcast, which operated under government supervision, stated that if the Americans would drop their demand for unconditional surrender, Japan’s leaders might be willing to enter into negotiations to end the war (Marco Heinrichs and Galliccio, _Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945, _Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 15). This was an astounding statement to be aired on a radio station monitored by all the Allies and by much of Asia. However, Truman and his Japan-hating Secretary of State, James Byrnes, ignored it.
> 
> -- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.
> 
> Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.
> 
> -- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.
> 
> Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did _not_ shut down the approach.
> 
> Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.
> 
> So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support. In addition, the hardliners would not have been able to kill it if Truman, or a high official at Truman’s direction, had simply advised the Japanese that we would not depose the emperor if they surrendered according to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.
> 
> We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.
> 
> On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”
> 
> So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.
> 
> -- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel, in July 1945. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu’s, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.
> 
> This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.
> 
> When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.
> 
> We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”
> 
> William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.
> 
> -- Furthermore, _Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable_. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.
> 
> Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:
> 
> The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., The Forrestal Diaries(New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i.e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​


As always,mike owned the asses of the revisionist apologists here.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 3.5 years of war, after countless tortures of prisoners. After 10's of thousands murders of helpless prisoners of war. After 3.5 years of torture and murder of American citizens......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you get any more barbaric and inhumane? First of all, the number of Japanese civilians that we killed dwarfs the number of American citizens that the Japanese killed. We excoriated the Japanese for bombing a few cities in China, but then we turned around and bombed over 60 Japanese cities and killed over 500,000 civilians in the process, most of them women and children. But you just don't care, do you?
> 
> It is sad that you can't even admit that nuking another Japanese city three days after Hiroshima was unbelievably cruel and barbaric. Even McGeorge Bundy was willing to admit that that was wrong.
> 
> Second, we murdered thousands of Japanese POWs and Japanese soldiers who were trying to surrender. Even worse, the Soviets murdered most of the hundreds of thousands of Japanese POWs they took in Manchuria and the Kuriles. Yet, we let the Soviets put judges on the war crimes tribunals that were held in Europe and Asia after the war.
Click to expand...

He would rather kill himself first before owning up to being a jerk.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> Nice adjectives? Is that correct mr. griffter? After all you are the super college educated master and bashing the USA?
> 
> Bashing you say, well, again I will point out the obvious insults you have directed at the patriotic Americans.
> 
> You call our leaders, "Immoral", You call their actions "Immoral". You call events in our history that was necessary to win a war, "immoral".
> 
> Then you follow that up by dictating that if we are to offer facts of history, that those facts are, "embarrassing arguments".
> 
> So yes, you have flamed and trolled with the title of your OP and with your very first statement. Where is the proof, in the title, or in your opening statement, of the immorality?
> 
> And of course, what you do not dare to tell us because you are afraid and can not defend, is that you are a mormon and you are arguing your religious beliefs.
> 
> Cowardly and unjust you behave. You denigrate and insult and then act as if we are the offensive when we react to the tone you have set by being a big fat prick!
> 
> So explain the title, your opening statement, show us how it is not a troll thread, flaming those who respond. show us how you are simply not some worthless angry #($($, angry at americans, with this obviously demeaning attack on our patriotism and our knowledge of history and  war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about?  "Angry at Americans"?  Huh? Criticizing a handful of politicians and their killing of hundreds of thousands of women and children is not the same as attacking all Americans. Were Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur and Admirals Leahy and Halsey, among many other senior American officers, "angry at Americans" because they said we should not have nuked Japan?
> 
> Apparently your idea of "patriotism" is to blindly support FDR and Truman's handling of WWII, never mind the fact that their policies led to the subjugation of Eastern Europe to Soviet tyranny, the subjugation of China to Maoist Communist tyranny, the subjugation of North Korea to Communist tyranny, and the murder of tens of millions of Chinese by Mao's Communist regime.
> 
> Based on everything I've seen you say so far, you really don't seem to care very much about those terrible events, and you don't seem very interested in attacking the Soviets and the Maoists and the Nationalists, but you excoriate the Japanese, even though they killed fewer people than did the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Chinese Communists, and even though they were strongly anti-communist and pro-capitalist.
> 
> By any rational measurement, the Japanese were clearly the lesser of the available evils, but FDR and Truman chose to support the worst of the evils and to nuke the lesser of them.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criticizing a handful of politicians? You started your thread criticizing everybody who offered facts that your opinion does not agree with!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not attack any person; rather, I attacked the excuses that have been offered for nuking two defenseless cities of a country whose civilians leaders were already willing to surrender and that was on the verge of collapse. There is a difference.
> 
> Again, you excoriate the Japanese for their sins but seem uninterested in the sins of the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Communists, whose sins were clearly worse than those of the Japanese.
> 
> You excoriate the Japanese for Nanking but seem just fine with our conventional bombing of over 60 Japanese cities, which killed at least 500,000 people, most of them women and children, not to mention our nuking of two defenseless Japanese cities, which killed at least 200,000 more civilians, most of them, again, women and children, even though Truman knew that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender and needed his help to overcome the hardliners.
> 
> Even the vaguely worded Byrnes Note provided enough leverage for the moderates to create a situation where the emperor was able to order the hardliners to agree to a surrender.
Click to expand...

He is going wah  wayh wah after you handed his ass to him on a platter.lol

There the coward troll goes lying again,the one that insulted people was him,he did all the insulting and when you did not ignore his lies and called him out,he acted like an innocent victim in it all.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LA RAM FAN said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criticizing a handful of politicians? You started your thread criticizing everybody who offered facts that your opinion does not agree with!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not attack any person; rather, I attacked the excuses that have been offered for nuking two defenseless cities of a country whose civilians leaders were already willing to surrender and that was on the verge of collapse. There is a difference.
> 
> Again, you excoriate the Japanese for their sins but seem uninterested in the sins of the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Communists, whose sins were clearly worse than those of the Japanese.
> 
> You excoriate the Japanese for Nanking but seem just fine with our conventional bombing of over 60 Japanese cities, which killed at least 500,000 people, most of them women and children, not to mention our nuking of two defenseless Japanese cities, which killed at least 200,000 more civilians, most of them, again, women and children, even though Truman knew that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender and needed his help to overcome the hardliners.
> 
> Even the vaguely worded Byrnes Note provided enough leverage for the moderates to create a situation where the emperor was able to order the hardliners to agree to a surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is going wah  wayh wah after you handed his ass to him on a platter.lol
> 
> There the coward troll goes lying again,the one that insulted people was him,he did all the insulting and when you did not ignore his lies and called him out,he acted like an innocent victim in it all.
Click to expand...

Historical records, OFFICIAL Government records Magic intercepts, documents from the Japanese Government all PROVE beyond any doubt that the Japanese Government NEVER offered to surrender before the Emperor did so after 2 atomic bombs and an invasion by the Soviets. After both bombs and the Invasion the Japanese Government VOTED NOT to surrender putting the lie to the claims they were actually trying to surrender. After the Emperor taped his surrender acceptance the Army staged a coup to stop that but failed.

The Japanese were offering the Soviets an alliance against the US if the Soviets would get them a CEASEFIRE and NO surrender. All well documented and LINKED to repeatedly in this and other threads. The only trolls are you lot. NONE of you can link to a single source of the Japanese Government offering to surrender and in fact everything that has been linked to says what I have said. All the off book NON Government attempts were simply an offer of ceasefire return to 41 start lines no concessions in China no consequences for Japan.


----------



## Unkotare

__





						Was Hiroshima Necessary?
					

The IHR, an independent, public interest history research and publishing center, seeks to promote peace and freedom through greater awareness of the past.




					www.ihr.org


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Another fart from one of USMBs biggest trolls after my last post.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One major problem was that Truman believed the propaganda that Emperor Hirohito was a militarist and that there was no difference between him and the hardliners. Several people, including our best Japan expert Joseph Grew, told Truman this was totally false, but he chose not to believe it. Even at the time, given everything we knew about the emperor, Truman's acceptance of that propaganda was inexcusable. This was why he did not want to give the Japanese any clarification about the emperor's status in a surrender.
> 
> If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:
> 
> https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> A link to your website? As a source of this? You are kidding?
> 
> Where do you get your poor narrative of Joseph Grew from? Quote and link. (that will be three failures, bundy, eisenhower, and now grew).
> 
> Truman believed the Emperor was a militarists? Gee, what would give him that idea, after Pearl Harbor? After the invasion of China? After the invasion of Korea? After the invasion of Manchuria? After the invasion of the Philippines? After the invasion of French indo-china? That is just crazy talk, to think the leader of Japan was a militarist? And after the 10's of thousands of American men died in Pacific war. After the 10's of thousands who died as prisoners, I for one do not see how Truman could have any animosity towards the Emperor of Japan.
> 
> Truman's acceptance of propaganda, link to the propaganda. Show us, in it's entirety, the propaganda. Go ahead and link to the propaganda that Truman accepted as fact so that we can see for ourselves. Or is this simply another one of those FAKE news/opinion items of yours we are suppose to believe? As you dictate!
> 
> The surrender, or let us call it what it is, The Potsdam Declaration. If we call it what it is, it will be easier to link to and quote. The surrender demands never stated the Emperor had to step down. Never, not once.
> 
> Feel free to link to the demand, stating the Emperor must step down.
> Link to Eisenhower's statement.
> Link to Grew's statements.
> Link to the propaganda you refer to in regards to the Emperor
> Link to McGeorge Bundy
> 
> Or, go ahead obfuscate and distract us from what we are proving lies, by posting more stuff we are suppose to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this some kind of joke?  The fact that Eisenhower and Grew, among many others, opposed nuking Japan has been documented in literally hundreds of scholarly studies. Eisenhower expressed his views in his memoir, which is readily available, and I've provided you with several links that quote from his memoir. Or, you can go read his memoir if by chance you think all the links I've provided have fabricated Ike's statements.
> 
> It is beyond silly to argue that the attack on Pearl Harbor justified Truman's professed belief that the emperor was just another one of the militarists. This argument shows an amazing, surreal ignorance of the emperor and of Japanese history from the early 1900s until 1945. If you can ever dare yourself to read something that challenges your PC brainwashing, you should read _Emperor Hirohita and the Pacific War _(University of Washington Press, 2016), by Dr. Noriko Kawamura, a professor of history at the University of Washington.
> 
> If you would read her book, or several others I could suggest (but hers is the best because she uncovered previously unknown sources), you would learn that the emperor did all he could--within Japan's existing system of government--to oppose the hardliners over and over again, that the emperor did not want war with the U.S., that the emperor admired America and England, that the emperor pushed for lenient governance of Japan's colonial holdings, that the emperor had to put down a revolt by radical hardliners in 1926, that in the 1926 revolt the radical hardliners targeted some of Hirohito's cabinet members for assassination, and that Hirohito began to look for ways to end the war after the fall of Saipan (Taiwan), among many other important facts.
> 
> By the way, the "link to your [my] website" is a condensed version of Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous article "The Obliteration of Hiroshima," which answers every major excuse given for nuking Japan. Clearly, you have not yet bothered to read it.
Click to expand...

Yep yep and yep mike.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is good article written in 2015 by Dr. Geoffrey Shepherd titled "It's Clear the US Should Not Have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Dr. Shepherd outlines one of the several alternative courses of action that we could have taken instead of nuking two cities:
> 
> This month marks the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And with each passing year the historical record is ever clearer that dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.
> 
> The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more. Such destruction of life stirs me to sorrow and outrage. That’s even more true given that there was an alternative available: the US could have dropped an A-bomb in or near Tokyo Bay. Such a warning shot could have persuaded the Japanese to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.
> 
> The atomic bombings are often framed as the only alternative to a land invasion of a Japan that wouldn’t surrender under any but the most-dire circumstances. The possible need for an invasion loomed throughout 1945, and Americans naturally feared many US casualties. Much of a fanatic Japanese soldiery—and possibly many citizens—might fight to the last inch. One early study estimated 40,000 American soldiers’ deaths, yet President Harry Truman and others soon spoke of “half a million.”
> 
> But the A-bombs’ advent automatically changed that, allowing the US to wield the threat of nuclear attack. With the first device tested and proven in July 1945, and numerous others being readied early in August, America could have used their power as a new dimension of threat—rather than crudely dropping the bombs as mass killers.
> 
> Properly used as threats to ensure quick surrender, the A-bombs could have prevented virtually all further deaths in Japan—of Americans, Japanese and any others, from invasion, firebombing, A-bombing and ground warfare. That is, of course, precisely what the A-bombs did achieve. But the US hastily destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki first.
> 
> Tokyo Bay would have been the ideal place to display the bombs’ power. A large open area, the bay is next to Tokyo and all of Japan’s leaders, including the emperor. It offered a wide array of places—on vacant land or on water—to drop an A-bomb, for fully awesome effect. The mushroom-cloud explosion could be near or not-so-near to Tokyo, and more or less dangerous to Japan’s emperor, leaders, citizens and urban capital.
> 
> In this way, the US could have carefully maximized the scope of the threat, while minimizing the harm to Tokyo itself. And if the Japanese were crazily intransigent, we could have simply dropped another A-bomb, closer to Tokyo or in a low-population area. Even another, if needed.
> 
> But American leaders had acquired the habit of bombing cities, having attacked Berlin, Hamburg and even the cultural jewel of Dresden. US Air Force leaders such as Jimmy Doolittle gained instant fame from bombing raids over Japan. The hellish firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 alone killed some 250,000 civilians and maimed huge numbers more.
> 
> With the Japanese A-bombings, a key player was Leslie Groves, who had built up and managed the Manhattan Project over the years. He now chaired the committee guiding Truman’s actions, and he closely managed—daily and hourly—the planning, loading, and crew work to fly the bomb for dropping. Grove was determined to deploy them fast. Separately, a supposed threat of the Soviet Union’s invading Japan was cited as a reason for haste. Such an excuse to rush to bomb can likely be chalked up, at least partly, to self-interest by the US.
> 
> And the planning of Truman’s advisors—including Groves, Doolittle, and Curtis LeMay—was full of mistakes. Hiroshima emerged as a candidate after having escaped attack thus far in the conflict. It was almost entirely civilian, and any attention to its few military targets soon disappeared. Hiroshima was distant from Tokyo, and the blast itself wiped out all communication, so the Japanese leadership in Tokyo didn’t fully see the destruction. When the leveling of Hiroshima predictably gave Tokyo little awareness, Nagasaki was added. But that choice was even less logical, and it doubled the death toll and the stifling stain on America’s moral character.
> 
> The US had already exceeded rational and civilized bounds with our massive bombings in Europe and Japan. Our job was to conclude the war with a minimum of mega-deaths. By using the Tokyo Bay method to display the A-bombs’ power, America would have shown its compassion and humanity. But Truman and his people failed, and the harm was widespread and lasting.
> 
> On top of the Japanese deaths and casualties, the actual dropping of the A-bombs likely heightened the stakes at the advent of the Cold War. Had the US not dropped the A-bombs, the nuclear arms race might have proceeded more slowly and less wastefully, possibly without hydrogen bombs. The US and USSR might even have cultivated cooperation and prosperity, in place of mutual fears and military-industrial excesses.
> 
> This 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a sorrowful reminder: a final spasm of killing engulfed those two poor cities. Had the US instead fired a warning shot by dropping an A-bomb in Tokyo Bay, scarcely a soul would have died. And yet the leaders of that era chose to kill hundreds of thousands, instead.​


He wont read it sense it debunks his babble.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is good article written in 2015 by Dr. Geoffrey Shepherd titled "It's Clear the US Should Not Have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Dr. Shepherd outlines one of the several alternative courses of action that we could have taken instead of nuking two cities:
> 
> This month marks the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And with each passing year the historical record is ever clearer that dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.
> 
> The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more. Such destruction of life stirs me to sorrow and outrage. That’s even more true given that there was an alternative available: the US could have dropped an A-bomb in or near Tokyo Bay. Such a warning shot could have persuaded the Japanese to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.
> 
> The atomic bombings are often framed as the only alternative to a land invasion of a Japan that wouldn’t surrender under any but the most-dire circumstances. The possible need for an invasion loomed throughout 1945, and Americans naturally feared many US casualties. Much of a fanatic Japanese soldiery—and possibly many citizens—might fight to the last inch. One early study estimated 40,000 American soldiers’ deaths, yet President Harry Truman and others soon spoke of “half a million.”
> 
> But the A-bombs’ advent automatically changed that, allowing the US to wield the threat of nuclear attack. With the first device tested and proven in July 1945, and numerous others being readied early in August, America could have used their power as a new dimension of threat—rather than crudely dropping the bombs as mass killers.
> 
> Properly used as threats to ensure quick surrender, the A-bombs could have prevented virtually all further deaths in Japan—of Americans, Japanese and any others, from invasion, firebombing, A-bombing and ground warfare. That is, of course, precisely what the A-bombs did achieve. But the US hastily destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki first.
> 
> Tokyo Bay would have been the ideal place to display the bombs’ power. A large open area, the bay is next to Tokyo and all of Japan’s leaders, including the emperor. It offered a wide array of places—on vacant land or on water—to drop an A-bomb, for fully awesome effect. The mushroom-cloud explosion could be near or not-so-near to Tokyo, and more or less dangerous to Japan’s emperor, leaders, citizens and urban capital.
> 
> In this way, the US could have carefully maximized the scope of the threat, while minimizing the harm to Tokyo itself. And if the Japanese were crazily intransigent, we could have simply dropped another A-bomb, closer to Tokyo or in a low-population area. Even another, if needed.
> 
> But American leaders had acquired the habit of bombing cities, having attacked Berlin, Hamburg and even the cultural jewel of Dresden. US Air Force leaders such as Jimmy Doolittle gained instant fame from bombing raids over Japan. The hellish firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 alone killed some 250,000 civilians and maimed huge numbers more.
> 
> With the Japanese A-bombings, a key player was Leslie Groves, who had built up and managed the Manhattan Project over the years. He now chaired the committee guiding Truman’s actions, and he closely managed—daily and hourly—the planning, loading, and crew work to fly the bomb for dropping. Grove was determined to deploy them fast. Separately, a supposed threat of the Soviet Union’s invading Japan was cited as a reason for haste. Such an excuse to rush to bomb can likely be chalked up, at least partly, to self-interest by the US.
> 
> And the planning of Truman’s advisors—including Groves, Doolittle, and Curtis LeMay—was full of mistakes. Hiroshima emerged as a candidate after having escaped attack thus far in the conflict. It was almost entirely civilian, and any attention to its few military targets soon disappeared. Hiroshima was distant from Tokyo, and the blast itself wiped out all communication, so the Japanese leadership in Tokyo didn’t fully see the destruction. When the leveling of Hiroshima predictably gave Tokyo little awareness, Nagasaki was added. But that choice was even less logical, and it doubled the death toll and the stifling stain on America’s moral character.
> 
> The US had already exceeded rational and civilized bounds with our massive bombings in Europe and Japan. Our job was to conclude the war with a minimum of mega-deaths. By using the Tokyo Bay method to display the A-bombs’ power, America would have shown its compassion and humanity. But Truman and his people failed, and the harm was widespread and lasting.
> 
> On top of the Japanese deaths and casualties, the actual dropping of the A-bombs likely heightened the stakes at the advent of the Cold War. Had the US not dropped the A-bombs, the nuclear arms race might have proceeded more slowly and less wastefully, possibly without hydrogen bombs. The US and USSR might even have cultivated cooperation and prosperity, in place of mutual fears and military-industrial excesses.
> 
> This 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a sorrowful reminder: a final spasm of killing engulfed those two poor cities. Had the US instead fired a warning shot by dropping an A-bomb in Tokyo Bay, scarcely a soul would have died. And yet the leaders of that era chose to kill hundreds of thousands, instead.​


Excellent job taking the revionists apologists to school mike,yeah no surprise that Curtis lemay was the advisor for Truman,he was a warmonger Warhawk.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

anynameyouwish said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see here: yeah, it took 2 nukes to convince the Japanese military they were washed up. And more people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo. Its too bad  for the  Japanese. It sucks, most of us prefer Nagasaki  to  millions  killed in a needless invasion that would taken years?   How humane would that have been? Explain that to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "most of us prefer Nagasaki to millions killed in a needless invasion that would taken years?"
> 
> right.
> 
> 
> because THOSE were the only 2 choices.
> 
> There was absolutely no way that we could have nuked 2 of their military bases, installations or armies....
> 
> nope.
> 
> couldn't be done.
> 
> impossible.
> 
> we HAD  TO nuke 2 cities of old people and children.
> 
> and obviously nuking 2 cities shortened the war.
> where-as if we had nuked 2 armies the ghosts of the dead soldiers would have killed even MORE of our troops.
> 
> 
> (sarcasm)
Click to expand...

anynameyouwish

You are making too much sense for the revionists apologists to comprehend.lol


----------



## HenryBHough

Someday we'll look back fondly on the nuking of Beijing.  But not until at least 1,273,353 Americans are killed by China's newest and best bio-warfare toy.


----------



## toobfreak

LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC:

The nuking of Japan may have been the proudest, high-water mark in the history of American Imperialism.  Too bad we can't go back and do it all over for a 2nd time.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a warped, inaccurate picture that seems to come straight from WWII-era anti-Japanese propaganda. I know you never will, but you should read at least two or three books that challenge this wartime propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> f you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is sheer, militaristic ignorance. FYI, **many people** did publicly question the nuking of Japan soon after the war and in the two decades that followed, including a number of leading generals and admirals such as General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General Feller, General Clarke, and Admiral Halsey. Were they unpatriotic or guilty of dishonoring the war effort?
> 
> So your attempt to hide behind the flag and to invoke your warped version of "patriotism" while you endorse immoral militarism and the mass killing of tens of thousands of women and children falls flat on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Nips lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, anti-Japanese bigotry is alive and well in some quarters of America even in our day.
> 
> Maybe our next topic of discussion in this thread can be Truman's decision to launch a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan on August 14, after their surrender offer had been sent. But, that's okay, since they were only "Nips" after all, right?
Click to expand...

I’ve noticed everytime you bring up that excellent point,the two revionists apologists trolls evade that post and play dodgeball everytime single time.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

elektra said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war." - Shigenori Tōgō, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Empire of Japan, via Naotake Satō,  Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., July 12, 1945 https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just pretending not to understand the plain import of Togo's statement?  Do you understand that Togo was Japan's Foreign Minister and one of the biggest peace advocates in the cabinet?
> 
> The Japanese even offered to withdraw from all Chinese territory they had occupied after 1937...
> 
> Can you never admit to being wrong, no matter how clear the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Can you never admit to being wrong", _ I just got the book, Togo was not authorized to offer any territories that japan was holding. Togo got admonished, chastised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will certainly not convince them with pretty little phrases devoid of all connection with reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase was devoid of all connection with reality? Why? You leave out so much and accuse me of being the one who cannot accept being wrong! You are a CHARLATAN,  all you do is parrot other's work you cut and paste from the internet. If that is not true, than you are devious low life liar. You list academic credentials, proudly, yet it appears you know nothing of simply reading a book.
> 
> I include a bit more with the pics to prove I got the book, you even get a bonus, feet.
> 
> View attachment 276588 View attachment 276589 View attachment 276590
Click to expand...

Proof Truman same as The other mass murderer before him FDR,also loved Stalin,Mass murdering traiters FDR and Stalin loved him because he was exactly the same as they both were,mass murderers of women and children.three peas in a pod,these mass murderers need to stick together.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC:
> 
> The nuking of Japan may have been the proudest, high-water mark in the history of American Imperialism.  Too bad we can't go back and do it all over for a 2nd time.


It was done twice, idiot.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
> 
> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Mike, I believe that we have clashed on issues in the past, but I am with all the way on this. It was motivated by revenge and probably racism with no regard for human life or human decency.
Click to expand...

You nailed it TheProgressivePatriot


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The body count of the GI's fighting the War were growing everyday.........Japan's surrender ended that.............now didn't it...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  The only place where GIs were doing anything approaching substantive fighting when we nuked Japan was on Luzon, and that was only because we were needlessly pursuing the Japanese into the jungle after they had given up trying to engage us and had retreated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History is what it is..................decisions made to save American lives and end the war.............Now the outrage about it forever...........on how evil we were for doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you haven't read the OP and my replies. We did not need to nuke Japan to end the war without an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trashing America for Racial politics..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you're trashing American principles by defending the actions of Harry Truman, a liberal Democrat who later handed over China to Mao's Communists and sentenced at least 30 million Chinese to die under Mao's rule.
> 
> Patriotism is not blindly defending the actions of a liberal Democratic administration, an administration that included Soviet spies and sympathizers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the horrible things the Japanese did in that War..........which helped cause the decision to drop the nukes......OH WELL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true. Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too. And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.
Click to expand...

All the revionist apologists that have come on here trollimg never read your op or your replies obviously.


----------



## eagle1462010

LA RAM FAN said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The body count of the GI's fighting the War were growing everyday.........Japan's surrender ended that.............now didn't it...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  The only place where GIs were doing anything approaching substantive fighting when we nuked Japan was on Luzon, and that was only because we were needlessly pursuing the Japanese into the jungle after they had given up trying to engage us and had retreated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History is what it is..................decisions made to save American lives and end the war.............Now the outrage about it forever...........on how evil we were for doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you haven't read the OP and my replies. We did not need to nuke Japan to end the war without an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trashing America for Racial politics..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you're trashing American principles by defending the actions of Harry Truman, a liberal Democrat who later handed over China to Mao's Communists and sentenced at least 30 million Chinese to die under Mao's rule.
> 
> Patriotism is not blindly defending the actions of a liberal Democratic administration, an administration that included Soviet spies and sympathizers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the horrible things the Japanese did in that War..........which helped cause the decision to drop the nukes......OH WELL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true. Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too. And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the revionist apologists that have come on here trollimg never read your op or your replies obviously.
Click to expand...

All this BS WOKENESS on revisionist history is BS.........Japan pulled the trigger on us........and LOST.........oh well.

This thread is the NEW AMERICA SUCKS crusade...........to hell with that..........and to hell with WOKENESS......what kind of mental midgets came up with that name...........BRAIN DAMAGE.


----------



## eagle1462010

LA RAM FAN said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus far, you have lost all your debates in support of your OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. You bet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were at war with the USA the week we dropped the bomb on hiroshima. Over 1,000 U.S. military men were killed that week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already addressed this point, but, as usual, you simply ignored my response and repeated your talking point. Yeah, of course we were still "at war" with Japan--because Truman refused to do what most of his advisers urged him to do and because he refused to act on the intelligence that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to end the war on acceptable terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least, 84 Americans were killed by the Japanese in one engagement alone! On August 6th, the day we stopped Hiroshima from actively fighting the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See above. You do realize that by mid-June, at the latest, the Japanese had ceased all offensive operations, right? We were needlessly pursuing them when they were clearly contained and posed no threat to us, such as on Luzon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly with the level of education you claim you know these simple facts. Hence, your post is pure lie. You know the truth but choose to be a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is that you only seek talking points and refuse to read scholarship that challenges your warped sense of "patriotism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah he has a that habit of ignoring posts that don’t go along with his babble.
Click to expand...










						Inside Japan's WW2 unit that disembowelled screaming PoWs & popped out eyes
					

JAPAN’S forces were notorious for their ruthlessness and cruelty in World War II and tales of their sadism towards Allied prisoners have become infamous. Many know the horrific stories of the…




					www.thesun.co.uk


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, on August 6th, 1945, the USS Bullhead was sunk, by the Japanese air force, 84 men dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, like you said, we were still at war. And, umm, where was the USS Bullhead sunk?  The Java Sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August 17th, 1945 a B-32 was shot down by the japanese, one dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was August 18th. And why was it shot down? Why was it even flying over Tokyo after the emperor had already announced Japan's surrender? It was not the only B-32 in the air over Tokyo: it just happened to be the only one that got shot down. Why were we flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo on August 18th, four days after the Japanese had surrendered? Since we did not bother to notify the Japanese that we were going to flying bombers and fighters over Tokyo, the Japanese logically feared that we were going to bomb Tokyo in violation of the surrender agreement, so they sent up some fighters to intercept our bombers and fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defenseless, nope, not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this nonsense how you justify Truman's barbarism in your own mind? Go read the USSBS's report on Japan's prostrate condition as of July 1944. As I've pointed out, by June 1945, the odds of an American bomber or fighter getting shot down over Japan were 3 in 1,000, or 0.003%.
> 
> Technically speaking, one can say that the Japanese were not completely defenseless against air attack, but when they were only able to shoot down 0.003% of our planes, one can certainly say that they were "virtually defenseless."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese could of shot down the Enola Gay but the mistakenly thought one bomber was nothing to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had thought there was any chance that the Enola Gay and its two sister planes would come under attack, we would have sent fighters to escort them once they neared Hiroshima. The fact that we did not bother to do this speaks volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was busy killing Americans while you claim they were beat and surrendering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More ahistorical and disingenuous comedy. Japan had ceased offensive operations in the Pacific many months before Hiroshima. The only Americans who were killed after Okinawa were those who were engaged in offensive operations. No Americans would have been killed if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and had not refused to simply specify that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, to you, the charlatan the deaths of americans are "talking points".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still trying to wrap your anti-American, pro-Soviet, pro-Chinese Communist barbarism in the flag, hey?  Eisenhower opposed using nukes, partly because he knew that Japan was already beaten. Ike would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed. Admiral Leahy would have done the same thing. So would Admiral Nimitz. So would General Feller. So would General Clarke. So would many other good and decent senior American military officers.
> 
> It is sick and sad to see anyone seek to excuse Truman's cruelty and barbarism by wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming to be "patriots." Well, your warped definition of "patriotism" defends a man who not only nuked two cities when he knew Japan was willing to surrender on acceptable terms, but who also handed over China to Mao's Communists and thus sentenced over 30 million Chinese to death.
> 
> George Washington never would have used nukes, would not have ignored Japan's peace feelers, and would not have refused to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. Ditto for Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ulysses Grant, and several other presidents.
> 
> You are no patriot, at least not according to the standard American definition and understanding of the term.
Click to expand...

He indeed is no patriot in the least and is totally unamerican,that is so true that Jefferson,Washington,Adams,Lincoln and other presidents never would have used nukes including some of the more modern presidents like John Tyler,calvin coolidge,Eisenhower as you have proved in the entire thread,and some real recent presidents even including kennedy and jimmy carter.


----------



## badbob85037

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


The Japaneses killed over 2,000 Americans in their sneak attack. In China they butchered cities including women and children. Medical experiments  and their death marches. What are you some bleeding heart or just hate America?


----------



## Turtlesoup

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Oh Brother---I forget which was which.....as you try to play the christian card now to make the americans the bad guys----------BUT both cities were military targets and as such both cities were bombed as they should have been and needed to be.   

One City was the home of the Japanese 2nd battalion or some such huge military complex and the other was a massive shipping port for Japanese weapons.


The US was righteous and did the RIGHT thing and bombed the EVIL very evil Japanese that had attacked us in their quest to take over the world killing million many in very horrific ways including by slicing babies out of their mothers pregnant bellies.    Bombing two cities instead of one not only harmed their military complex but showed them that the first bomb was no accident and that we could and would take one city after another if they didn't STOP.   The US ended the war this way, had they not bombed the Japanese into total submission, WW2 would have continued on with Japanese and Americans (our european allies weren't really going to help us by the way) both losing millions of more people.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eisenhower never opposed the Nuking of Japan, before it happened! Eisenhower never knew of the Atom bomb. Go ahead and quote any book you like and I will be ready with that book to use with my reply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an incredibly erroneous statement. Yes, Ike did oppose nuking Japan before it happened. Stimson met with him and told him about the plan to nuke Japan, and Ike told him that he had "grave misgivings" about using such a weapon because using nukes was no longer necessary given Japan's extremely weak condition.
> 
> Hiroshima: Quotes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan never sent out peace feelers, not once. You can make the claim that one or two, maybe three people sent a telegram or message to a Russian Ambassador?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief! I've already refuted this nonsense. I posted a detailed review of Japan's peace feelers and noted that the emperor, two foreign ministers, senior military officers, and others approved of peace feelers through third parties. I've also pointed out that we knew in July, from intercepts and other sources, that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only issue, the only concern, was his status in a surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can not make the claim that Japan, as a unified Nation, to include the Military Leaders, the Civilian government, and the Japanese Emperor where all unified, seeking surrender, together, unanimously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a dishonest dodge. Of course the Japanese government was not completely unified on surrender! Our government wasn't unified on surrender either! There were numerous senior military and civilian officials who were arguing strongly that we should assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, that we should warn the Japanese that we had the atomic bomb, and that we should advise the Japanese that Russia would enter the Pacific War in the near future. I've pointed this out dozens of times!
> 
> In Japan, there were hardliners in the military who kept thwarting surrender efforts because they were able to argue that the emperor would be deposed in a surrender! That was why it was so critical for Truman to stipulate that this would not happen!
> 
> You've simply shifted the goalposts by dozens of yards to try to avoid dealing with facts that refute your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it was, the Emperor did surrender, after Nagasaki was destroyed, the Emperor surrendered without getting his guarantee that his life would be spared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  You even twist well-known, undisputed history. The Japanese surrender offer insisted on the condition that the emperor would not be deposed, even though the Soviets had invaded and we had nuked two cities.
> 
> We did not reject that condition. Truman wanted to convey our acceptance of that condition but to do so in language that would not seem to be a concession on our part. The Byrnes Note, which was our reply to the Japanese surrender offer, implied that the emperor would remain in place but that he would act under our authority. Most of Japan's leaders read the note as indicating that the emperor would not be deposed, although most--not all, but most--of the hardliners took advantage of the lack of a clear statement to this effect and argued that the note gave no guarantee about the emperor. Plus, the Japanese were getting back-channel indications that we would not depose the emperor.
> 
> And, of course, there is also the fact that we did not depose the emperor when we occupied Japan. In fact, the emperor proved to be a great ally and help in getting the Japanese to accept occupation and the transition to democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what all this proves, is the first bomb that was used in White Sands New Mexico should of been tested in July on Hiroshima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what it proves is that your attitude toward the Japanese is not only hateful and bigoted but that it borders on being sadistic. Your barbaric and vicious posturing is thoroughly un-American.
> 
> Americanism does not mean you butcher hundreds of thousands of women and children when you know you can achieve an acceptable surrender without killing any more people. Americanism does not mean you side with a murderous tyranny that was twice as bad as Nazi Germany and then hand over Eastern Europe to that tyranny and hand over China to an even worse tyranny. Americanism does not mean you spurn peace offers from an anti-communist, capitalist nation and deliberately provoke that nation to attack you so you can get your country to enter a war on the side of the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

This troll so much plays dodgeball.no surprise,he is a dude that thinks he is a woman.hee hee comedy gold.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool, you never read the book. Here is page 380, that statement is not there! YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK!
> 
> I have the book, and more books written by Eisenhower, that is why I deliberately baited you into making this post. To show all you have done is read stuff on the internet hence you have no idea what the truth is.
> 
> Not there, where is it. Am I suppose to do the scholarly work for you? You brag about your scholarly credentials. So why is your link wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a kid in a candy shop over your perception that you have exposed some great error.
> 
> Okay, let's back up here just a second. Is your copy of Ike's book the hardback version or the paperback version? Now, look at pages 312-313. Or, look at page 360. Seven of the eight sources I checked cite pages 312-313 as the pages where the statement appears, while one (the Congressional Record) cites page 360. So, yes, Long might have simply mistyped 360 as 380 if he was using a different version than the one you have.
> 
> The Eisenhower Foundation confirms that Ike opposed nuking Japan before it was nuked:
> 
> Eisenhower shared his own opinions in 1945 before the bomb was dropped, recalling a conversation with then Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson: “During his 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…” Eisenhower would later confirm these opinions in a 1963 interview, stating that “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Eisenhower Foundation, KS)​
> 
> 
> 
> How about we use your credible source McGeorge Bundy? Oh, wait, this meeting between Stimson and Eisenhower never happened so your source, bundy, did not write about it in the Stimson book. Significant event, they wrote much to include Grew's opinion. So where is Bundy's statement confirming this meeting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH?  My "credible source"?!  I was citing Bundy as a hostile witness. I said that "even" Bundy, the rabid defender of nuking Japan, agreed that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki. Bundy was a lying dog. He was the main ghost writer of "Stimson's" infamous article in defense of Truman's decision. Bundy twisted and lied all over the place in that article. He also took advantage of Stimson's poor health and weakened mental state and "persuaded" him to "change his mind." The record is clear that before Hiroshima, Stimson was one of the main advocates for giving the Japanese assurance that we would not depose the emperor.
> 
> If you could not tell that I was using Bundy as a hostile witness, I don't know what to tell you. I noted repeatedly that Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's article and that he was a defender of nuking Japan. Again, that's why I said "even" when I cited Bundy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let's not forget you stated, high ranking officials, lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny the Earth is round all day, but it'll still be round. The fact that MacArthur, Clarke, Feller, Nimitz, Grew, Bard, Leahy, etc., etc., not to mention most of the dozens of scientists who worked on the bomb, opposed nuking Japan has been documented and discussed in hundreds of scholarly studies.
Click to expand...

Damn you ain’t kidding,he sure does sound like a kid in a candy shop not getting his way sense they don’t have the candy he wants so then starts bawling.lol


----------



## Turtlesoup

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
Click to expand...

  Good grief--despite the propaganda that haters of america put out--both  cities were military targets---one was the home of the Japanese army and one was a huge shipping port for the Japanese army.   And to answer your question yes---we had to chose to kill a bunch of japanese in order to convince these EVIL invaders to stop attacking others.   ...and no no lethal demonstration would have done nothing---these were brutal evil people then who sliced babies out of chinese women's tummies among others for sport.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, they did not surrender,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You again simply ignore the fact that most of Japan's leaders were trying to surrender. You just keep ignoring this with this silly and grade-school simplistic line that "they did not surrender." They were trying to surrender. And we knew they were trying to surrender. But they--the moderates--needed to overcome the hardliners, who, though a minority, could paralyze and even bring down the government if any one of their two cabinet members refused to vote for surrender or if they resigned and their service refused to appoint a successor.
> 
> The moderates desperately needed our help to overcome the hardliners, but Truman did nothing but help the hardliners over and over again. It was as if he wanted to ensure that the Japanese did not surrender until he could nuke them and until the Soviets were ready to invade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and they did carry out offensive operations. The sinking of the USS Indianapolis is certainly proof, with 900 men dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Oh, so a lone submarine on a rare patrol that stumbles across an unescorted USN ship far from Japan and sinks it--that's an "offensive operation"?!  That's comical. That's not an offensive operation, much less a sizable one.
> 
> The word "offensive operation" in a military context refers to multiple forces launching a coordinated attack with an objective of seizing territory and/or destroying substantial numbers of enemy personnel and equipment (ships, tanks, planes, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not being able to carry out a sizeable offensive operation is much different than still fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, that's the point. They were only fighting because we were still attacking them. They were powerless to attack us in any kind of an offensive operation. Most of their ships were stuck in harbor for lack of fuel (and fear of getting sunk). Their air force rarely sortied out in even halfway substantial numbers due to a lack of fuel, and their airplane production was almost zero due to a lack of raw materials. That's why our losses in air raids were less than 1%.
> 
> Most of their leaders were trying to surrender and had been trying for several weeks, but they could not overcome the hardliners because, thanks to Truman, the hardliners could put forward two powerful arguments that the moderates could not overcome, i.e., that the emperor would be deposed if Japan surrendered and that the Soviet Union would remain neutral until the neutrality pact ended in April 1946.
Click to expand...

He keeps losing his credibility major big time trolling saying they did not try and surrender,comedy gold.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You literally, are an idiot. Yes respond, with replies that ignore what I post.
> 
> You are lazy and have not read the posts in this thread. I dont think you read what you quote.
> 
> This post is a great example. My post was specific with sources. I never mentioned Maddox nor quoted Maddox. Now you are off on a tangent in regards to Maddox.
> 
> I shake my head at your stupidity.
> 
> It is as if your brain barely functions. Your brain functions just enough to do a Google search. Google is thinking for you. I bet your head hurts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing that you could make these statements after reading my reply. I suspect you read the first paragraph and then skimmed over the rest. My reply answers every essential argument you've made about Ike's statements on nuking Japan. All of your arguments against Ike's statements follow the general thrust of Maddox's arguments, except that some of your assumptions are erroneous and are not even made by Maddox. Let's examine your arguments:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eisenhower, gives to different versions of his meeting with Stimson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed that argument in my reply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two versions that contradict each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they do not, not by any standard of sound scholarship. They are not mutually exclusive: it's just that the later version gives more detail. Nothing in the first version conflicts with the second version, and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One must be a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a simplistic, sophomoric conclusion that shows you have no understanding of serious historical research. Just because one account provides more information than the other does not mean that one of them is a "lie."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which book to believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the two accounts are not mutually exclusive. Even in the first account, Ike made it clear that he expressed misgivings about nuking Japan. As I mentioned in my reply, it is entirely reasonable and understandable that Ike's first account, written in 1948, would be rather circumspect, but that his later account, written 15 years later, would contain more information because he felt more at liberty to provide a fuller version.
> 
> I notice you ignored the point that Gen. Omar Bradley confirmed in his memoir that Eisenhower expressed strong objections to nuking Japan when he met with Stimson. Why didn't you address that point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can also use MacArthur to show that it is unlikely that Eisenhower was told about the Top Secret Atomic Bomb while MacArthur was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Uh, as even Maddox admits, one of Stimson's aides recorded that Ike and Stimson discussed the atomic bomb! Did you even read my reply?
> 
> Furthermore, just FYI, Truman, Stimson, and the rest of Truman's gang _hated _MacArthur! How can you not know this?! So it's not at all surprising that Mac was kept in the dark. Furthermore, MacArthur was not nearby when Stimson was in Potsdam, whereas Eisenhower was, and Truman and Stimson liked Ike. And, again, we have documentary evidence from one of Stimson's aides that Stimson and Eisenhower discussed nuking Japan.
> 
> I might add that Eisenhower insisted to his biographer, Stephen Ambrose, that he objected to using nukes on Japan when he met with Stimson. I mentioned this fact in my reply as well, but you ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there is ample reason to not use Eisenhower if one is trying to make the case, that the Atomic bomb was not needed. You can not use a liar, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, my, my. So you, who has tried to wrap your barbarism in the flag and who has questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with you--here you are calling one of our greatest WW II generals, and one of our most beloved presidents, a liar. You're no "patriot."
> 
> In point of fact, there is no credible reason to doubt that Eisenhower opposed nuking Japan before the fact. And, of course, there is no question that the more he studied the issue, the firmer he came to believe that nuking Japan was both wrong and unnecessary, as he explained in his 1963 interview with _Newsweek._
Click to expand...

Of COURSE he just read the first paragraph and skimmed over the rest of. Your post,the way he has kept playing dodgeball with you in this entire thread,it’s obvious he has done that with every post of yours.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad, that there are the little people, with little minds, who think they can shove the deaths of veterans in our faces, as if they are triumphant in doing so. Little rants from weak little people, people who can never be men. Sad are the scum. What else can we call them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean "scum" like General and President Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy, Admiral Nimitz, Ambassador Grew, Ralph Bard, General Clarke, General MacArthur, etc., etc.?
> 
> Not one American soldier would have died in the Pacific in August if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and what he knew about them from intercepts.
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children is not the American way and is not what America is about. Handing over hundreds of millions of people to Communist tyranny is not the American way either. The American way is to fight honorably and to pursue every option for peace before resorting to force. The American way is to hit military targets, if you must use force, not bomb virtually defenseless cities filled mostly with seniors, women, and children.
> 
> For those who might be interested, below is a link to a point-by-point rebuttal to Richard Frank written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, author of the highly acclaimed book on Japan's surrender titled _Racing the Enemy. _Richard Frank is the other major Truman/nuke apologist. In the article below, Hasegawa dismantles Frank's arguments and along the way shows how Frank misuses sources and ignore statements that don't fit his narrative. It's a very long article, but it has to be--it's very thorough. Hasegawa's ground-breaking book proves that it was the Soviet invasion, not nukes, that led to Japan's surrender. The article below contains most of the key information found in the book.
> 
> The Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion: What Drove Japan's Decision to Surrender? | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
Click to expand...

As always mike griffin is the winner and has checkmated the troll Elecktra taking him to school handing his ass to him on a platter .lol


----------



## there4eyeM

It is not "America hating" to realize the end of the war could have been much better handled.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

mikegriffith1 said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were in a no holds barred war. The invasion of Okinawa showed us that the coming invasion of homeland Japan would cause a half a million GI deaths and million or more wounded not counting the deaths of Japanese. The use of the two bombs to stop the war was the right thing for the time. Your Monday morning quarterbacking 74yrs after the fact shows your lack of knowledge of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you didn't bother to read any of the posts herein where I document Japan's prostrate condition? There was no need to invade Japan, nor to nuke Japan, to end the war.
> 
> We know from internal memos that even the War Department knew that the "half a million" estimate was a wild exaggeration. Even most of the few scholars who still defend Truman's nuking of Japan have admitted that the half-a-million figure was baseless.
> 
> Kyushu, with its open plains and much larger area, would have provided much greater room for maneuver than did Okinawa. On Okinawa, geography forced us to fight in narrow corridors and small areas. Of course, another major reason for our high casualties on Okinawa, as in the Philippines, was that we were foolish enough to attack entrenched positions in those narrow and small areas, instead of just cutting them off, hemming them in, and letting them die on the vine.
> 
> No, nuking two cites was not "the right thing to do." It was a war crime of gigantic proportions.
> 
> It is not "Monday morning quarterbacking" to point out that Truman did not need to nuke Japan. Dozens of people inside the government and in the Manhattan Project voiced opposition to nuking Japan before Truman did it. And within months of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, voices from both conservative and liberal camps began to raise doubts about the necessity and morality of Truman's action. That's why Conant and other Truman-nuke defenders pressured Stimson into signing his name to the famous (infamous) defense of Truman's decision that they wrote for the February 1947 edition of _Harper's Magazine_.
> 
> Finally, many people don't realize that many of the first critics of Truman's nuking of Japan were conservatives:
> 
> American Conservatives Are the Forgotten Critics of the Atomic Bombing of Japan | Barton J. Bernstein
Click to expand...

All these revision apologists never do take the time to read your op,they just go by what their corrupt school system taught them.


----------



## Markle

there4eyeM said:


> It is not "America hating" to realize the end of the war could have been much better handled.


----------



## Unkotare

badbob85037 said:


> ... What are you some bleeding heart or just hate America?



If this is your response to any discussion of history, what the hell are you doing in the History forum?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> badbob85037 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... What are you some bleeding heart or just hate America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is your response to any discussion of history, what the hell are you doing in the History forum?
Click to expand...

You are not discussing History, You are creating out of nothing a fake surrender. The Japanese Government never offered to surrender, they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> badbob85037 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... What are you some bleeding heart or just hate America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is your response to any discussion of history, what the hell are you doing in the History forum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not discussing History, You are creating out of nothing a fake surrender. The Japanese Government never offered to surrender, they wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Proven wrong a thousand times.


----------



## Turtlesoup

there4eyeM said:


> It is not "America hating" to realize the end of the war could have been much better handled.


Handled better?

Seriously you have no clue.

To have not bombed Japan would have meant a land war with our troops (the europeans after we saved them from Hitler mostly had no stomach for fighting the japanese after) having to go into their country where they were all ordered and willing to commit suicide and kill their own kids in order to kill our troops.  

To have not dropped the bombs, would have meant a massive land war where millions more people would have died on both sides dear.  

I am so sorry that so many don't understand this basic...........Dropping the bombs was the BEST CHOICE and the MOST HUMANE CHOICE for everyone.


----------



## Englewood

Our infantry division was scheduled to land below Tokyo when we invaded Japan. We believed it would be the worst slaughter of the war. The Japanese would fight for their homeland and we would fight to go home alive. By that time we had little compassion for the Japanese or their form of warfare, nor the way they used our prisoners.


----------



## Silver Cat

there4eyeM said:


> It is not "America hating" to realize the end of the war could have been much better handled.


Yes. For example, we could use three bombs instead of two.


----------



## Silver Cat

Turtlesoup said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not "America hating" to realize the end of the war could have been much better handled.
> 
> 
> 
> Handled better?
> 
> Seriously you have no clue.
> 
> To have not bombed Japan would have meant a land war with our troops (the europeans after we saved them from Hitler mostly had no stomach for fighting the japanese after) having to go into their country where they were all ordered and willing to commit suicide and kill their own kids in order to kill our troops.
> 
> To have not dropped the bombs, would have meant a massive land war where millions more people would have died on both sides dear.
> 
> I am so sorry that so many don't understand this basic...........Dropping the bombs was the BEST CHOICE and the MOST HUMANE CHOICE for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yes. And don't forget about the Soviets. They were fighting the Japans, they captured Sakhalin and Kuril islands. To have not dropped the bombs would have meant Hokkaido and Northern Honshu captured by Soviets, too. 
And this would meant absolutely different scenarios of the further wars in Korea and Vietnam.


----------



## the other mike

Douchebag Wallace says it was necessary of course. His Lockheed and Raytheon Christmas bonuses just went up 6 figures .


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...
> 
> To have not bombed Japan would have meant a land war with our troops (the europeans after we saved them from Hitler mostly had no stomach for fighting the japanese after) having to go into their country where they were all ordered and willing to commit suicide and kill their own kids in order to kill our troops.
> ...



Invasion was not the only other option, and the entire country was not about to commit suicide.


----------



## eagle1462010

Social Justice Warrior thread is still going ..........LOL

My father, Father n law, and many uncles fought against the Japs.................they were all ok with the atom bomb to end the War...............

Moral of the story..........don't start a fight with a country that will kick your ass after..............and then don't demand conditions when you lose.............

They could have unconditionally surrendered anytime..............they could have stopped executing prisoners.........and having contests of cutting off heads of prisoners before the atom bombs hit.

NO SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> To have not bombed Japan would have meant a land war with our troops (the europeans after we saved them from Hitler mostly had no stomach for fighting the japanese after) having to go into their country where they were all ordered and willing to commit suicide and kill their own kids in order to kill our troops.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invasion was not the only other option, and the entire country was not about to commit suicide.
Click to expand...

 GROW UP and stop  with the stupid spin....INVASION was the only other option.  Unless you wanted  a cease fire that would have certainly only meant that Japan would again pick up arms later on and go on the attack to seize more countries while continuing to abuse the ones that they already had.  

Did you just really just claim that they wouldn't have been mass suicide to kill americans and the allies with a land war on Japans homeland?  Did you really say this nonsense?  You need to go pick up a history book about what the Japanese were doing at the time.   They certainly were already committing suicides to wipe out americans and allies and would have certainly continued on killing millions more in a land war with japan on their homeland.  HINT:  the kamikazi weren't the only japanese committing suicide to kill others. 

The Japanese saw their evil emperor as a god-----------and done anything that he wanted.    And he wanted suicide killers and to defeat the rest of the world at any cost to everyone else including his own people---------dropping the bombs sent a clear message, that we would bomb Japan into submission and that the emperor who before the bombs felt perfectly safe had to come a sudden abrupt realization that the US would being dropping a bomb on him next...thusly giving him an incentative to end the war.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....



No, it was not.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
Click to expand...

Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ... They certainly were already committing suicides to wipe out americans and allies and would have certainly continued on killing millions more in a land war with japan on their homeland. ...



Again, invasion was not the only other option, and you seem to be another comic book anthropologist.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
Click to expand...


The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...  And he wanted suicide killers and to defeat the rest of the world at any cost to everyone else including his own people---------dropping the bombs sent a clear message, that we would bomb Japan into submission and that the emperor who before the bombs felt perfectly safe had to come a sudden abrupt realization that the US would being dropping a bomb on him next...thusly giving him an incentative to end the war.



This kind of nonsense demonstrates very clearly how ignorant you really are of the time and the people involved on all sides.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... They certainly were already committing suicides to wipe out americans and allies and would have certainly continued on killing millions more in a land war with japan on their homeland. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, invasion was not the only other option, and you seem to be another comic book anthropologist.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh....an insult in hopes of misdirecting?  This is your response?  

 I asked a point blank question---what other options do you think that there were after you have repeatedly have claimed that there were and several have told you that there weren't.    

Your response has failed to mislead---it clearly shows that you know of no other options for the US because simply there was none.  The US's bombing of the evil Japanese then was necessarily and the most humane thing to do for everyone despite the anti americans so desperately wanting to spin it as somehow evil of the US to end the war concisely saving millions more lives after we were attacked.  

My grandfather and his brothers were also in this war---------  they all made it back alive although haunted by nightmares of what they had seen.   My poor grandfather was a point for the army-------in Germany and surrounding areas.   To have done a land war with Japan would have certainly meant that they would not have made it home alive.   My grandfather was a wonderful man as were his brothers---they all did good their  entire lives.  Dropping the bombs saved them from being sent to Japan to die--------the US did the right thing and dropped the bombs on the evil Japanese saving millions of lives on both sides, but yet we keep having these goofy american haters trying to spin nonsense about how evil the US was.  The US wasn't the bad guys---they were definately the GOOD guys by far and away------------idiots hating on the US for doing the right thing is what is bad.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ...
> 
> NO SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL.



Be careful about casting that stone. 






						Trophies of War: U.S. Troops and the Mutilation of Japanese War Dead, 1941-1945 on JSTOR
					

James J. Weingartner, Trophies of War: U.S. Troops and the Mutilation of Japanese War Dead, 1941-1945, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Feb., 1992), pp. 53-67




					www.jstor.org


----------



## gipper

To summarize this lengthy thread in a few words, but only for the benefit of the close minded murderous statists who can’t accept the truth. 

1. FDR maneuvered and incited Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, a military base in which 2,000 servicemen died. 
2. FDR knew the attack was coming beforehand, but refused to warn commanders and later scapegoated them. 
3. FDR and Dirty Harry imposed unconditional surrender on Japan, causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. 
4. Japan put out peace feelers as early as 1944. By early 1945, all they asked was not to prosecute the Emperor. Truman knew of this request in early 1945 but ignored it, until after he massacred defenseless civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 
5. By summer 1945, Japan was incapable of defending itself or committing any offensive action. The US military had complete control of sea and air. Daylight bombings were instituted because Japan had no air defenses. 
6. Many US commanders and administration leaders advised Truman not to use the A bombs or stated they were unnecessary for victory. 
7. The A bombs were not needed to end the war. They did not save any American lives.
8. Truman used the bombs to impress the world and frighten the Soviets. Of course, Stalin already knew about the bomb due to his numerous spies within FDR’s and Truman’s administration.
9. Dirty Harry lied multiple times about the reason for using the bombs. 
10. Statists can’t accept the above, even though all are documented facts.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
Click to expand...



You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.

You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies. 


I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....


----------



## Turtlesoup

gipper said:


> To summarize this lengthy thread in a few words, but only for the benefit of the close minded murderous statists who can’t accept the truth.
> 
> 1. FDR maneuvered and incited Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, a military base in which 2,000 servicemen died.
> 2. FDR knew the attack was coming beforehand, but refused to warn commanders and later scapegoated them.
> 3. FDR and Dirty Harry imposed unconditional surrender on Japan, causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
> 4. Japan put out peace feelers as early as 1944. By early 1945, all they asked was not to prosecute the Emperor. Truman knew of this request in early 1945 but ignored it, until after he massacred defenseless civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 5. By summer 1945, Japan was incapable of defending itself or committing any offensive action. The US military had complete control of sea and air. Daylight bombings were instituted because Japan had no air defenses.
> 6. Many US commanders and administration leaders advised Truman not to use the A bombs or stated they were unnecessary for victory.
> 7. The A bombs were not needed to end the war. They did not save any American lives.
> 8. Truman used the bombs to impress the world and frighten the Soviets. Of course, Stalin already knew about the bomb due to his numerous spies within FDR’s and Truman’s administration.
> 9. Dirty Harry lied multiple times about the reason for using the bombs.
> 10. Statists can’t accept the above, even though all are documented facts.




Oh brother....I hate FDR the original US socialist/communist but to blame him for Japan attacking and invading others is way out of line.   The japanese emperor was evil---and deserves all the credit for his own murders dear.

And on my,  the delusions about the Japanese not being able to harm others any more?  What a load of cow poo..........

They were still harming people--------and needed a Major attitude adjustment---which dropping the bombs on them gave them as they haven't  invaded and attacked any others since.


----------



## Unkotare

"Most Americans have heard World War II veterans claim that the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved their lives. This historical argument often leads to another: that those who fought against the Japanese, or who expected to be part of an invasion of Japan, are of one mind in believing that the use of the atomic bomb was unquestionably the right decision at the time. 

Relayed through family stories, media portraits and political soundbites, this "you weren't there and therefore don't have any right to offer your views" argument discourages thoughtful discussion of one of the most important decisions in American history. And it contradicts the more informed opinion of some of the top officers these veterans served under. 

Indeed, contrary to conventional opinion today, many military leaders of the time — including six out of seven five-star officers — criticized the use of the atomic bomb."









						Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...You have no clue about that time and place.   ...



Actually, I do. More than you are ever likely to.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...--------you think .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Don't try to tell me what I think, douche bag. If you have a question, ask.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ......hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> ...



There's that comic book history again. Did you major in cartoons?


----------



## gipper

Turtlesoup said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> To summarize this lengthy thread in a few words, but only for the benefit of the close minded murderous statists who can’t accept the truth.
> 
> 1. FDR maneuvered and incited Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, a military base in which 2,000 servicemen died.
> 2. FDR knew the attack was coming beforehand, but refused to warn commanders and later scapegoated them.
> 3. FDR and Dirty Harry imposed unconditional surrender on Japan, causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
> 4. Japan put out peace feelers as early as 1944. By early 1945, all they asked was not to prosecute the Emperor. Truman knew of this request in early 1945 but ignored it, until after he massacred defenseless civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 5. By summer 1945, Japan was incapable of defending itself or committing any offensive action. The US military had complete control of sea and air. Daylight bombings were instituted because Japan had no air defenses.
> 6. Many US commanders and administration leaders advised Truman not to use the A bombs or stated they were unnecessary for victory.
> 7. The A bombs were not needed to end the war. They did not save any American lives.
> 8. Truman used the bombs to impress the world and frighten the Soviets. Of course, Stalin already knew about the bomb due to his numerous spies within FDR’s and Truman’s administration.
> 9. Dirty Harry lied multiple times about the reason for using the bombs.
> 10. Statists can’t accept the above, even though all are documented facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother....I hate FDR the original US socialist/communist but to blame him for Japan attacking and invading others is way out of line.   The japanese emperor was evil---and deserves all the credit for his own murders dear.
> 
> And on my,  the delusions about the Japanese not being able to harm others any more?  What a load of cow poo..........
> 
> They were still harming people--------and needed a Major attitude adjustment---which dropping the bombs on them gave them as they haven't  invaded and attacked any others since.
Click to expand...

Man up son. Accept the facts. Don’t be a pussy.


----------



## Oz and the Orchestra

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.
> 
> You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> 
> 
> I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....
Click to expand...

Or the yanks could have just blocked all the ports. They could have supplied massive food and medical drugs & equiptment even, or put it on offer, and just waited. If the Japs continued to hold out with their people starving that would not have been the yanks fault.Then it would have just been a matter of time.
All Jap resources were spent, so there is no way they could just keep mounting any meaningful attacks. Had the US taken this course of action far, from condemnation, history would be applauding you.


----------



## Englewood

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.
> 
> You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> 
> 
> I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or the yanks could have just blocked all the ports. They could have supplied massive food and medical drugs & equiptment even, or put it on offer, and just waited. If the Japs continued to hold out with their people starving that would not have been the yanks fault.Then it would have just been a matter of time.
> All Jap resources were spent, so there is no way they could just keep mounting any meaningful attacks. Had the US taken this course of action far, from condemnation, history would be applauding you.
Click to expand...

America didn't need applause it needed the war to be over.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  And he wanted suicide killers and to defeat the rest of the world at any cost to everyone else including his own people---------dropping the bombs sent a clear message, that we would bomb Japan into submission and that the emperor who before the bombs felt perfectly safe had to come a sudden abrupt realization that the US would being dropping a bomb on him next...thusly giving him an incentative to end the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of nonsense demonstrates very clearly how ignorant you really are of the time and the people involved on all sides.
Click to expand...



Again another lash out with an insult and no facts.


Unkotare said:


> "Most Americans have heard World War II veterans claim that the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved their lives. This historical argument often leads to another: that those who fought against the Japanese, or who expected to be part of an invasion of Japan, are of one mind in believing that the use of the atomic bomb was unquestionably the right decision at the time.
> 
> Relayed through family stories, media portraits and political soundbites, this "you weren't there and therefore don't have any right to offer your views" argument discourages thoughtful discussion of one of the most important decisions in American history. And it contradicts the more informed opinion of some of the top officers these veterans served under.
> 
> Indeed, contrary to conventional opinion today, many military leaders of the time — including six out of seven five-star officers — criticized the use of the atomic bomb."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


  You shouldn't believe propaganda-------- I tried locating your source of 6 out of 7 5-star officers critized the use of the bombs--but ran across a LA times Article that was claiming 7 of the 8 5 star officers including MacArthur were against the bombing---MacArthurs top aid says bs as MacArthur was later advocating for dropping 30 - 50 atomic bombs all across Korea's head to fight communism.     What is really bizarre is that there is no record of any these 5 stars being against dropping the bombs BEFORE the bombs were dropped----their only reservation coming only after.  The only 5 star to express any reservations according to the briefings, aids, and diaries before they were dropped was  from Marshal who whole heartedly and publically supported the bombs after they were dropped.   

So why would the 5 stars claim that they didn't support the bombings when there is no record of any of them being against the bombings before the bombs went off?  And the answer is they were POLITICAL creatures who at the time were obsessed with COMMUNISM especially as it relates to China and Korea.   Later 40's and early fifties, fighting communism was a big thing and they already knew that Asia's China and Korea were the next threats coming.    They were doing what all politicians do---lie and telling people what they thought they wanted to hear so their words mean nothing.  None of them were against the bombs when the bombing took place.  



I'll break it down for you in simple terms.


The first bomb was dropped on  August 6.  Then the  Russians finally  jumped their azz and jumped into the war on August 8 and invaded one of the Japanese puppet states on August 9--the same day that  the second bomb was dropped.  Two days later Japan surrendered completely.

Why you ask did I just break it down for you?  Because the propagandists AND COMMUNISTS are spinning nonsense trying so hard to claim that the bombs weren't necessary to get Japan to surrender and that they were going to surrender anyways because Russia had jumped into the war.  Russia only jumped in because the US used the atomic bombs on Japan.  Japan only surrendered because of the bombs.  This is why the lib media almost or always never ever mentions the time line break down.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.
> 
> You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> 
> 
> I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or the yanks could have just blocked all the ports. They could have supplied massive food and medical drugs & equiptment even, or put it on offer, and just waited. If the Japs continued to hold out with their people starving that would not have been the yanks fault.Then it would have just been a matter of time.
> All Jap resources were spent, so there is no way they could just keep mounting any meaningful attacks. Had the US taken this course of action far, from condemnation, history would be applauding you.
Click to expand...



Oh brother.....blocking trade would not have staved the Japs to death.  What a silly claim....You act like people could not raise their own food or catch their fish off an island nation.   Silly.

Japs were still attacking others---all that had happened was that their airforce was mostly wiped out.. and that the allies were able to block war material and supplies from being brought in by ship with us  using our submarines.  They still occupied captured lands and terrorized other people.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.
> 
> You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> 
> 
> I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or the yanks could have just blocked all the ports. They could have supplied massive food and medical drugs & equiptment even, or put it on offer, and just waited. If the Japs continued to hold out with their people starving that would not have been the yanks fault.Then it would have just been a matter of time.
> All Jap resources were spent, so there is no way they could just keep mounting any meaningful attacks. Had the US taken this course of action far, from condemnation, history would be applauding you.
Click to expand...


And we would have another fat kim in korea in Japan as well---generations of abusers looking to attack and cause trouble what we would have to constantly guard against as they would seek the nukes and plan on using them against world.


No thanks, I like problems solved--not just kicking the problems down the road.  In hindsight, Using the A bombs on the Japanese was what was necessary to give them an attitude adjustment making them an ally instead of continual problem.   Don't care about the supposed worlds condemnation--there are lots of stupid people who are going to whine regardless..............dropping the bombs ended the war, saving millions and forced the Japanese to end their ways and act completely different.  Dropping the bombs was the right decision then and still is now.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.
> 
> You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> 
> 
> I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or the yanks could have just blocked all the ports. They could have supplied massive food and medical drugs & equiptment even, or put it on offer, and just waited. If the Japs continued to hold out with their people starving that would not have been the yanks fault.Then it would have just been a matter of time.
> All Jap resources were spent, so there is no way they could just keep mounting any meaningful attacks. Had the US taken this course of action far, from condemnation, history would be applauding you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we would have another fat kim in korea in Japan as well---generations of abusers looking to attack and cause trouble what we would have to constantly guard against as they would seek the nukes and plan on using them against world.
> ...
Click to expand...


More "imagination land" speculation.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.
> 
> You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> 
> 
> I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or the yanks could have just blocked all the ports. They could have supplied massive food and medical drugs & equiptment even, or put it on offer, and just waited. If the Japs continued to hold out with their people starving that would not have been the yanks fault.Then it would have just been a matter of time.
> All Jap resources were spent, so there is no way they could just keep mounting any meaningful attacks. Had the US taken this course of action far, from condemnation, history would be applauding you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother.....blocking trade would not have staved the Japs to death.  What a silly claim....You act like people could not raise their own food or catch their fish off an island nation.   Silly.
> ....
Click to expand...


It almost seems as if you are proud of being ignorant. The civilian population was already facing starvation well before August 1945.









						JAPAN TARGETED FOR STARVATION - World War II Day by Day
					

Tinian, Mariana Islands · March 27, 1945 An island nation, Japan was vulnerable to a blockade of essential food and strategic materials. On this date in 1945 the U.S. Army Air Forces and the U.S. Navy, hoping to put the final nail in the enemy’s coffin, kicked off Operation Starvation, the...



					ww2days.com


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...So why would the 5 stars claim that they didn't support the bombings when there is no record of any of them being against the bombings before the bombs went off?  ...



You mean the atomic program so secret that truman didn't even know it existed before fdr finally died? That one, genius?


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.
> 
> You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> 
> 
> I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or the yanks could have just blocked all the ports. They could have supplied massive food and medical drugs & equiptment even, or put it on offer, and just waited. If the Japs continued to hold out with their people starving that would not have been the yanks fault.Then it would have just been a matter of time.
> All Jap resources were spent, so there is no way they could just keep mounting any meaningful attacks. Had the US taken this course of action far, from condemnation, history would be applauding you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we would have another fat kim in korea in Japan as well---generations of abusers looking to attack and cause trouble what we would have to constantly guard against as they would seek the nukes and plan on using them against world.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More "imagination land" speculation.
Click to expand...

Ahh another childish insult with confronted with the facts.   The issue is you dear.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.
> 
> You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> 
> 
> I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or the yanks could have just blocked all the ports. They could have supplied massive food and medical drugs & equiptment even, or put it on offer, and just waited. If the Japs continued to hold out with their people starving that would not have been the yanks fault.Then it would have just been a matter of time.
> All Jap resources were spent, so there is no way they could just keep mounting any meaningful attacks. Had the US taken this course of action far, from condemnation, history would be applauding you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother.....blocking trade would not have staved the Japs to death.  What a silly claim....You act like people could not raise their own food or catch their fish off an island nation.   Silly.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It almost seems as if you are proud of being ignorant. The civilian population was already facing starvation well before August 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAPAN TARGETED FOR STARVATION - World War II Day by Day
> 
> 
> Tinian, Mariana Islands · March 27, 1945 An island nation, Japan was vulnerable to a blockade of essential food and strategic materials. On this date in 1945 the U.S. Army Air Forces and the U.S. Navy, hoping to put the final nail in the enemy’s coffin, kicked off Operation Starvation, the...
> 
> 
> 
> ww2days.com
Click to expand...


So are are FAT KIMS people in Korea but they keep supporting him year after year decade after decade and we keep wasting our resources year after year trying to isolate him .   And in the end he will have the nukes---and the only question will be will we finally wipe bomb him or he will bomb us first.

BTW, what the hell are posting---I am not the one who posted the article about the Japanese going hungry then------


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So why would the 5 stars claim that they didn't support the bombings when there is no record of any of them being against the bombings before the bombs went off?  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the atomic program so secret that truman didn't even know it existed before fdr finally died? That one, genius?
Click to expand...



You think the 5 stars didn't know about the bomb that was being used?   Let me guess, you think they all just woke one day and out of the blue were told that the US had this giant bomb that had been used?    Hun, it doesn't work that way in the military.


No one cares when Truman was told about the A bombs before he became president---he didn't know till right after he was sworn in months before the bomb was used but several of the generals knew well  before him and all certainly knew by the summer as he gave orders that the bombs could be used at their discretion AFTER August 2...(you know that russian motivator thingy I told you about.)   Love how you try to redirect when you lose an argument and just start pulling all this unrelated nonsense out.   GRow up.  You lost the argument---dropping the bombs was the only sane thing to do--------------it was the best choice and it saved millions of lives by doing so.    It gave us leverage over Russia and got them to jump into the WW2 Japan, it forced Japan into unconditional surrender, it got rid of their cult leader as their actual leader and it change Japans attitude making them an ally instead of a constant issue like Korea is where the bombs weren't used and should have been as well.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...No one cares when Truman was told about the A bombs before he became president---....



_You_ care, because it blows a giant hole in your failed argument.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ... it saved millions of lives by doing so.   ...



Speculation. You swallowed a simple narrative and you are unwilling to give up your security blanket.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...it got rid of their cult leader as their actual leader ....



Once again demonstrating your ignorance of culture and history.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...--------you think .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I think, douche bag. If you have a question, ask.
Click to expand...

We have asked a question, you refuse to answer , what other option was there? Answer the question.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...No one cares when Truman was told about the A bombs before he became president---....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ care, because it blows a giant hole in your failed argument.
Click to expand...

I care?   It blows a hole in my argument?  It does nothing ukotare.  You are completely delusional and trying I think to muddy up the argument with nonsense in some weird attempt to pretend your delusions.  

What Truman knew of the a bomb before he became president has nothing to do with anything anywhere for any reason.  It only mattered that he knew about them as soon as he was sworn in April of 45 and that he immediately used them to leverage both Japan and Russia to do his bidding which was to end the WW2 unconditionally and forever.  Dropping the bombs, despite your delusional nonsense, was the most moral and ethical thing that could be done---it ended the war, it saved millions of lives.   It saved our troops including my grandfather and his brothers.  It prevented Japan from becoming another fat kim Korea.......


----------



## Englewood

Has anyone cited the estimated American casualties that were forecast for the invasion of Japan?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...--------you think .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I think, douche bag. If you have a question, ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have asked a question, you refuse to answer , what other option was there? Answer the question.
Click to expand...

LA Ram you can disagree all you want but refusing to answer the question is a FACT.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
Click to expand...

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the importance of such words as Shinto, Bushido, Yamato, and what they said about the early *Shows* [sic] period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who read a book jacket and think they have become experts...
> 
> People who reference _cartoons_ as "proof" of some half-assed, superficial "analysis" of culture or history...
> 
> People who can't be bothered to correctly spell the terms they are _trying_ to use. How about "Showa," professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you have posted NO LINK to actual documents from either Mac Arthur  or the Japanese Government. You cite Historians that make the claim and no where in their books is a shred of evidence to support the claim. Yes there was a peace group in the Government but it was out voted and had no authority to act. EVERY single communique to their Embassy said the same thing, ask for a ceasefire return to 41 start lines no occupation no surrender no concessions in China. Even after the Atomic Bomb they REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor did surrender the Army staged a COUP to stop it.
Click to expand...

And LA Ram AGAIN you can not cite a single source a single link to an actual Government offer by the Official Japanese Government. You can funny it all you want but the fact is Japan never offered to surrender EVER.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward.
> 
> 
> 
> Common misbelief, but wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a "misbelief". It's called _propaganda_. The left lives for it and Joey loves to spread it. Even he doesn't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, Poodle, try to pick up a history book.  Shit, I'll make it easier for you.. here's something from Faux News.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs
> 
> 
> or possibly more than — the A-bombs in ending the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation," said Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, whose recently published "Racing the Enemy" examines the conclusion of the Pacific war and is based on recently declassified Soviet archives as well as U.S. and Japanese documents..
> 
> "The emperor and the peace party (within the government) hastened to end the war expecting that the Americans would deal with Japan more generously than the Soviets," Hasegawa, a Russian-speaking American scholar, said in an interview.
> 
> Despite the death toll from the atomic bombings — 140,000 in Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki the Imperial Military Command believed it could hold out against an Allied invasion if it retained control of Manchuria and Korea, which provided Japan with the resources for war, according to Hasegawa and Terry Charman, a historian of World War II at London's Imperial War Museum.
> 
> "The Soviet attack changed all that," Charman said. "The leadership in Tokyo realized they had no hope now, and in that sense August Storm did have a greater effect on the Japanese decision to surrender than the dropping of the A-bombs."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the war party voted NOT to surrender and when the Emperor took it out of their hands they staged a failed Coup to try and stop THAT. Your historian is full of wishful thinking the FACTS as demonstrated by linked documents PROVE the majority of the Government was OPPOSED to surrender after 2 atomic bombs AND the Soviet Invasion.
Click to expand...

Historical FACT LA RAM not a revisionist history not a fabrication, we have the ACTUAL Japanese Government documents that prove it. What do you have agaim?


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...No one cares when Truman was told about the A bombs before he became president---....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ care, because it blows a giant hole in your failed argument.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely Delusional..........and Babbling


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...it got rid of their cult leader as their actual leader ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again demonstrating your ignorance of culture and history.
Click to expand...

It took their emperor out as the head of their government putting him on a leash----------after that point, he no longer was the absolute ruler---he became more of a figurehead and naught more as the Japanese people stop seeing him as a gawd as well......


----------



## Unkotare

Englewood said:


> Has anyone cited the estimated American casualties that were forecast for the invasion of Japan?


Over and over and over. That _speculation_ about one of several possible options has been mentioned very often.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...----------after that point, he no longer was the absolute ruler---he became more of a figurehead and naught more as the Japanese people stop seeing him as a gawd as well......



You have never studied anything about Japanese history, have you?


----------



## Englewood

Five star generals and even one star generals might view war differently than a draftee, PFC infantry.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Englewood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone cited the estimated American casualties that were forecast for the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Over and over and over. That _speculation_ about one of several possible options has been mentioned very often.
Click to expand...

And YOU still have not listed any supposed alternative to the bombs or an Invasion. You have not sourced nor linked to ANY official offer before the actual surrender to do so from the Japanese Government, you have not provided a source nor link to any of the supposed offers made to Mac Arthur.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.
Click to expand...

It was effective. It's only what matters. Much more "defenseless women and children" were saved.


----------



## Silver Cat

candycorn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
Click to expand...

And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was effective. It's only what matters. Much more "defenseless women and children" were saved.
Click to expand...

Illogical and totally without basis in fact.  Proven wrong multiple times just in this thread. Please learn the truth and stop believing propaganda.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ... Much more "defenseless women and children" were saved.



That is the soothing narrative that so many refuse to even consider in a critical manner. Anything to avoid a frank examination of moral implications.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.
Click to expand...

Not so simple when other nations have nuclear weapons as well.


----------



## candycorn

Silver Cat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.
Click to expand...


If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was effective. It's only what matters. Much more "defenseless women and children" were saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical and totally without basis in fact.  Proven wrong multiple times just in this thread. Please learn the truth and stop believing propaganda.
Click to expand...

It's the truth. They didn't invade other countries, neither massacred women and children since 1945. It was really a good lesson.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so simple when other nations have nuclear weapons as well.
Click to expand...

I never said that it will be easy. It means, that we should not complicate things with any sort of artificial "morality". Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad. When we kill enemies - it is good. When enemies kill us - it is bad.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....



That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.


----------



## Silver Cat

candycorn said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.
Click to expand...

Sure, it will be provoked. It will be provoked, at least, by their wealth and power. Agree, that it is unfair, when there are poor Americans and rich Chinamen. Or disagree and vote for Biden. He will make Americans much more poor and foreigners much more rich.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, it will be provoked. It will be provoked, at least, by their wealth and power. ...
Click to expand...


If your neighbor makes more money than you, does that "provoke" you to blow up his house?


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
Click to expand...

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. In the world of adults "morality" is a very flexible thing.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, it will be provoked. It will be provoked, at least, by their wealth and power. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor makes more money than you, does that "provoke" you to blow up his house?
Click to expand...

Sometimes yes.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
Click to expand...


That's exactly what it means, kid.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, it will be provoked. It will be provoked, at least, by their wealth and power. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor makes more money than you, does that "provoke" you to blow up his house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes yes.
Click to expand...


Then YOU are the "bad guy."


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
> And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"?  No.  Preferable.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compared to their immediate surrender?
> Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have surrendered at any point.  They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked.  In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.
> 
> But the tables remained upright.
> 
> So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when we get to 2025.
> 
> As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake.  We did what was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, it will be provoked. It will be provoked, at least, by their wealth and power. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor makes more money than you, does that "provoke" you to blow up his house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then YOU are the "bad guy."
Click to expand...

No. I'm good. At least in blowing up other people houses. So were American bombers.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
Click to expand...

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans? 

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
Click to expand...

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
Click to expand...

And YET STILL you have not provided a single link to the supposed list Mac Arthur was given, No link to any official japanese Government offers to surrender and no statement on what options we had in Aug 1945 other then the Bombs and an Invasion. Go figure.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
Click to expand...

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

RetiredGySgt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
Click to expand...

_I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
_
Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. 
_
_Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pumpkin Row said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
Click to expand...

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
Click to expand...

_Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._


RetiredGySgt said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
Click to expand...

_Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading. 

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above. 

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pumpkin Row said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
Click to expand...

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
Click to expand...

_Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
_
This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. 
_
_Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._


----------



## Silver Cat

Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited. 





__





						Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 | Public International Law
					

The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 29 November (11 December) 1868, land...




					english.dipublico.org
				



----------------------------------------
The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature. 
-----------------------------------------

Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.


----------



## Silver Cat

Pumpkin Row said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
Click to expand...

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Englewood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone cited the estimated American casualties that were forecast for the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Over and over and over. That _speculation_ about one of several possible options has been mentioned very often.
Click to expand...

 
Well the Nuking option Certainly WORKED----Japan has behaved since then.  They actually have become an ally since the bomb---and not a fat kim korea quagmire.  Proof is in the pudding, pumpkin.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Much more "defenseless women and children" were saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the soothing narrative that so many refuse to even consider in a critical manner. Anything to avoid a frank examination of moral implications.
Click to expand...



We reviewed it by its moral implications.  It was the moral thing to do------it ended the war.  It saved millions of lives on both sides......it forced Japan to change their evil culture.  Proof again is in the pudding-------not in the whinning delusions of idiots who just want to hate on America with no logic or reason..


It would have been immoral to try to trade embargo or a land war as the death toll in both cases would have only been higher with far more people suffering far longer.


----------



## Silver Cat

What would you choose:
1) Vote for Trump, and kill millions of China men, women and children, and made the world much better. 
Or 
2) Vote for Biden, and allow China to kill millions of men, women and children in the USA, and put out the torch of freedom, and destroy everything good that exists in the world. 

There was no "moral equality" between the USA and Japan. There are no "moral equality" between the USA and China (or any other country).


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> .... From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.



No one has proposed doing that, so your attempt at deflection fails.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has proposed doing that, so your attempt at deflection fails.
Click to expand...

At a war, refusing to kill enemies often means killing your friends.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 | Public International Law
> 
> 
> The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 29 November (11 December) 1868, land...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> english.dipublico.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.



You clearly have no idea what "morality" means. Stay in school. Finish your education.


----------



## Silver Cat

We don't have a choice between Xi and "Chinese Gorbachev". We have a choice between Trump and Biden. "Kill or be killed" it's a very simple choice.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has proposed doing that, so your attempt at deflection fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At a war, refusing to kill enemies often means killing your friends.
Click to expand...

You are confused about (among many other things) what "enemies" and "friends" means.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 | Public International Law
> 
> 
> The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 29 November (11 December) 1868, land...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> english.dipublico.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what "morality" means.
Click to expand...

Just explain your understanding of the word.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Englewood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone cited the estimated American casualties that were forecast for the invasion of Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> Over and over and over. That _speculation_ about one of several possible options has been mentioned very often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the Nuking option Certainly WORKED----Japan has behaved since then.  They actually have become an ally since the bomb---and not a fat kim korea quagmire.  Proof is in the pudding, pumpkin.
Click to expand...

Illogical, of course.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 | Public International Law
> 
> 
> The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 29 November (11 December) 1868, land...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> english.dipublico.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what "morality" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just explain your understanding of the word.
Click to expand...

We've already been over this. Pay attention.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........



Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has proposed doing that, so your attempt at deflection fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At a war, refusing to kill enemies often means killing your friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused about (among many other things) what "enemies" and "friends" means.
Click to expand...

The matter of identity (Who are "we"?) is one of the most complicated matters of the human nature. Those who are not "we" is an actual or potential "enemy".
But at the wartime all it became much more simple. "We" are Americans, Brits and Soviets are "allies" ("potential enemies"), Germans and Japans are "actual enemies".
Everyone, who is "confused" about who is a "friend" and who is an "enemy" in wartime called a "traitor" (and must be eliminated).


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 | Public International Law
> 
> 
> The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 29 November (11 December) 1868, land...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> english.dipublico.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what "morality" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just explain your understanding of the word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've already been over this. Pay attention.
Click to expand...

No. All you said was a usual liberal nonsense.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> What would you choose:
> 1) Vote for Trump, and kill millions of China men, women and children, and made the world much better.
> Or
> 2) Vote for Biden, and allow China to kill millions of men, women and children in the USA, and put out the torch of freedom, and destroy everything good that exists in the world.
> ...



Neither one of those things is anything like a necessary causal outcome of its predicate.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has proposed doing that, so your attempt at deflection fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At a war, refusing to kill enemies often means killing your friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused about (among many other things) what "enemies" and "friends" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The matter of identity (Who are "we"?) is one of the most complicated matters of the human nature. Those who are not "we" is an actual or potential "enemy".
> But at the wartime all it became much more simple. "We" are Americans, Brits and Soviets are "allies" ("potential enemies"), Germans and Japans are "actual enemies".
> Everyone, who is "confused" about who is a "friend" and who is an "enemy" in wartime called a "traitor" (and must be eliminated).
Click to expand...

That was a spectacular failure of semantics.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you choose:
> 1) Vote for Trump, and kill millions of China men, women and children, and made the world much better.
> Or
> 2) Vote for Biden, and allow China to kill millions of men, women and children in the USA, and put out the torch of freedom, and destroy everything good that exists in the world.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those things is anything like a necessary causal outcome of its predicate.
Click to expand...

Ha! And you say, that we are "illogical". Funny.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 | Public International Law
> 
> 
> The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 29 November (11 December) 1868, land...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> english.dipublico.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what "morality" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just explain your understanding of the word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've already been over this. Pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All you said was a usual liberal nonsense.
Click to expand...

Now you have made your blather even more illogical.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you choose:
> 1) Vote for Trump, and kill millions of China men, women and children, and made the world much better.
> Or
> 2) Vote for Biden, and allow China to kill millions of men, women and children in the USA, and put out the torch of freedom, and destroy everything good that exists in the world.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those things is anything like a necessary causal outcome of its predicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha! And you say, that we are "illogical". Funny.
Click to expand...

Who is "we"? How many voices are you hearing in your head?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you choose:
> 1) Vote for Trump, and kill millions of China men, women and children, and made the world much better.
> Or
> 2) Vote for Biden, and allow China to kill millions of men, women and children in the USA, and put out the torch of freedom, and destroy everything good that exists in the world.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those things is anything like a necessary causal outcome of its predicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha! And you say, that we are "illogical". Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is "we"? How many voices are you hearing in your head?
Click to expand...

You still have not linked to this LIST of surrender offers made to Mac Arthur, you have not linked to ANY offer by the Japanese Government before the Emperor surrendered, offering to surrender. You have not listed what other options we had besides drop the Bombs and or Invade Main land Japan.


----------



## Silver Cat

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you choose:
> 1) Vote for Trump, and kill millions of China men, women and children, and made the world much better.
> Or
> 2) Vote for Biden, and allow China to kill millions of men, women and children in the USA, and put out the torch of freedom, and destroy everything good that exists in the world.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one of those things is anything like a necessary causal outcome of its predicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha! And you say, that we are "illogical". Funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is "we"? How many voices are you hearing in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still have not linked to this LIST of surrender offers made to Mac Arthur, you have not linked to ANY offer by the Japanese Government before the Emperor surrendered, offering to surrender. You have not listed what other options we had besides drop the Bombs and or Invade Main land Japan.
Click to expand...

We could give up Japan to Soviets.
Or start the war against Soviet Union in 1945 to protect Japan and had lost Europe, too.


----------



## AZrailwhale

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next
Click to expand...

We were burning more Japanese civilians than that every night with conventional incendiaries.  Japanese civilians were reaping what they sowed to Chinese, Philipino, Burmese, and many other nation’s civilians during the unprovoked war that Japan started in 1936.  How many Burmese civilians were starved and worked to death building the “railway of death” trough Burma (If you haven’t heard of it, The movie Bridge Over the River Kwai was very loosely based on it)?  My sympathy for Japanese civilians operates in direct ratio to the sympathy they held for the innocent victims of their government.  As the old saying goes, “what goes around, comes around”.  In WWII non-combatant did much to avoid what we now call collateral damage.  Heck the RAF and USAAF killed thousands of FRENCH civilians bombing targets in France during WWII.


----------



## AZrailwhale

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.
> 
> The real game changer was the USSR entering the war.  It opened a whole new front and hundreds of battle hardened divisions, with the potential of Japan itself being partitioned like Germany was.
> 
> The other key thing was that the US had dropped it's insistence that Hirohito had to abdicate AFTER the Soviets got into it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The official Japanese government wasn’t negotiating.  Unconditional surrender was totally unacceptable to them, the out of power’s peace proposals were a return to status quo ante with Japan keeping everything it held on December 5th, 1941, no war crimes trials and if there were to be any disarmament, it would be done by Japanese personnel under the supervision of the existing Japanese government.  Does any of that sound acceptable to you?


----------



## AZrailwhale

Weatherman2020 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do not approve of economic sanctions against nations conquering other nations for exploit of their resources or people. Interesting insight of you.
> 
> What of what Japan did to citizens they conquered?
Click to expand...

All the Japanese government had to do in 1941 to get the sanctions lifted was to stop their ongoing conquest of China.  They could even have kept Korea and Mongolia.  Instead, they chose to go to war out of pride.


----------



## AZrailwhale

anynameyouwish said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it seems (unsurprisingly) that conservatives miss the main point.
> 
> it was  IMMORAL to nuke a city.
> 
> period.
> 
> you nuke a military target....like an army or a navy....
> 
> NOT a city.
> 
> 
> If the point was to get japan to surrender then wouldn't  they surrender just as fast if they lost an army to a nuke?
Click to expand...

Do you think it was immoral to burn hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to death?  How about starving them to death which was one of two alternatives left if nukes were taken off the table.  Would be allowing tens of thousands of American soldiers to be killed and north of a hundred thousand wounded in an invasion of Japan moral?  How about if a million or more Japanese civilians were killed resisting the invasion? 
Was it moral to allow Japanese army troops to continue slaughtering civilians all over Asia while we waited for them to decide IF they were going to surrender?  Was it moral to allow even more allied POWs to be beaten, tortured and starved to death waiting for a surrender?
Some posters here seem to have gotten the idea that war is moral from somewhere.  War is immoral, but sometimes Wars have to be fought.


----------



## AZrailwhale

harmonica said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. In my mind it would have been acceptable to nuke every moderate or larger sized city in Japan as punishment for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes
> 
> that is your opinion
> 
> 
> because you are a conservative
> 
> you have no empathy and you demand total destruction as payback....
> 
> you don't care that  the people you are slaughtering are really no different than you.
> 
> they didn't start the war
> they probably didn't want the war
> and if they supported it they did so out of patriotic duty the way you would
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you prove ignorant of the subject-----they had NO navy
Click to expand...

The Japanese still had a navy, they just had very little fuel for it.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> ...
> The official Japanese government wasn’t negotiating.  Unconditional surrender was totally unacceptable to them, ...







__





						Chicago Tribune History
					

The IHR, an independent, public interest history research and publishing center, seeks to promote peace and freedom through greater awareness of the past.




					www.ihr.org
				






			http://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf
		




			https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf


----------



## AZrailwhale

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would have made Fallujah look like a playground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?  These figures that came out saying, "Millions of Casualties" didn't come out until the war and the government had to justify why it vaporized hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Click to expand...

Then why did it take Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada and Desert Storm to finally use up the stock of Purple Hearts Built up for the invasion of Japan!


----------



## AZrailwhale

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.
> 
> You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> 
> 
> I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or the yanks could have just blocked all the ports. They could have supplied massive food and medical drugs & equiptment even, or put it on offer, and just waited. If the Japs continued to hold out with their people starving that would not have been the yanks fault.Then it would have just been a matter of time.
> All Jap resources were spent, so there is no way they could just keep mounting any meaningful attacks. Had the US taken this course of action far, from condemnation, history would be applauding you.
Click to expand...

 Most of the IJA was in China and was still actively fighting and not particularly short of supplies.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
Click to expand...

There were three options to force Japan to surrender unconditionally.  First:  nukes.  Second: Invasion.  Third: blockade and starvation.  Of the three nukes were the most humane and resulted in the least loss of life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

AZrailwhale said:


> My sympathy for Japanese civilians operates in direct ratio to the sympathy they held for the innocent victims of their government.


Easy to say, when you can shoot them like fish in a barrel and they can't do much in retaliation.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Sorry, Japan had that and more coming and it would have been a crime to spend more American lives needlessly.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sympathy for Japanese civilians operates in direct ratio to the sympathy they held for the innocent victims of their government.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say, when you can shoot them like fish in a barrel and they can't do much in retaliation.
Click to expand...

Exactly like they did to us at Pearl Harbor except that they weren't provoked and we were.


----------



## harmonica

AZrailwhale said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. In my mind it would have been acceptable to nuke every moderate or larger sized city in Japan as punishment for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes
> 
> that is your opinion
> 
> 
> because you are a conservative
> 
> you have no empathy and you demand total destruction as payback....
> 
> you don't care that  the people you are slaughtering are really no different than you.
> 
> they didn't start the war
> they probably didn't want the war
> and if they supported it they did so out of patriotic duty the way you would
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you prove ignorant of the subject-----they had NO navy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese still had a navy, they just had very little fuel for it.
Click to expand...

boy-- right off the bat prove you don't know shit-


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese military was already decimated by 1945. Tokkotai attacks increased in direct proportion to the rapid decline in trained, skilled pilots like the ones the air force had at the outset of the war. The population had become disgruntled and was facing mass starvation. This whole "not one person in the whole country would ever surrender!" is childishly simplistic comic book nonsense and demonstrates a cultural ignorance that is only relied upon to support a preconceived narrative. A naval blockade of Honshu would have forced the surrender that elements within the government had been trying to negotiate since long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You imply but don't say what your option is.  You know it's nonsense.  Go ahead and say it--------you think the US should have not invaded or gone after the evil Japanese in a land battle---allowing them to continue to kill our captured soldiers and cut open the bellies of pregnant chinese women among other things.   You think we should have jut stopped there, which btw would have allowed the Japanese to regroup under their IMPERIALIST leader would have certainly attacked again and again and again if he wasn't completely defeated and brought to his knees.
> 
> You have no clue about that time and place.    The Japanese at that time saw their evil emperor as a GOD------and they weren't disillusioned with their god...hence why when he called for volunteers to kill themselves----he had no problem getting them.   You think the kamikazi were the only suiciders for the japanese?  These idiots took suicide to a level that you obviously can't even phantom..........They were an emperor as god worshipping cult that saw nothing but good in killing themselves to hurt their god's enemies.
> 
> 
> I realize that the Japanese government now is desperate to rewrite history as all the lib socialist globalists and in fact have been trying to rewrite and hide facts for decades now, but this doesn't change the truth.    The evil emperor and his army gave standing orders for the people of japan especially  the barrier islands to kill themselves killing the allies----mass suicide called SHUDAN JIKETSU (which you should look up)  was ordered and the japanese military enforced....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or the yanks could have just blocked all the ports. They could have supplied massive food and medical drugs & equiptment even, or put it on offer, and just waited. If the Japs continued to hold out with their people starving that would not have been the yanks fault.Then it would have just been a matter of time.
> All Jap resources were spent, so there is no way they could just keep mounting any meaningful attacks. Had the US taken this course of action far, from condemnation, history would be applauding you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the IJA was in China and was still actively fighting and not particularly short of supplies.
Click to expand...

Have you ever studied history at all?


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were three options to force Japan to surrender unconditionally. .....
Click to expand...


There were many more than just three options.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The official Japanese government wasn’t negotiating.  Unconditional surrender was totally unacceptable to them, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago Tribune History
> 
> 
> The IHR, an independent, public interest history research and publishing center, seeks to promote peace and freedom through greater awareness of the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ihr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
Click to expand...

That link goes no where. it does not link to any official site or any official document.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were three options to force Japan to surrender unconditionally. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were many more than just three options.
Click to expand...

List them, you keep claiming there were more, LIST them.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
Click to expand...

 

Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.

Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---...



That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Silver Cat said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
Click to expand...

_As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc. _

_To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
Click to expand...

_Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it. 

Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle. 

Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.

Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pumpkin Row said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.
> 
> Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.
> 
> Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.
> 
> Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_
Click to expand...

LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.
Click to expand...

Shortly? How long is "shortly"? "Shortly" is an admission it hadn't ended yet. And you don't think it matters how a war ends?


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shortly? How long is "shortly"? "Shortly" is an admission it hadn't ended yet. And you don't think it matters how a war ends?
Click to expand...


Someone said "the war wouldn't have ended." Are you attempting to defend that claim?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shortly? How long is "shortly"? "Shortly" is an admission it hadn't ended yet. And you don't think it matters how a war ends?
Click to expand...

Ya he is ignoring we would invade in November and the Soviets would have grabbed an island or 2 also.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Pumpkin Row said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
Click to expand...

Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.


----------



## gipper

9thIDdoc said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
Click to expand...

Is that a justification for Truman’s war crimes?  

You do know that if Japan had won the war, Truman would have been executed for his war crimes just as leading Germans and Japanese were.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shortly? How long is "shortly"? "Shortly" is an admission it hadn't ended yet. And you don't think it matters how a war ends?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone said "the war wouldn't have ended." Are you attempting to defend that claim?
Click to expand...

The *fact *was that the war had not ended and opinions about when and how it would end remained entirely speculation. They still are. Americans were still dying every day in a war started by Japan. I am pleased with they way it actually did end.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ...The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. ...



Does that make it right to deliberately target hundreds of thousands of civilians for mass incineration? Is that what you think America is about?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

gipper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a justification for Truman’s war crimes?
> 
> You do know that if Japan had won the war, Truman would have been executed for his war crimes just as leading Germans and Japanese were.
Click to expand...

President Trump has not committed "war crimes" that I know of. And as I noted above "war crimes" are defined by the winners.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... I am pleased with they way it actually did end.




Then you have some reflection to do.


----------



## BS Filter

Japan refused to surrender.  The second one changed their mind.  They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima.  Too bad.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that make it right to deliberately target hundreds of thousands of civilians for mass incineration? Is that what you think America is about?
Click to expand...

Read. War is not about right or wrong and never has been. All sides always think they are right; not that it matters. War is what it is. People are what they are; not what we would like them to be. I don't wish death on anybody but if innocent civilians must die I prefer they be enemy civilians rather than friends and loved ones.


----------



## gipper

BS Filter said:


> Japan refused to surrender.  The second one changed their mind.  They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima.  Too bad.


Totally wrong and entirely dumb. Get an education before posting.


----------



## gipper

9thIDdoc said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a justification for Truman’s war crimes?
> 
> You do know that if Japan had won the war, Truman would have been executed for his war crimes just as leading Germans and Japanese were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> President Trump has not committed "war crimes" that I know of. And as I noted above "war crimes" are defined by the winners.
Click to expand...

Trump?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan refused to surrender.  The second one changed their mind.  They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima.  Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong and entirely dumb. Get an education before posting.
Click to expand...

REALLY? BE SPECIFIC NOW and link to a proposal from the Japanese Government BEFORE the Atomic Bombs offering to surrender.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were three options to force Japan to surrender unconditionally. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were many more than just three options.
Click to expand...



No there wasn't ...most people wouldn't count farting magic unicorn dust to end the war even though you obviously would.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.
Click to expand...

  No dear...and all your spin does not cover up this fact.    The war would not have ended without bombing them.    

Your arguments are stupid and without any reason or logic.  They are batchit crazy if you want to know the truth.    Japan had to be stopped.........blockade would have done nothing but allow them to regroup, land war would have killed far more people on both sides leaving in doubt  that we would have won at all, or A bomb them ending the war quicker and with less dead overall.    The last option was the right option---and your delusions don't change this.


----------



## BS Filter

gipper said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan refused to surrender.  The second one changed their mind.  They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima.  Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong and entirely dumb. Get an education before posting.
Click to expand...

Nope.  The fact is you know I'm right because you don't have anything to contribute.  Asshole troll.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....



You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...    The war would not have ended without bombing them. ...



Every US military and political leader of the day disagreed with you.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ..........blockade would have done nothing but allow them to regroup....



Our military leaders disagreed.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were three options to force Japan to surrender unconditionally. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were many more than just three options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No there wasn't ......
Click to expand...


Yes, there were.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...    The war would not have ended without bombing them. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every US military and political leader of the day disagreed with you.
Click to expand...

Ya cause we planned to invade them in November. There is NOT ONE INSTANCE of the Japanese Government offering surrender before the Emperor did it after 2 Atomic bombs. You can not link to a single offer EVER made. You can NOT link to the supposed list from Mac Arthur, you can not link to any actual Government attempt to surrender. You also have not given us a list of possible other outcomes besides Bombs and invasions. Well other then to agree to a ceasefire and not do anything to Japan for the wars they started.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

gipper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a justification for Truman’s war crimes?
> 
> You do know that if Japan had won the war, Truman would have been executed for his war crimes just as leading Germans and Japanese were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> President Trump has not committed "war crimes" that I know of. And as I noted above "war crimes" are defined by the winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump?
Click to expand...

Question?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
Click to expand...

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Combat age civilian is not innocent anyway. And in the case of WW2 Japan No japanese civilian was innocent since the Government ordered them to arm themselves and attack allied troops,


----------



## Silver Cat

BS Filter said:


> Japan refused to surrender.  The second one changed their mind.  They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima.  Too bad.


May be they should have surrender before starting the war.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
Click to expand...

All things being equal I would prefer not only innocent civilian but even guilted and armed enemy soldiers too not die, but change their minds and repent. 
But only if all other things are equal. I'm not ready to risk my life, life of our own soldiers and our own civilians to save enemies (soldiers or civilians).


----------



## BS Filter

Silver Cat said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan refused to surrender.  The second one changed their mind.  They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima.  Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> May be they should have surrender before starting the war.
Click to expand...

The idiots around here that try to make the USA the villain are ignorant pawns.  Japan never warned us.  Japanese soldiers were savages.  They treated American prisoners far worse than we treated them.  You America haters are ignorant sick creatures.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All things being equal I would prefer not only innocent civilian but even guilted and armed enemy soldiers too not die, ....
Click to expand...


Deliberately and unnecessarily targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon in the history of the world would seem to run contrary to your preference.


----------



## Silver Cat

9thIDdoc said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a justification for Truman’s war crimes?
> 
> You do know that if Japan had won the war, Truman would have been executed for his war crimes just as leading Germans and Japanese were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> President Trump has not committed "war crimes" that I know of. And as I noted above "war crimes" are defined by the winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question?
Click to expand...

Trump will protect American interests, and it is the way to a big war (and death of millions of innocent Chinese people). 
Biden will protect Chinese interests, and it is the way to lose without war (and death of hundreds thousands of innocent American people). 
Who will you vote for?


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All things being equal I would prefer not only innocent civilian but even guilted and armed enemy soldiers too not die, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deliberately and unnecessarily targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon in the history of the world would seem to run contrary to your preference.
Click to expand...

As I said, "all things being equal". But things were not equal. 
Other options were much worse.


----------



## Unkotare

BS Filter said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan refused to surrender.  The second one changed their mind.  They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima.  Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> May be they should have surrender before starting the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idiots around here that try to make the USA the villain are ignorant pawns.  Japan never warned us.  Japanese soldiers were savages.  They treated American prisoners far worse than we treated them.  You America haters are ignorant sick creatures.
Click to expand...


Decrying any discussion of history and questioning of long-held, overly sedating narratives as "America haters" is a sure sign of a child who is NOT prepared to study history in any serious manner.

The "never warned us" bit indicates an ignorance of the conditions and actions that preceded the war. The US and Japan were not floating around a tranquil pond in a little rowboat gazing into each other's eyes with sweaters tied around our necks hours before the military attack on our military base. fdr knew exactly what he was setting into motion. Many atrocities occurred during the war to be certain, but our hands were not entirely clean. Sending ears severed from Japanese prisoners home to the family or the sweetheart became such a common practice that the Dept. of the Navy had to specifically address the practice. Place the "won't be taken prisoner" thing in context.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All things being equal I would prefer not only innocent civilian but even guilted and armed enemy soldiers too not die, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deliberately and unnecessarily targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon in the history of the world would seem to run contrary to your preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, "all things being equal". But things were not equal.
> Other options were much worse.
Click to expand...

Which ones were worse?


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All things being equal I would prefer not only innocent civilian but even guilted and armed enemy soldiers too not die, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deliberately and unnecessarily targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon in the history of the world would seem to run contrary to your preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, "all things being equal". But things were not equal.
> Other options were much worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which ones were worse?
Click to expand...

For example "Soviet Japan" scenario was much worse. "Better dead than red", you know.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......INVASION was the only other option.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were three options to force Japan to surrender unconditionally. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were many more than just three options.
Click to expand...

List them.  The militarists were in control and they weren’t accepting any surrender terms stricter than status quo ante December 5th, 1941. The other proposals came from the peace party that had zero power in the government,


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...    The war would not have ended without bombing them. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every US military and political leader of the day disagreed with you.
Click to expand...

  No baby cakes----you are confusing political generals supposed  quotes for facts----even MacCarthy who you silly trump haters like to quote ----------own aid says he was definately for using the a-bombs despite your quotes---hell he wanted to put 50 of them on Korea.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear...and all your spin does not cover up this fact.    The war would not have ended without bombing them.
> 
> Your arguments are stupid and without any reason or logic.  They are batchit crazy if you want to know the truth.    Japan had to be stopped.........blockade would have done nothing but allow them to regroup, land war would have killed far more people on both sides leaving in doubt  that we would have won at all, or A bomb them ending the war quicker and with less dead overall.    The last option was the right option---and your delusions don't change this.
Click to expand...

A blockade would have eventually killed so many civilians by starvation that Japanese society would have collapsed, how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions.  Meanwhile the Japanese armies on the Asian mainland  would be slaughtering civilians and the guards at the POW camps would be murdering the allied prisoners.


----------



## Silver Cat

AZrailwhale said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dear...and all your spin does not cover up this fact.    The war would not have ended without bombing them.
> 
> Your arguments are stupid and without any reason or logic.  They are batchit crazy if you want to know the truth.    Japan had to be stopped.........blockade would have done nothing but allow them to regroup, land war would have killed far more people on both sides leaving in doubt  that we would have won at all, or A bomb them ending the war quicker and with less dead overall.    The last option was the right option---and your delusions don't change this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A blockade would have eventually killed so many civilians by starvation that Japanese society would have collapsed, how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions.  Meanwhile the Japanese armies on the Asian mainland  would be slaughtering civilians and the guards at the POW camps would be murdering the allied prisoners.
Click to expand...

And, what could be more important, Soviets would conquer all Japan colonies in the South-East Asia, take Hokkaido, and support Socialists in the chaotised remains of the Japan society.

In "Soviet Japan" scenario we had lost Korea, Vietnam and China (including Taiwan) without a war, and the next serious conflicts (instead of Korean and Vietnam wars) with the Soviet block would be in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.


----------



## gipper

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
Click to expand...

Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
Click to expand...

 Your forgot to mention your beloved Soviet Union and China. Why? Do you think that they never kill "innocent civilians"?


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> .... The militarists were in control and they weren’t accepting any surrender terms stricter than status quo ante December 5th, 1941. The other proposals came from the peace party that had zero power in the government,


That is exactly the kind of simplification that demonstrates a superficial reading of history at most.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...    The war would not have ended without bombing them. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every US military and political leader of the day disagreed with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No baby cakes----you are confusing political generals supposed  quotes for facts----even MacCarthy [sic] who you silly trump haters like to quote ----------own aid says he was definately [sic] for using the a-bombs despite your quotes---hell he wanted to put 50 of them on Korea.
Click to expand...


"MacCarthy"? Really, professor? And you realize Korea is a different country, right? You realize the Korean War was a different conflict, right? You have the context, location, and time all wrong there, professor.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> ...how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions.  ...



You say the number would be unknown then you provide a number. Does that make sense to you?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

gipper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
Click to expand...

No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality. 
Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
Click to expand...

Because civilians die in wars, that justifies deliberately targeting them? Say, for example, deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily?


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your forgot to mention your beloved Soviet Union and China. Why? Do you think that they never kill "innocent civilians"?
Click to expand...

That’s funny. Dumb statist cons assume anyone who recognizes the war crimes committed by FDR and Truman, is automatically condemned as a leftist or a commie. Here again, you’re wrong.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civilians die in wars, that justifies deliberately targeting them? Say, for example, deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily?
Click to expand...

A better question is: "What makes you think you have the wisdom to decide what deaths are or are not 'necessary' during a war?" And why do you think your (or anyone's)opinion actually matters?


----------



## gipper

9thIDdoc said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
Click to expand...

So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians is expected in all wars. What he did was no different than the horrendous actions of the Nazis. 

God you’re dumb!


----------



## 9thIDdoc

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your forgot to mention your beloved Soviet Union and China. Why? Do you think that they never kill "innocent civilians"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s funny. Dumb statist cons assume anyone who recognizes the war crimes committed by FDR and Truman, is automatically condemned as a leftist or a commie. Here again, you’re wrong.
Click to expand...

No, most folks just assume that you are entirely ignorant of what a "war crime" is.


----------



## gipper

9thIDdoc said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your forgot to mention your beloved Soviet Union and China. Why? Do you think that they never kill "innocent civilians"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s funny. Dumb statist cons assume anyone who recognizes the war crimes committed by FDR and Truman, is automatically condemned as a leftist or a commie. Here again, you’re wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, most folks just assume that you are entirely ignorant of what a "war crime" is.
Click to expand...

If you really think the a-bombings weren’t a war crime, you’re dumber than a box of rocks.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_" So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians.."

V_icious slander for the purpose of propaganda, obviously.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civilians die in wars, that justifies deliberately targeting them? Say, for example, deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better question is: "What makes you think you have the wisdom to decide what deaths are or are not 'necessary' during a war?" And why do you think your (or anyone's)opinion actually matters?
Click to expand...

Do you think that America has no values? I vehemently disagree. If you are personally bereft morally, that is your personal failing, not a national characteristic. What you need to ask yourself is why you are trying so hard to step over the body in the room. An individual with greater strength of character would not do so.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> _" So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians.."
> 
> V_icious slander for the purpose of propaganda, obviously.


What part do you disagree with?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.
> 
> Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.
> 
> Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.
> 
> Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.
Click to expand...

_You called me a retard, then tacitly admitted that nuking the "leader" would have ended the war. Okay, so, who are you at war with if the "Leader" is dead? Nobody. Wars are the work of the Government, not the tax cattle, so killing the Government means the war has ended. The point wasn't to end the war, it was the US Government salivating at the thought of getting to play with their new toy._

_It's also, further, more amusing that you didn't bother addressing any of the ethical questions brought up, due to needing your Government to tell you what to think._


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians is expected in all wars. What he did was no different than the horrendous actions of the Nazis.
Click to expand...

Ok. What is the difference between civilians killed in Hiroshima by the atom bomb and all those civilians killed by the "conventional bombs" in Tokyo,  Hamburg, Coventry, Berlin, Lenigrad, London etc?


----------



## Silver Cat

What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

9thIDdoc said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
Click to expand...

_Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics  are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading. 

Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose. 

Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity. 

Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own._


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pumpkin Row said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.
> 
> Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.
> 
> Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.
> 
> Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You called me a retard, then tacitly admitted that nuking the "leader" would have ended the war. Okay, so, who are you at war with if the "Leader" is dead? Nobody. Wars are the work of the Government, not the tax cattle, so killing the Government means the war has ended. The point wasn't to end the war, it was the US Government salivating at the thought of getting to play with their new toy.
> 
> It's also, further, more amusing that you didn't bother addressing any of the ethical questions brought up, due to needing your Government to tell you what to think._
Click to expand...

Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.
> 
> Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.
> 
> Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.
> 
> Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You called me a retard, then tacitly admitted that nuking the "leader" would have ended the war. Okay, so, who are you at war with if the "Leader" is dead? Nobody. Wars are the work of the Government, not the tax cattle, so killing the Government means the war has ended. The point wasn't to end the war, it was the US Government salivating at the thought of getting to play with their new toy.
> 
> It's also, further, more amusing that you didn't bother addressing any of the ethical questions brought up, due to needing your Government to tell you what to think._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.
Click to expand...

_No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is. 

The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded. 

I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil. _


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civilians die in wars, that justifies deliberately targeting them? Say, for example, deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better question is: "What makes you think you have the wisdom to decide what deaths are or are not 'necessary' during a war?" And why do you think your (or anyone's)opinion actually matters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think that America has no values? I vehemently disagree. If you are personally bereft morally, that is your personal failing, not a national characteristic. What you need to ask yourself is why you are trying so hard to step over the body in the room. An individual with greater strength of character would not do so.
Click to expand...

National values? Given that there are several hundred million Americans I think that it is obvious that we don't all share the same values. So I am doubtful that there are such things. But if there are, I am convinced that you are entirely ignorant of what they are. I am also convinced that my views on morality are much superior to yours because mine are based in reality and your's are imaginary. Strange how the imaginary evaporates when it comes into contact with reality.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Keep proving you do not know how Governments work and how wars work. Be specific you fucking loon and tell us, who tells the far flung empire to lay down their arms if we kill the leaders?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _" So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians.."
> 
> V_icious slander for the purpose of propaganda, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> What part do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

The part I quoted. Which would be why I quoted it.


----------



## esalla

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civilians die in wars, that justifies deliberately targeting them? Say, for example, deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better question is: "What makes you think you have the wisdom to decide what deaths are or are not 'necessary' during a war?" And why do you think your (or anyone's)opinion actually matters?
Click to expand...

Is it too late to nuke Tokyo


----------



## gipper

Pumpkin Row said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.
> 
> Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.
> 
> Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.
> 
> Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You called me a retard, then tacitly admitted that nuking the "leader" would have ended the war. Okay, so, who are you at war with if the "Leader" is dead? Nobody. Wars are the work of the Government, not the tax cattle, so killing the Government means the war has ended. The point wasn't to end the war, it was the US Government salivating at the thought of getting to play with their new toy.
> 
> It's also, further, more amusing that you didn't bother addressing any of the ethical questions brought up, due to needing your Government to tell you what to think._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.
> 
> The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.
> 
> I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil. _
Click to expand...

You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.
> 
> Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.
> 
> Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.
> 
> Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You called me a retard, then tacitly admitted that nuking the "leader" would have ended the war. Okay, so, who are you at war with if the "Leader" is dead? Nobody. Wars are the work of the Government, not the tax cattle, so killing the Government means the war has ended. The point wasn't to end the war, it was the US Government salivating at the thought of getting to play with their new toy.
> 
> It's also, further, more amusing that you didn't bother addressing any of the ethical questions brought up, due to needing your Government to tell you what to think._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.
> 
> The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.
> 
> I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a link to support ANY claim you ever made.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.
> 
> Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.
> 
> Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.
> 
> Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You called me a retard, then tacitly admitted that nuking the "leader" would have ended the war. Okay, so, who are you at war with if the "Leader" is dead? Nobody. Wars are the work of the Government, not the tax cattle, so killing the Government means the war has ended. The point wasn't to end the war, it was the US Government salivating at the thought of getting to play with their new toy.
> 
> It's also, further, more amusing that you didn't bother addressing any of the ethical questions brought up, due to needing your Government to tell you what to think._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.
> 
> The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.
> 
> I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for a link to support ANY claim you ever made.
Click to expand...

No need to wait. Just read the many threads in which I have schooled you over the last ten years. I’m sorry if you’re too dumb to learn. I tried.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.
> 
> Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.
> 
> Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.
> 
> Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You called me a retard, then tacitly admitted that nuking the "leader" would have ended the war. Okay, so, who are you at war with if the "Leader" is dead? Nobody. Wars are the work of the Government, not the tax cattle, so killing the Government means the war has ended. The point wasn't to end the war, it was the US Government salivating at the thought of getting to play with their new toy.
> 
> It's also, further, more amusing that you didn't bother addressing any of the ethical questions brought up, due to needing your Government to tell you what to think._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.
> 
> The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.
> 
> I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for a link to support ANY claim you ever made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to wait. Just read the many threads in which I have schooled you over the last ten years. I’m sorry if you’re too dumb to learn. I tried.
Click to expand...

And yet NOT a single link to any actual source, just your ignorant claims sans any proof. When ask for links you rant about something else then fail to link to anything. No link to Mac Arthur's supposed list of surrender offers, No Link to any official offer by the ACTUAL Government of Japan to surrender, No Link to any of the supposed options other then Invasion and Bombing to force japan to surrender. Ignorant claims that somehow the US had an obligation to sell oil and metal to Japan and failing to do so JUSTIFIED a Surprise attack by Japan on the US and made the US the guilty party.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.
> 
> Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.
> 
> Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.
> 
> Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You called me a retard, then tacitly admitted that nuking the "leader" would have ended the war. Okay, so, who are you at war with if the "Leader" is dead? Nobody. Wars are the work of the Government, not the tax cattle, so killing the Government means the war has ended. The point wasn't to end the war, it was the US Government salivating at the thought of getting to play with their new toy.
> 
> It's also, further, more amusing that you didn't bother addressing any of the ethical questions brought up, due to needing your Government to tell you what to think._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.
> 
> The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.
> 
> I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for a link to support ANY claim you ever made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to wait. Just read the many threads in which I have schooled you over the last ten years. I’m sorry if you’re too dumb to learn. I tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet NOT a single link to any actual source, just your ignorant claims sans any proof. When ask for links you rant about something else then fail to link to anything. No link to Mac Arthur's supposed list of surrender offers, No Link to any official offer by the ACTUAL Government of Japan to surrender, No Link to any of the supposed options other then Invasion and Bombing to force japan to surrender. Ignorant claims that somehow the US had an obligation to sell oil and metal to Japan and failing to do so JUSTIFIED a Surprise attack by Japan on the US and made the US the guilty party.
Click to expand...

There’s dozens of links, but you have to read them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  It saved millions of lives on both sides..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.
> 
> Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them.  This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.
> 
> Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.
> 
> Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.
> 
> Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You called me a retard, then tacitly admitted that nuking the "leader" would have ended the war. Okay, so, who are you at war with if the "Leader" is dead? Nobody. Wars are the work of the Government, not the tax cattle, so killing the Government means the war has ended. The point wasn't to end the war, it was the US Government salivating at the thought of getting to play with their new toy.
> 
> It's also, further, more amusing that you didn't bother addressing any of the ethical questions brought up, due to needing your Government to tell you what to think._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.
> 
> The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.
> 
> I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for a link to support ANY claim you ever made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to wait. Just read the many threads in which I have schooled you over the last ten years. I’m sorry if you’re too dumb to learn. I tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet NOT a single link to any actual source, just your ignorant claims sans any proof. When ask for links you rant about something else then fail to link to anything. No link to Mac Arthur's supposed list of surrender offers, No Link to any official offer by the ACTUAL Government of Japan to surrender, No Link to any of the supposed options other then Invasion and Bombing to force japan to surrender. Ignorant claims that somehow the US had an obligation to sell oil and metal to Japan and failing to do so JUSTIFIED a Surprise attack by Japan on the US and made the US the guilty party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s dozens of links, but you have to read them.
Click to expand...

There are NO links to any actual source. You HAVE linked to unsupported books by authors with no actual source for their claims. You have linked to Newspaper articles that do not actually support the claim when one reads them.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?


The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
Click to expand...

Well except that the Government of Japan ordered every man woman and child able to to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and attack the Invasion.


----------



## Unkotare

esalla said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because civilians die in wars, that justifies deliberately targeting them? Say, for example, deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better question is: "What makes you think you have the wisdom to decide what deaths are or are not 'necessary' during a war?" And why do you think your (or anyone's)opinion actually matters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it too late to nuke Tokyo
Click to expand...

You think that’s funny?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Pumpkin Row said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics  are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.
> 
> Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
> 
> Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.
> 
> Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own._
Click to expand...

_"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."_
Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is. 
_"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."_
True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
_Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose._
Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _" So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians.."
> 
> V_icious slander for the purpose of propaganda, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> What part do you disagree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part I quoted. Which would be why I quoted it.
Click to expand...

You disagree that truman was cold blooded?


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ...
> National values? Given that there are several hundred million Americans I think that it is obvious that we don't all share the same values. ...



You don't believe there are any values shared by most Americans?


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... But if there are, I am convinced that you are entirely ignorant of what they are. ...



Because you find it uncomfortable to have your nose rubbed in the hard truth that your attitude is immoral and entirely un-American?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _" So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians.."
> 
> V_icious slander for the purpose of propaganda, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> What part do you disagree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part I quoted. Which would be why I quoted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree that truman was cold blooded?
Click to expand...

Truman did not mass murder anyone, he waged a bombing campaign against an implacable foe, one that refused to surrender when it was clearly defeated and worked only to cause as much lose for us as possible to get us to let them off the hook for their murder of POW's and civilians in occupied countries. The Civilians of Japan OPENLY supported and followed the decries of the Japanese Government committing mass suicide in Saipan and Okinawa as ordered to. And were then ordered to arm themselves with bamboo spears and attack the allies if they invaded. In August 1945 there was NO reason the US and allied command would not believe that the civilians of Japan would do as ordered.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....




It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion. 

Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
Click to expand...

Be specific and cite for us where we EVER ordered the execution of any civilians? Bombing cities that were Army Headquarters ports and production centers is in fact a legit tactic, we still do it today.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _" So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians.."
> 
> V_icious slander for the purpose of propaganda, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> What part do you disagree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part I quoted. Which would be why I quoted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree that truman was cold blooded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truman did not mass murder anyone, he waged a bombing campaign against an implacable foe, one that refused to surrender when it was clearly defeated and worked only to cause as much lose for us as possible to get us to let them off the hook for their murder of POW's and civilians in occupied countries. The Civilians of Japan OPENLY supported and followed the decries of the Japanese Government committing mass suicide in Saipan and Okinawa as ordered to. And were then ordered to arm themselves with bamboo spears and attack the allies if they invaded. In August 1945 there was NO reason the US and allied command would not believe that the civilians of Japan would do as ordered.
Click to expand...

Lol. God you get dumber with every post.

Dirty Harry is a serial killer. A mass murderer. Very much like Hitler and Stalin. We can only hope he is burning in Hell for eternity.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
Click to expand...

The Nuremberg Trials were held *after* the war by the winners and according to their standards which is exactly what I have been telling you. The winners decide what was-or was not- war crimes and what should be done about them. After the war civilians and POWs were no longer enemy who were trying to kill us. Had Japan or Germany or Italy won  do you honestly think they would have defined "war crime" the same way we did? If not how can you claim that there is any one worldwide standard to define "war crime"? We did not consider Japanese or German military war criminals for bombing our civilians or military and it is idiotic to consider our own  people for bombing theirs in an effort to prevent that. That is exactly what they are elected to do "...protect and defend...". The people in a nation we are at war with are the enemy and I am perfectly willing to see any number of "innocent civilian" deaths if they are necessary to prevent the death of American soldiers. And I take take a very dim view of those who place the lives of the enemy ahead of the lives of our own. I have very little patience with those that demand to be protected then sit back and nit pick over how it is done.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ...
> The Nuremberg Trials were held *after* the war .....



And according to you, every single German was responsible for every single thing the nazis did, so - according to you - they deserved to die. After all, every civilian is responsible for everything the government and military does, there is no morality, and America has no values. 

I couldn't disagree more, but if that's what you think is right  - good luck with that, oni.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... I have very little patience with those that demand to be protected then sit back and nit pick over how it is done.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The Nuremberg Trials were held *after* the war .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And according to you, every single German was responsible for every single thing the nazis did, so - according to you - they deserved to die. After all, every civilian is responsible for everything the government and military does, there is no morality, and America has no values.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more, but if that's what you think is right  - good luck with that, oni.
Click to expand...

I said no such thing. Germany declared war on us. While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation. During wartime nations do all sorts of nasty things to each other in order to survive. But killing the enemy during wartime is not only not murder it may well be the duty of a good citizen. That has nothing to do with anyone's opinions on morality or ethics. Kill or be killed is the simple reality of war that can only be ignored with disregard for the life of yourself and loved ones.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....




Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say the number would be unknown then you provide a number. Does that make sense to you?
Click to expand...

Multiple millions isn’t a number.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AZrailwhale said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say the number would be unknown then you provide a number. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Multiple millions isn’t a number.
Click to expand...

If we had invaded mainland Japan MILLIONS of civilians would have died. The Bombs saved millions of lives that were Japanese.


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?
Click to expand...


We had about 400,000 German POW's in the US.  That doesn't count the ones that were taken by other allied nations.
We had about 27,000 Japanese POW's.  

If Germany was going to fight to the last man, woman, and child like Japan was going to do...it would have been completely within our rights to kill every last man, woman and child.


----------



## AZrailwhale

9thIDdoc said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he’s ever heard of the “intaking” that commonly occurred when besieging forces eventually forced the walls of cities?  They were nothing but orgies of rapes, murder and arson committed against the civilian residents of the cities.  Or the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese who slaughtered the citizens of a city that wasn’t even defended, or the way the Japanese troops behaved in Manila while defending it from the American liberators in WWII


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> ......it would have been completely within our rights to kill every last man, woman and child.



Do you think we ever would have? Do you think it would represent American values if we did?


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> ... fight to the last man, woman, and child like Japan was going to do......




Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say the number would be unknown then you provide a number. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Multiple millions isn’t a number.
Click to expand...

You sure about that?


----------



## candycorn

Unkotare said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......it would have been completely within our rights to kill every last man, woman and child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we ever would have? Do you think it would represent American values if we did?
Click to expand...


No, I don't think we would have.

Then again, I don't think the Germans would have.

The Japs?  It was a matter of honor to not be taken alive it seems.  So we obliged.


----------



## Unkotare

candycorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......it would have been completely within our rights to kill every last man, woman and child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think we ever would have? Do you think it would represent American values if we did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think we would have.
> ....
Click to expand...


Why do you think that?


----------



## gipper

AZrailwhale said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder if he’s ever heard of the “intaking” that commonly occurred when besieging forces eventually forced the walls of cities?  They were nothing but orgies of rapes, murder and arson committed against the civilian residents of the cities.  Or the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese who slaughtered the citizens of a city that wasn’t even defended, or the way the Japanese troops behaved in Manila while defending it from the American liberators in WWII
Click to expand...

Is this another weak attempt at justifying Truman’s war crimes?

It’s as if you guys never graduated past fourth grade logic. Since my enemy does it, I will too.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
Click to expand...

They were producing weapons and materials of war. And yes, they could be conscripted and became soldiers. 
Army is only a part of state.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ...And yes, they could be conscripted and became soldiers.
> ...



The starving women, children, and elderly? It is painfully obvious that you are trying as hard as you can to convince yourself of something you know is wrong.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. And yes, they could be conscripted and became soldiers.
> Army is only a part of state.
Click to expand...

Dumb. Yet another justification for a crime. You wouldn’t do this if the shoe was on the other foot. Had Germany or Japan nuked American cities you’d sing a different tune, because you’re a dupe of the state.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The Nuremberg Trials were held *after* the war .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And according to you, every single German was responsible for every single thing the nazis did, so - according to you - they deserved to die.
Click to expand...

Yes. Everybody deserve to die and everybody will die. But there are such things as "repentance" and "mercy". No repentance - no mercy.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...
Click to expand...


By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And yes, they could be conscripted and became soldiers.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The starving women, children, and elderly?
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm neither agist nor sexist. And it was not possible to separate male adults from other population. "Collateral damage" in not an invention of WWII.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The Nuremberg Trials were held *after* the war .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And according to you, every single German was responsible for every single thing the nazis did, so - according to you - they deserved to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Everybody deserve to die and everybody will die. But there are such things as "repentance" and "mercy". No repentance - no mercy.
Click to expand...

So, ask each and every German citizen individually to fall on their knees and beg for mercy, those who don't you would execute on the spot? Every last one? You think that's what America is about?


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And yes, they could be conscripted and became soldiers.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The starving women, children, and elderly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I'm neither agist [sic] nor sexist. And it was not possible to separate male adults from other population. "Collateral damage" in not an invention of WWII.
Click to expand...

You can't be taking yourself seriously at this point.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.
Click to expand...

There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.
Click to expand...

You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The Nuremberg Trials were held *after* the war .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And according to you, every single German was responsible for every single thing the nazis did, so - according to you - they deserved to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Everybody deserve to die and everybody will die. But there are such things as "repentance" and "mercy". No repentance - no mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, ask each and every German citizen individually to fall on their knees and beg for mercy, those who don't you would execute on the spot? Every last one? You think that's what America is about?
Click to expand...

There was a program of denazification. Every German citizen repentaned in German crimes (at least at words). Every single German, who continued to fight against Allies - was eliminated.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.
Click to expand...

There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies. 
And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
> And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.
Click to expand...

Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
> And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.
Click to expand...

 They were not statists, you know.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
> And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not statists, you know.
Click to expand...

I get now. If the Japanese mass murder civilians it’s bbbbaaaaddddddd. If the US does it, it’s okay.

Third grade logic.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?
Click to expand...

If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. During WWII conventional bombing killed more than the A-bombs did sometimes more in single raids. More importantly their use against Japan demonstrated their destructive power and  produced shock and awe worldwide to such an extent that they have not been used since as weapons. 
This Country more than any other has gone to great trouble and expense to avoid unnecessary death and destruction with the development of "smart" weapons that can and do reduce collateral damage greatly.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

gipper said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder if he’s ever heard of the “intaking” that commonly occurred when besieging forces eventually forced the walls of cities?  They were nothing but orgies of rapes, murder and arson committed against the civilian residents of the cities.  Or the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese who slaughtered the citizens of a city that wasn’t even defended, or the way the Japanese troops behaved in Manila while defending it from the American liberators in WWII
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this another weak attempt at justifying Truman’s war crimes?
> 
> It’s as if you guys never graduated past fourth grade logic. Since my enemy does it, I will too.
Click to expand...

When exactly are you going to try to show that Truman committed "war crimes"? Or are you just content to just talk shit without ever actually saying anything.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
> And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not statists, you know.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get now. If the Japanese mass murder civilians it’s bbbbaaaaddddddd. If the US does it, it’s okay.
> 
> Third grade logic.
Click to expand...

Actually it is "moral relativism", "situational ethics" and "US-centric behavior ". "What is good for the USA is good for the world". Nuking the Japan (and finishing the war on our terms without more serious loses) made Western Civilization stronger, and the world better.


----------



## gipper

9thIDdoc said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but if innocent civilians must die.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) *will* die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man alert!  Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is historical fact.  If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
> Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder if he’s ever heard of the “intaking” that commonly occurred when besieging forces eventually forced the walls of cities?  They were nothing but orgies of rapes, murder and arson committed against the civilian residents of the cities.  Or the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese who slaughtered the citizens of a city that wasn’t even defended, or the way the Japanese troops behaved in Manila while defending it from the American liberators in WWII
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this another weak attempt at justifying Truman’s war crimes?
> 
> It’s as if you guys never graduated past fourth grade logic. Since my enemy does it, I will too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When exactly are you going to try to show that Truman committed "war crimes"? Or are you just content to just talk shit without ever actually saying anything.
Click to expand...

Lol. It’s common knowledge to intelligent people. You don’t even have to be a rocket scientist. 

It’s simple, but simpletons can’t comprehend.


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
> And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not statists, you know.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get now. If the Japanese mass murder civilians it’s bbbbaaaaddddddd. If the US does it, it’s okay.
> 
> Third grade logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is "moral relativism", "situational ethics" and "US-centric behavior ". "What is good for the USA is good for the world". Nuking the Japan (and finishing the war on our terms without more serious loses) made Western Civilization stronger, and the world better.
Click to expand...

More ignorance.


----------



## Silver Cat

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
> And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not statists, you know.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get now. If the Japanese mass murder civilians it’s bbbbaaaaddddddd. If the US does it, it’s okay.
> 
> Third grade logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is "moral relativism", "situational ethics" and "US-centric behavior ". "What is good for the USA is good for the world". Nuking the Japan (and finishing the war on our terms without more serious loses) made Western Civilization stronger, and the world better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ignorance.
Click to expand...

It's not "ignorance". "Pax Americana" is really much better than any possible variation of "Pax Sinica",  "Pax Japonica" or "Pax Sovetica".


----------



## Silver Cat

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", said Thomas Jefferson. Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ...
> There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
> ...


America's military leaders of the time recognized that the enemy had been crushed already. How long have you been a general or an admiral?


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".



Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. ....
Click to expand...


Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter was that it was indeed considered necessary in order to bring the war to it's quickest lest costly end. The agreement was general among the Leaders of both government and military and then the public at large when they learned of it. Exactly what makes you think that you are wiser or more moral than they? I had several relatives engaged in that war and had the war been allowed to drag on longer I might never have been. I'm quite pleased that I have been. The moral high ground you keep trying to claim simply does not exist except in your imagination.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> America's military leaders of the time recognized that the enemy had been crushed already. How long have you been a general or an admiral?
Click to expand...

You don't need to be a general to recognise already crushed enemy. He don't try to shoot you.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.
Click to expand...

It was necessary to win the war on our terms and with the minimal loses.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?
Click to expand...

Japans are savages. Their leaders were dictators.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japans are savages.
Click to expand...

What are “Japans”? And what do you mean?


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their leaders were dictators.
Click to expand...

“Dictator” is generally understood to be singular.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say the number would be unknown then you provide a number. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Multiple millions isn’t a number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about that?
Click to expand...

Yes there isn’t a single digit in the statement.  Now if I had said fifty million, or 50,000,000, those are numbers.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...    The war would not have ended without bombing them. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every US military and political leader of the day disagreed with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No baby cakes----you are confusing political generals supposed  quotes for facts----even MacCarthy [sic] who you silly trump haters like to quote ----------own aid says he was definately [sic] for using the a-bombs despite your quotes---hell he wanted to put 50 of them on Korea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "MacCarthy"? Really, professor? And you realize Korea is a different country, right? You realize the Korean War was a different conflict, right? You have the context, location, and time all wrong there, professor.
Click to expand...



You realize I used Fat Kim Korea as an example as to why we don't just try surrounding a rogue dangerous nation and think that we can starve them out instead of going in bombing right Imbecile?   You do understand the decades and millions of additional starving people and the added cost to the US and others to try to isolate these rogue emperial leaders right imbecile?  If we didn't bomb Japan, it would be just like Fat kim Korea now.  Duh...


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say the number would be unknown then you provide a number. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Multiple millions isn’t a number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes there isn’t a single digit in the statement.  Now if I had said fifty million, or 50,000,000, those are numbers.
Click to expand...

Disingenuous.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...You realize I used Fat Kim Korea as an example as to why we don't just try surrounding a rogue dangerous nation and think that we can starve them ....



You realize you can't surround Korea, right?


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...  You do understand the decades ...




"Decades"? Are you kidding?


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact of the matter was that it was indeed considered necessary in order to bring the war to it's quickest lest costly end. ...
Click to expand...


" Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." "


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact of the matter was that it was indeed considered necessary in order to bring the war to it's quickest lest costly end. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." "
Click to expand...

He lied, likely. Do you have any real evidence of Japan readiness to surrender (not to 'peace on their terms')?


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their leaders were dictators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Dictator” is generally understood to be singular.
Click to expand...

Singular person can not control a whole nation.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japans are savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are “Japans”? And what do you mean?
Click to expand...

The Japs. They are savages. There are many good and autochthonic elements in their culture, but all good elements are not autochthonic, and all autochthonic elements are not good.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Pumpkin Row said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics  are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.
> 
> Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
> 
> Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.
> 
> Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own._
Click to expand...

Life is not a disney movie.  Sometimes there are just bad and worse choices as adults.    Adults have to make the tough decisions-----and sorry yes civilians die in wars.    Moral Right is that your people come before your enemies.  In WW2, the US had the moral right .................Japan were the enemies and yet the US also saved millions of their people's lives by sacrificing the two military cities with Atomic bombs.   

This isn't football fan logic---this is the painful truth of life and war.    

And sorry babe, might does make right in war-----you a fight a war to win not to be kind to your enemies who are out to kill you.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japans are savages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are “Japans”? And what do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jap(anese) [sic]. They are savages. ...
Click to expand...


So now that you cannot support your position regarding the thread topic, you are reduced to idiotic insults (of millions and millions of people you don't know) and ethnic slurs? This is beneath even you.


----------



## Unkotare

" “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.” 
-  Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay


----------



## Unkotare

“the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.” 

-  Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet


----------



## Unkotare

" we…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.” 

-  Adm. William Leahy


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their leaders were dictators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Dictator” is generally understood to be singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Singular person can not control a whole nation.
Click to expand...

Then don't use the wrong term.


----------



## Silver Cat

Pumpkin Row said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics  are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading. _
Click to expand...


You see, Ethic classification of an action could not be made without understanding of context. One thing when you f-ck a woman who agree to be f-cked (for example, you wife), and absolutely different when you rape woman who don't want to be f-cked. War is even more antient and universal social institution than marriage. 
The Japs (the whole nation) said: "We want to kill you and agree to be killed" by their attack at Pearl Harbor. Everybody knows how to stop those "specific relations" - drop you weapon, raise your hands, fell on your knees. 
They said: "We wanna kill you, and we ready to be killed", and they didn't say "Don't kill us, we surrender!"


_



			Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
		
Click to expand...

_Everybody die. Death is a medicine against sin, given by God. 

_



			Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.
		
Click to expand...

_
But from the atheistic point of view, ethical systems are products of evolution, too. 
And therefore 'might is right' or 'survival of the fittest'. 

_



			Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own.
		
Click to expand...

_The Japs may be stupid (in some ways), may be  "evil", but they are not "cattle".


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact of the matter was that it was indeed considered necessary in order to bring the war to it's quickest lest costly end. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He lied, likely. Do you have any real evidence of Japan readiness to surrender (not to 'peace on their terms')?
Click to expand...


Our wartime military leaders must have "lied" if the facts of history threaten your comforting narrative? Are you really this weak-minded? That's how some frightened "savage" would respond to his insecurities.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> " we…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.”
> 
> -  Adm. William Leahy


It was his opinion, nothing more. I see no reason to agree with him. And yes, we see, that the war was won by destroying women and children, too.


----------



## Turtlesoup

AZrailwhale said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say the number would be unknown then you provide a number. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Multiple millions isn’t a number.
Click to expand...

It means more than 2 million......

didn't you go to school?


----------



## Unkotare

The degree to which some people will go to demean themselves in a desperate bid to cling to a security blanket they were fed as children and can't imagine having the courage to so much as question, is truly pathetic.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact of the matter was that it was indeed considered necessary in order to bring the war to it's quickest lest costly end. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He lied, likely. Do you have any real evidence of Japan readiness to surrender (not to 'peace on their terms')?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our wartime military leaders must have "lied" if the facts of history threaten your comforting narrative? Are you really this weak-minded? That's how some frightened "savage" would respond to his insecurities.
Click to expand...

There are no "facts", just opinion. The Japs did surrender only after the nuking. Everything else is just a noise.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
Click to expand...



And far more civilians would have died a slower more painful death in the years that followed if we would have tried the embargo (We know they don't work given Fat Kim Koreas) or had to go to a land battle sending troops in.  

Civilians die in war--it isnt fair but it is life.   Weather it be by A bomb or two over a few day period or by multiple regular bombs over the years or by starvation like Fat Kims korea----the A-bombs are the most humane way to go to boot.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> " “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> -  Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay


The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact.   Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
Click to expand...

Because we are Christians. We value mercy higher than justice. We crushed them, we had a moral right to kill them all, but we decided to save as much soldiers and civilians as it was possible. And yes, there were some practical reasons like a competition with the Communists.


----------



## Markle




----------



## Unkotare

The desperate need to try to avoid the reality of the events is truly pathetic. Trying so hard to ignore one's own conscience.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we are Christians. ....
Click to expand...


Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian. 

And you didn't answer my questions.


----------



## Picaro

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> -  Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay
> 
> 
> 
> The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact.   Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.
Click to expand...


Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their leaders were dictators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Dictator” is generally understood to be singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Singular person can not control a whole nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then don't use the wrong term.
Click to expand...

It is not a "wrong" term. The word "dictator" is just a label of a side. Our "leaders", their "dictators", our "rebels", their "terrorists", our "glorious warriors" their "ugly murderers", etc...


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> The desperate need to try to avoid the reality of the events is truly pathetic. Trying so hard to ignore one's own conscience.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> -  Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay
> 
> 
> 
> The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact.   Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.
Click to expand...

Go be a troll somewhere else. Some people here are actually discussing a topic.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we are Christians. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.
Click to expand...

"Incenerating hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. It depends on the context. 



> And you didn't answer my questions.


I did. 
1, 2. Nuremberg Trials didn't include every citizen of Germany, because we value mercy higher than justice, and we needed Germans for the competition with the Soviet Union. 
3.4. No. In the context of the 1945 genocide of Germans would decrease our ability to deter Soviets in Europe, it would slow our missile program, therefore it would be immoral. 
5. Total genocide after surrender was suggested and accepted, would not represent American values. But the total genocide of the enemy who continue to resist (for example, Timucua) can represent American values.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we are Christians. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Incenerating [sic] hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. ...
Click to expand...


You need to go talk to a priest.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Picaro said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> -  Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay
> 
> 
> 
> The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact.   Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.
Click to expand...

I know that you are right about him.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we are Christians. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Incenerating [sic] hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to go talk to a priest.
Click to expand...


"Finis sanctificat media" was written in "Liber theologiae moralis".

"The end justifies the means".


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> -  Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay
> 
> 
> 
> The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact.   Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go be a troll somewhere else. Some people here are actually discussing a topic.
Click to expand...


You aren't one of them.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> -  Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay
> 
> 
> 
> The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact.   Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go be a troll somewhere else. Some people here are actually discussing a topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't one of them.
Click to expand...

Read the thread.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
> -  Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay
> 
> 
> 
> The Atomic Bombs ENDED the war--this is a fact.   Japan requested to end the war only after the bombs were dropped and thusly it ended quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just google up 'Unkotare' and see what a sick mentally disturbed little gimp you're wasting time on here; he's sexually aroused by playing with people's feces.. As for the OP he's been handed his ass so many times it's obvious he's some sort of deviant who enjoys being humiliated as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go be a troll somewhere else. Some people here are actually discussing a topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the thread.
Click to expand...

Already done. But you really don't try to "discuss". You just demonstrate your nucleophobia and xenophilia, nothing more.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war,  you would consider that morally virtuous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact of the matter was that it was indeed considered necessary in order to bring the war to it's quickest lest costly end. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He lied, likely. Do you have any real evidence of Japan readiness to surrender (not to 'peace on their terms')?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our wartime military leaders must have "lied" if the facts of history threaten your comforting narrative? Are you really this weak-minded? That's how some frightened "savage" would respond to his insecurities.
Click to expand...

Untrue, if they hadn't wanted to drop those bombs they simply wouldn't have done so. Nor would the country have spent enormous time trouble and resources in their development. Historical fact is not with you in this.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And far more civilians would have died a slower more painful death in the years that followed if we would have tried the embargo (We know they don't work given Fat Kim Koreas) or had to go to a land battle sending troops in.
> 
> Civilians die in war--it isnt fair but it is life.   Weather it be by A bomb or two over a few day period or by multiple regular bombs over the years or by starvation like Fat Kims korea----the A-bombs are the most humane way to go to boot.
Click to expand...

Blockade would have worked eventually.  But how many innocent civilians on the Asian mainland would have been killed before Japanese society crumbled under the weight of a population starving to death in the millions?  Even with a Japanese collaspe would the IJA surrender?  The actions of the holdouts in the Pacific seem to indicate they would continue to wage war, or at least banditry to the best of their ability.  That would mean US and Soviet forces would have to spend months or years tracking down and killing the IJA on the mainland.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

9thIDdoc said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics  are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.
> 
> Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
> 
> Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.
> 
> Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."_
> Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
> _"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."_
> True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
> _Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose._
> Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.
Click to expand...

_No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does. Every piece of legislation has a 3.1%-3.2% chance of passing, and public opinion has been proven to never affect that. The Government makes legislation which dictates what you can and can't do, that which rules you necessarily cannot be serving your interests. All of those people that were murdered by the US Government were completely innocent of any of the atrocities that the Japanese Government committed. _

_It's not begging the question to use a term consistently, my claim of it being murder is supported by the fact that force is being initiated in the act. If anyone else initiated force on and killed someone, depriving them of their life, they'd be murdering that person. To say that war is mass murder is to apply that term consistently instead of committing special pleading by claiming that other humans are not subject to the same standards just for being part of a specific organization or class. To put it in more simple terms, you're violating the consistency principle(One of the first principles of logic), which makes your argument illogical. 

No, what you mean to say, MAYBE, is that the majority of people do not consider it murder, or that the Government does not consider it murder, or that the Government has not trained you to think of it as murder. Furthermore, people who have not taken up arms to harm another, or committed any act of aggression in any way, such as all of the people murdered in Japan by the American Government, cannot be considered enemies by any logical standard. See, THERE, where you're calling them enemies, THAT's begging the question. You know, just so you use the term properly in the future._


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... if they hadn't wanted to drop those bombs they simply wouldn't have done so. Nor would the country have spent enormous time trouble and resources in their development. ...



More illogical conclusions. You are trying too hard to convince yourself of something. Why would that be?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Turtlesoup said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics  are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.
> 
> Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
> 
> Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.
> 
> Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is not a disney movie.  Sometimes there are just bad and worse choices as adults.    Adults have to make the tough decisions-----and sorry yes civilians die in wars.    Moral Right is that your people come before your enemies.  In WW2, the US had the moral right .................Japan were the enemies and yet the US also saved millions of their people's lives by sacrificing the two military cities with Atomic bombs.
> 
> This isn't football fan logic---this is the painful truth of life and war.
> 
> And sorry babe, might does make right in war-----you a fight a war to win not to be kind to your enemies who are out to kill you.
Click to expand...

_Oh, this is funny. _

_No, life is not a Disney movie, that's WHY I'm scrutinizing actions on a deeper level than 'We're on the same geographical location, therefor we are all a hivemind'. The mentality you're using, where the Government you worship acts in your interests, despite not knowing at all what you're interests are, let alone the individual interests of every person in a single geographical location(Which can change from moment to moment), THAT'S Disney movie logic. Or, have you not noticed their frequent use of kings and kingdoms, where the rulers are depicted as benevolent and just at all times? Oh, and their frequent use of 'sides', where one side is the viewer's perspective and the other side of 'them', the very same logic that you and other statists use when observing 'America' vs anyone else.

Furthermore, if decisions weren't made in a blanket format across an entire geographical location, by the absolute furthest organization from any of these issues, who also in no way suffered from mistakes made with said decisions, it'd be pretty easy to avoid the 'Trolly Problem' that you're tacitly referencing. Of course, it has never occurred to you that rather than having the trolly run over any number of people, one could just stop the trolly and have it hurt nobody. In other words, if each individual person made these "tough decisions" for themselves, it would bypass your beloved 'Trolly Problem' entirely. There would have been no bombings, and no mass murder.

No, it is absolutely football logic. Referring to the 'team' as "We" when you're not actually involved is exactly what football logic is. The "painful truth" is that you're simply cheering from the sidelines as mass murder occurs, then attempting to justify it afterwards on a forum. The people cheering as innocent people were crushed under the tanks of the red Chinese Government? That was you. The people cheering as the Jews were murdered by the German Government? That was you. The people shouting for Jesus to be nailed to the cross? That was you. NOW, the people who cheered when thousands of innocent japanese citizens were murder with nukes by the American Government? That's you. There's no difference between them, just geographical location, it's all mindless Nationalist, collectivist mentality, where a Government murders people for completely arbitrary reasons, and you stand by to give them ass-pats like the NPCs you are.

Wrong, might doesn't make right. The Governments may be able to subjugate each other through force, but that does not make their actions correct. They simply teach to their little NPCs that it was totally right, that they're the good guys, then if they're mentally weak, they parrot it for the rest of their lives. You know, like you're doing._


----------



## Silver Cat

Pumpkin Row said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics  are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.
> 
> Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
> 
> Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.
> 
> Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."_
> Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
> _"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."_
> True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
> _Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose._
> Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does. _
Click to expand...

The Japs are not cattle, they are humans. May be stupid, clearly - perverted and cruel, but humans. Don't make them a sort of Orcs or something... 
They have free will, they can make their own decisions and be responsible for them.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Silver Cat said:


> You see, Ethic classification of an action could not be made without understanding of context. One thing when you f-ck a woman who agree to be f-cked (for example, you wife), and absolutely different when you rape woman who don't want to be f-cked. War is even more antient and universal social institution than marriage.
> The Japs (the whole nation) said: "We want to kill you and agree to be killed" by their attack at Pearl Harbor. Everybody knows how to stop those "specific relations" - drop you weapon, raise your hands, fell on your knees.
> They said: "We wanna kill you, and we ready to be killed", and they didn't say "Don't kill us, we surrender!"


_Yes, it's understood by the context, all of that context that you choose not to consider by being a collectivist, boot-licking shill._

_The scenario with the woman and the man, regarding consent is accurate. On the other hand, you disregard all of that when you move on to discussing war. Let's pretend, just for the sake of argument, that all of the soldiers who decided it was time to lick the Government's boots more DID in fact consent to murdering each other. It's still the Government and only the Government which makes this decision, and they in no way speak for all of the people in a single geographical location. This is why it amuses me that you mentioned consent; The Government has no consent to represent all of the people in a geographical location, or to steal their money(Taxes), or to kidnap them and throw them in cages for violating their arbitrary politician scribbles, or to murder them for violating those same politician scribbles._

_Every NPC tries this, so I'll address it now; No, living in a specific place does not excuse everything an individual wants to do to them, that's like saying that it's legitimate to burn a person's house down if they don't move out of the house. Tacit consent absolutely is not consent at all._



Silver Cat said:


> Everybody die. Death is a medicine against sin, given by God.


_By that logic, it'd be legitimate to kill everyone on the planet. _



Silver Cat said:


> But from the atheistic point of view, ethical systems are products of evolution, too.
> And therefore 'might is right' or 'survival of the fittest'.


_No, ethics are a product of logic. Logic is objective, so Ethics are derived from logic, making Ethics objective as well. _



Silver Cat said:


> The Japs may be stupid (in some ways), may be  "evil", but they are not "cattle".


_Actually, I refer to everyone who pays taxes as tax cattle, because it's what they are to the Government. So, this is just another thing that went right over your head._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Silver Cat said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics  are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.
> 
> Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
> 
> Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.
> 
> Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."_
> Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
> _"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."_
> True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
> _Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose._
> Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs are not cattle, they are humans. May be stupid, clearly - perverted and cruel, but humans. Don't make them a sort of Orcs or something...
> They have free will, they can make their own decisions and be responsible for them.
Click to expand...

_If you have been paying attention, and you of course haven't, you're the only one arguing that everyone in a certain geographical location is evil because of the acts of those who claim the right to rule them. _

_I refer to those who pay taxes as tax cattle, because that's all they are to a Government. This is just a critical failure on your fault to critically think about my usage of the term._


----------



## gipper

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we are Christians. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Incenerating hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. It depends on the context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you didn't answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
> 1, 2. Nuremberg Trials didn't include every citizen of Germany, because we value mercy higher than justice, and we needed Germans for the competition with the Soviet Union.
> 3.4. No. In the context of the 1945 genocide of Germans would decrease our ability to deter Soviets in Europe, it would slow our missile program, therefore it would be immoral.
> 5. Total genocide after surrender was suggested and accepted, would not represent American values. But the total genocide of the enemy who continue to resist (for example, Timucua) can represent American values.
Click to expand...

Jesus that’s dumb. Mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians IS ALWAYS BAD...DUMB ASS. There’s no context involved ASSHOLE. 

It’s dicks like you that allow criminals in government doing tyrannical and heinous things.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Pumpkin Row said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics  are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.
> 
> Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
> 
> Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.
> 
> Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."_
> Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
> _"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."_
> True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
> _Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose._
> Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does. Every piece of legislation has a 3.1%-3.2% chance of passing, and public opinion has been proven to never affect that. The Government makes legislation which dictates what you can and can't do, that which rules you necessarily cannot be serving your interests. All of those people that were murdered by the US Government were completely innocent of any of the atrocities that the Japanese Government committed.
> 
> It's not begging the question to use a term consistently, my claim of it being murder is supported by the fact that force is being initiated in the act. If anyone else initiated force on and killed someone, depriving them of their life, they'd be murdering that person. To say that war is mass murder is to apply that term consistently instead of committing special pleading by claiming that other humans are not subject to the same standards just for being part of a specific organization or class. To put it in more simple terms, you're violating the consistency principle(One of the first principles of logic), which makes your argument illogical.
> 
> No, what you mean to say, MAYBE, is that the majority of people do not consider it murder, or that the Government does not consider it murder, or that the Government has not trained you to think of it as murder. Furthermore, people who have not taken up arms to harm another, or committed any act of aggression in any way, such as all of the people murdered in Japan by the American Government, cannot be considered enemies by any logical standard. See, THERE, where you're calling them enemies, THAT's begging the question. You know, just so you use the term properly in the future._
Click to expand...


_No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does._ 
No, what's odd is your assertion that the government and the people are in fact separate entities. The real world holds Nations responsible and doesn't split imaginary hairs in defining what a Nation is. "...of the People, by the People, for the People...' Simple historical fact. The People are indeed responsible for their government. If the People don't want a government to rule over them they can create a government that doesn't or change an existing government as needed. People are only helpless tax cattle if they choose to be and they are most definitely responsible for their choices. Trying to blame everything on "the government" is simply a pathetic attempt to avoid being a responsible citizen. I resent the suggestion that I allow the government to "rule" me. Slander. I am "ruled" by nothing and no one other than my own choices and conscience.
_All of those people that were murdered by the US Government were completely innocent of any of the atrocities that the Japanese Government committed._
The term "murder" is defined by law-not your opinion. Those people were guilty of being enemies of our nation and were killed legally by our nation. Not murder and not the government._ 
It's not begging the question to use a term consistently,_
No, but using a term consistently in no way insures that you are using it correctly. It is altogether possible to be consistently wrong. As you seem determined to prove.
_See, THERE, where you're calling them enemies, THAT's begging the question. You know, just so you use the term properly in the future._
Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. Your inability to understand simple fact is your own fault. The world is simply not waiting with baited breath for you to decide what the correct definition of words should be so they can adopt it. It is what it is.


----------



## Englewood

gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we are Christians. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Incenerating hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. It depends on the context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you didn't answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
> 1, 2. Nuremberg Trials didn't include every citizen of Germany, because we value mercy higher than justice, and we needed Germans for the competition with the Soviet Union.
> 3.4. No. In the context of the 1945 genocide of Germans would decrease our ability to deter Soviets in Europe, it would slow our missile program, therefore it would be immoral.
> 5. Total genocide after surrender was suggested and accepted, would not represent American values. But the total genocide of the enemy who continue to resist (for example, Timucua) can represent American values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus that’s dumb. Mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians IS ALWAYS BAD...DUMB ASS. There’s no context involved ASSHOLE.
> 
> It’s dicks like you that allow criminals in government doing tyrannical and heinous things.
Click to expand...

I guess America didn't bomb German civilians, so we didn't cause any mass murders of civilians including women and children.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...



Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised. 

Those are FACTS.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ...in defining what a Nation is. "...of the People, by the People, for the People...' ...



That is what AMERICA is, and almost no other nation in the history of the world. 

Were the painfully poor, painfully hungry, painfully terrified people living within the borders of the Soviet Union each personally responsible for every decision and action of the Politburo of the USSR? Do you really believe that each such miserable individual had anything like influence or political power within the Soviet Union? Should each such person have been executed, in your opinion?


----------



## gipper

Englewood said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we are Christians. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Incenerating hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. It depends on the context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you didn't answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
> 1, 2. Nuremberg Trials didn't include every citizen of Germany, because we value mercy higher than justice, and we needed Germans for the competition with the Soviet Union.
> 3.4. No. In the context of the 1945 genocide of Germans would decrease our ability to deter Soviets in Europe, it would slow our missile program, therefore it would be immoral.
> 5. Total genocide after surrender was suggested and accepted, would not represent American values. But the total genocide of the enemy who continue to resist (for example, Timucua) can represent American values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus that’s dumb. Mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians IS ALWAYS BAD...DUMB ASS. There’s no context involved ASSHOLE.
> 
> It’s dicks like you that allow criminals in government doing tyrannical and heinous things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess America didn't bomb German civilians, so we didn't cause any mass murders of civilians including women and children.
Click to expand...

What?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Pumpkin Row said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it means, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?
> 
> We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth._
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a very good driver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.
> 
> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
> 
> You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> 
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.
> 
> Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.
> 
> On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list._
> 
> _Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway. _
> 
> _Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.
> 
> TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.
> 
> Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.
> 
> Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right". _
> 
> _This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion. _
> 
> _Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.
> 
> To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs.  Japan richly deserved what it got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics  are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.
> 
> Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
> 
> Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.
> 
> Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."_
> Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
> _"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."_
> True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
> _Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose._
> Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japs are not cattle, they are humans. May be stupid, clearly - perverted and cruel, but humans. Don't make them a sort of Orcs or something...
> They have free will, they can make their own decisions and be responsible for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _If you have been paying attention, and you of course haven't, you're the only one arguing that everyone in a certain geographical location is evil because of the acts of those who claim the right to rule them.
> 
> I refer to those who pay taxes as tax cattle, because that's all they are to a Government. This is just a critical failure on your fault to critically think about my usage of the term._
Click to expand...




Englewood said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is precisely and ONLY  your opinion.
> 
> Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we  had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because we are Christians. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Incenerating hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. It depends on the context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you didn't answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did.
> 1, 2. Nuremberg Trials didn't include every citizen of Germany, because we value mercy higher than justice, and we needed Germans for the competition with the Soviet Union.
> 3.4. No. In the context of the 1945 genocide of Germans would decrease our ability to deter Soviets in Europe, it would slow our missile program, therefore it would be immoral.
> 5. Total genocide after surrender was suggested and accepted, would not represent American values. But the total genocide of the enemy who continue to resist (for example, Timucua) can represent American values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus that’s dumb. Mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians IS ALWAYS BAD...DUMB ASS. There’s no context involved ASSHOLE.
> 
> It’s dicks like you that allow criminals in government doing tyrannical and heinous things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess America didn't bomb German civilians, so we didn't cause any mass murders of civilians including women and children.
Click to expand...

Sure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
Click to expand...

BE VERY SPECIFIC NOW and LINK to a declaration from the Japanese Government BEFORE EITHER of the Atomic Bombs where they offered to surrender. A source, a link something other then your fevered imagination. And no a link to a book that does not actually source the claim is not sufficient. Nor is a newspaper article that clearly states all they offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines through intermediaries.


----------



## Markle

9thIDdoc said:


> ure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.



Wrong!  As you know, and know well, there certainly can be murder during a war.  Always has been and always will be.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... if they hadn't wanted to drop those bombs they simply wouldn't have done so. Nor would the country have spent enormous time trouble and resources in their development. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More illogical conclusions. You are trying too hard to convince yourself of something. Why would that be?
Click to expand...




Markle said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!  As you know, and know well, there certainly can be murder during a war.  Always has been and always will be.
Click to expand...

the only way for murder to occur during a war is for it to be unsanctioned killing.  That rarely happens in wartime.  US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect, troops committing rape and murder were usually tried and punished.  Japanese, Soviet and German troops were usually not punished as long as their victims were enemy nationals.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Markle said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!  As you know, and know well, there certainly can be murder during a war.  Always has been and always will be.
Click to expand...

Bombing military targets is NEVER murder though and that is what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> ... US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect...



Like the Biscari massacre? Or the practice of sending home ears, skulls, and shin bones of Japanese POWs as 'souvenirs'? I expect US forces had  relatively cleaner hands, but nobody's hands come out clean from war. Doesn't make any atrocity on any side acceptable.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Biscari massacre? Or the practice of sending home ears, skulls, and shin bones of Japanese POWs as 'souvenirs'? I expect US forces had  relatively cleaner hands, but nobody's hands come out clean from war. Doesn't make any atrocity on any side acceptable.
Click to expand...

Waiting LIAR.... Link to a Japanese Government offer to surrender.


----------



## Markle

AZrailwhale said:


> the only way for murder to occur during a war is for it to be unsanctioned killing. That rarely happens in wartime. US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect, troops committing rape and murder were usually tried and punished. Japanese, Soviet and German troops were usually not punished as long as their victims were enemy nationals.









You would be well served to watch some of the real documentaries about WW-II.

Total war is just that, TOTAL WAR.

ALL of the belligerents resorted to desperate measures.  When you do it to me, by God, I'll do it to you only worse.  At least 70 million people were killed in WW-II.  Millions of those were murdered.  Stuff happens.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Markle said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only way for murder to occur during a war is for it to be unsanctioned killing. That rarely happens in wartime. US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect, troops committing rape and murder were usually tried and punished. Japanese, Soviet and German troops were usually not punished as long as their victims were enemy nationals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would be well served to watch some of the real documentaries about WW-II.
> 
> Total war is just that, TOTAL WAR.
> 
> ALL of the belligerents resorted to desperate measures.  When you do it to me, by God, I'll do it to you only worse.  At least 70 million people were killed in WW-II.  Millions of those were murdered.  Stuff happens.
Click to expand...

I don’t bother with documentaries, I read books instead.  US commanders rarely allowed non-combat killing.  In the case of the Waffen SS and Japanese, commanders would often  Turn their backs when troops refused to accept surrenders.  With the exception of the Waffen SS German troops generally treated Commonwealth  and US prisoners well.  If Axis troops managed to surrender, they were safe and treated well.  When it came to the Japanese, all bets were off.  They considered POWs less than human and any atrocity committed against a POW was acceptable.  The Soviets were between the Waffen SS and the Japanese in their treatment of POWs.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...in defining what a Nation is. "...of the People, by the People, for the People...' ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what AMERICA is, and almost no other nation in the history of the world.
> 
> Were the painfully poor, painfully hungry, painfully terrified people living within the borders of the Soviet Union each personally responsible for every decision and action of the Politburo of the USSR? Do you really believe that each such miserable individual had anything like influence or political power within the Soviet Union? Should each such person have been executed, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

You continue to miss the point. My opinion doesn't matter; your opinion doesn't matter. The world holds Nations responsible for the actions of that Nation. The entire nation. Are not members of government and members of the military also "innocent civilians"? The men who dropped the bombs on Japan were not members of the government and they very well might been civilians-and remained so-until our Nation was attacked and they enlisted or were drafted to defend their homes and families. I have answered your question before but maybe I didn't keep it simple enough. If America is at war with another country the people of that country must be assumed to be trying to kill or take or ruin everything I treasure including my life and the lives of my wife and children. I will do whatever is *necessary* to defend my family and my people. Anyone who would do otherwise is a truly worthless individual in my opinion. *If it is necessary* (although I can't imagine it ever would be) I would willingly kill every man, woman, child, pet or farm animal of that nation, turn what used to be their nation into a radioactive wasteland and piss on their graves. If that were necessary to defend mine. I hope that answers your question.
Also I have enough sense to know that I do not have the training information or experience to decide military strategy and I don't believe you do either. Dropping the bombs was a national strategic decision far above your or my pay grade and nobody likes a Monday morning quarterback so if those actions, made by our ancestors, offend your tender sensibilities nobody cares and I for one am getting tired of your whining about ancient history. It's over. Done. Get over it and move on. There are far greater concerns to worry about some of which we can actually do something about.
"That is what AMERICA is, and almost no other nation in the history of the world."
True but people create and are responsible for their government and end up with the government they deserve.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... The world holds Nations responsible for the actions of that Nation. The entire nation. ...



NO, the entire world does NOT share your moral depravity. The entire world does NOT agree with your notion that every civilian - women, children, the elderly - are fair game when two militaries are engaged in combat. That is YOUR moral bankruptcy.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... Are not members of government and members of the military also "innocent civilians"? ...



NO brainless, by definition they are NOT. Put the cap back on the glue.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... I will do whatever is *necessary* to defend my family and my people. ...



Targeting and annihilating hundreds of thousands of civilians of a defeated nation was NOT necessary.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... I have enough sense to know that I do not have the training information or experience to decide military strategy and I don't believe you do either. ...



But the American military commanders of the time did. I have provided you with quotes on their views regarding the matter many times.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Markle said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!  As you know, and know well, there certainly can be murder during a war.  Always has been and always will be.
Click to expand...

True. I should have said killing the enemy during war (in compliance with the UCMJ) is not legally murder.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I will do whatever is *necessary* to defend my family and my people. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting and annihilating hundreds of thousands of civilians of a defeated nation was NOT necessary.
Click to expand...

True and I have not said otherwise. And Japan had not been defeated at the time in question.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... I for one am getting tired of your whining about ancient history. ...



Discussing history - on the history forum - is not "whining." Your childish reaction to any perceived threat to your little security blanket narrative is whining.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I will do whatever is *necessary* to defend my family and my people. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting and annihilating hundreds of thousands of civilians of a defeated nation was NOT necessary.
Click to expand...

I call you a lying moron. EVERY single nation did it. And Japan refused to surrender, I keep asking, LINK to ANY surrender document, any announcement, any communique by Japans Government to the Allies or the US where they offered to surrender BEFORE EITHER BOMB was dropped.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... Japan had not been defeated at the time in question.



" The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." 
-  Admiral William Leahy


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Biscari massacre? Or the practice of sending home ears, skulls, and shin bones of Japanese POWs as 'souvenirs'? I expect US forces had  relatively cleaner hands, but nobody's hands come out clean from war. Doesn't make any atrocity on any side acceptable.
Click to expand...

True.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Japan had not been defeated at the time in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."
> -  Admiral William Leahy
Click to expand...

I REPEAT LINK to ANY actual document statement or communique by the Japanese Government to the US that they wanted to surrender. One will do.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I have enough sense to know that I do not have the training information or experience to decide military strategy and I don't believe you do either. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the American military commanders of the time did. I have provided you with quotes on their views regarding the matter many times.
Click to expand...

You have claimed to quote a couple of commanders. In any  discussion there is more than a single opinion nor is a decision of that magnitude reached or carried out by any tiny group of individuals. An Admiral may be a master of Naval battle but have little knowledge of the ground combat that an invasion would have required. We had just fought some very tough and costly battles capturing tiny islands. Throwing away American lives would have been criminal if there were other options. I-and most Americans-are glad there were.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I have enough sense to know that I do not have the training information or experience to decide military strategy and I don't believe you do either. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the American military commanders of the time did. I have provided you with quotes on their views regarding the matter many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have claimed to quote a couple of commanders. In any  discussion there is more than a single opinion nor is a decision of that magnitude reached or carried out by any tiny group of individuals. An Admiral may be a master of Naval battle but have little knowledge of the ground combat that an invasion would have required. We had just fought some very tough and costly battles capturing tiny islands. Throwing away American lives would have been criminal if there were other options. I-and most Americans-are glad there were.
Click to expand...

He has NEVER ONCE linked to any actual offer by the Japanese Government to surrender, he did claim my linking to their attempts to get The Soviets and Sweden to broker a ceasefire with return to 41 lines was a lie and then he linked to an article in a paper that ACTUALLY said that besides my link to official intercepts. He keeps claiming we had options BUT he can not will not and has never stated any such options other then Bomb them and invade them. That's because a continued blockade would have seen millions of Japanese Starve and freeze to death and he doesn't want to admit that.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The world holds Nations responsible for the actions of that Nation. The entire nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, the entire world does NOT share your moral depravity. The entire world does NOT agree with your notion that every civilian - women, children, the elderly - are fair game when two militaries are engaged in combat. That is YOUR moral bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

My morals are just fine, thank you. Your ignorance of history is astounding.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... Throwing away American lives would have been criminal if there were other options. I-and most Americans-are glad there were.



Pursuing even the possibility of a much earlier peace was an option that, if it had worked out, would have saved many more lives. fdr was not interested in that. He demonstrated no concern for human life (or freedom or the US Constitution, for that matter), American or not.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The world holds Nations responsible for the actions of that Nation. The entire nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, the entire world does NOT share your moral depravity. The entire world does NOT agree with your notion that every civilian - women, children, the elderly - are fair game when two militaries are engaged in combat. That is YOUR moral bankruptcy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My morals are just fine, thank you. Your ignorance of history is astounding.
Click to expand...


You are mistaken on both counts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Throwing away American lives would have been criminal if there were other options. I-and most Americans-are glad there were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pursuing even the possibility of a much earlier peace was an option that, if it had worked out, would have saved many more lives. fdr was not interested in that. He demonstrated no concern for human life (or freedom or the US Constitution, for that matter), American or not.
Click to expand...

I keep asking for you to provide any FACTUAL links to any attempt by the Japanese Government to surrender, YOU can not and have not. Again all Japan offered through Sweden and the Soviets was a Ceasefire, return to 41 start lines, NO concessions in China and no action what so ever against Japan. I have linked to ACTUAL HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS that clearly state this and show who said what to whom.


----------



## AZrailwhale

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Biscari massacre? Or the practice of sending home ears, skulls, and shin bones of Japanese POWs as 'souvenirs'? I expect US forces had  relatively cleaner hands, but nobody's hands come out clean from war. Doesn't make any atrocity on any side acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
Click to expand...

Bones from Japanese POWs?  Very unlikely since there were very few Japanese POWs in the first case. Only 5424 Japanese were taken prisoner by US forces during the entire war.   Bones from dead Japanese soldiers I will buy, the actions of both the IJA and IJN inspired a great deal of hatred among both American troops and civilians.  As recently as fifteen years ago I had living relatives who absolutely hated  the Japanese for things they suffered at the hands of SNLF and IJA troops in the Pacific.


----------



## Silver Cat

Pumpkin Row said:


> _By that logic, it'd be legitimate to kill everyone on the planet. _




Yes. We'll die. The only thing we can do is to pray to God about merci. 

_



			No, ethics are a product of logic. Logic is objective, so Ethics are derived from logic, making Ethics objective as well.
		
Click to expand...

_
No. Ethic is much more ancient than logic. 

_



			Actually, I refer to everyone who pays taxes as tax cattle, because it's what they are to the Government. So, this is just another thing that went right over your head.
		
Click to expand...

_No. People are much more than taxpayers. They are flesh and blood and brain of the society. For example, father of Kuniaki Koiso was an ordinary shizoku. Father of Joseph Stalin was a poor shoemaker from Georgia. They became leaders of their nation only because they fitted the will of majority.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Biscari massacre? Or the practice of sending home ears, skulls, and shin bones of Japanese POWs as 'souvenirs'? I expect US forces had  relatively cleaner hands, but nobody's hands come out clean from war. Doesn't make any atrocity on any side acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bones from Japanese POWs?  Very unlikely since there were very few Japanese POWs in the first case. Only 5424 Japanese were taken prisoner by US forces during the entire war.   Bones from dead Japanese soldiers I will buy, the actions of both the IJA and IJN inspired a great deal of hatred among both American troops and civilians.  As recently as fifteen years ago I had living relatives who absolutely hated  the Japanese for things they suffered at the hands of SNLF and IJA troops in the Pacific.
Click to expand...










						Film exposes Allies' Pacific war atrocities
					

For more than half a century they have been portrayed as wholesome heroes who fought in terrible conditions to save the Western way of life from Japanese aggression. But now the savage acts that Allied soldiers were driven to commit in the Pacific theatre are about to be exposed.




					www.theguardian.com
				









						Trophies of War: U.S. Troops and the Mutilation of Japanese War Dead, 1941-1945 on JSTOR
					

James J. Weingartner, Trophies of War: U.S. Troops and the Mutilation of Japanese War Dead, 1941-1945, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Feb., 1992), pp. 53-67




					www.jstor.org
				








__





						American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'
					






					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
Click to expand...

They were not "beaten" until they finished their resistance and officially declared their capitulation.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> ...Ethic is much more ancient than logic.
> ...



Wow. Just how drunk are you?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Throwing away American lives would have been criminal if there were other options. I-and most Americans-are glad there were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pursuing even the possibility of a much earlier peace was an option that, if it had worked out, would have saved many more lives. fdr was not interested in that. He demonstrated no concern for human life (or freedom or the US Constitution, for that matter), American or not.
Click to expand...

Bullspit. The war was ongoing and lives and equipment were being lost every day. The quicker it was over the better for everyone except the Japanese government and war criminals which is exactly the reason they were dragging it out. That defeat was certain had been apparent for some time but the Japanese government seemed quite content to let the killing continue indefinitely. There was no telling how long they were willing to draw things out and no way to predict the cost of allowing that. A nation has no responsibility for the lives of the enemy during time of war except as stated in the UCMJ and legal ROE and many Americans who had lost friends and family members for no better reason than that the Japanese decided to attack us would have been happy to see every single Japanese exterminated. It was the Japanese government who were (ir)responible for the Japanese people. Constitution? Freedom? The US Constitution assures the Rights and duties of US citizens; not the people who were killing them. If the Japanese wanted freedom they had to get it from the Japanese government. In short, if you wish to avoid the effects of war you should be very careful when and with whom you start one.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Japan had not been defeated at the time in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."
> -  Admiral William Leahy
Click to expand...

He-he-he... 
There is a difference between "ready to surrender" and "surrendered", isn't it? 
And anyway, it is just an opinion of the Admiral.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not "beaten" until ...
Click to expand...


Tell Admiral Leahy.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Throwing away American lives would have been criminal if there were other options. I-and most Americans-are glad there were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pursuing even the possibility of a much earlier peace was an option that, if it had worked out, would have saved many more lives. fdr was not interested in that. He demonstrated no concern for human life (or freedom or the US Constitution, for that matter), American or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. The war was ongoing and lives and equipment were being lost every day. The quicker it was ov....
Click to expand...


Are you trying to say that ending the war earlier would not have saved more lives?


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Japan had not been defeated at the time in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."
> -  Admiral William Leahy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He-he-he...
> There is a difference between "ready to surrender" and "surrendered", isn't it?
> And anyway, it is just an opinion of the Admiral.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you know better than he did. After all, you were there and you outranked him, right?


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...



Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.

Those are FACTS.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ...in defining what a Nation is. "...of the People, by the People, for the People...' ...



That is what AMERICA is, and almost no other nation in the history of the world.

Were the painfully poor, painfully hungry, painfully terrified people living within the borders of the Soviet Union each personally responsible for every decision and action of the Politburo of the USSR? Do you really believe that each such miserable individual had anything like influence or political power within the Soviet Union? Should each such person have been executed, in your opinion?


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Throwing away American lives would have been criminal if there were other options. I-and most Americans-are glad there were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pursuing even the possibility of a much earlier peace was an option that, if it had worked out, would have saved many more lives. fdr was not interested in that. He demonstrated no concern for human life (or freedom or the US Constitution, for that matter), American or not.
Click to expand...

There was only one possibility to force Japans to surrender earlier - test The Gadget by dropping it on Kyoto at Jul, 16. But the scientist decided that they need a test (and there were another political reasons).


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Throwing away American lives would have been criminal if there were other options. I-and most Americans-are glad there were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pursuing even the possibility of a much earlier peace was an option that, if it had worked out, would have saved many more lives. fdr was not interested in that. He demonstrated no concern for human life (or freedom or the US Constitution, for that matter), American or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was only one possibility to force Japans to surrender earlier ...
Click to expand...


"Only one _possibility_"? Stop drinking for a minute and think about that.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not "beaten" until ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell Admiral Leahy.
Click to expand...

He is already dead.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Since Unkotora is ignoring me you all need to keep asking him for links to his lies and misinformation.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Japan had not been defeated at the time in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."
> -  Admiral William Leahy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He-he-he...
> There is a difference between "ready to surrender" and "surrendered", isn't it?
> And anyway, it is just an opinion of the Admiral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know better than he did. After all, you were there and you outranked him, right?
Click to expand...

He-he-he. 
He also said  stupid things about A-bomb:
---------------
"That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done," he observed in his sturdy, salty manner. "The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
-------------
He also didn't predict how quickly the Soviets will crush Kwantung army and retake Sakhalin and Kuril islands. Waiting more would mean Soviet invasion in Hokkaido and Honshu.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not "beaten" until ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell Admiral Leahy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is already dead.
Click to expand...

Just like your argument.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Throwing away American lives would have been criminal if there were other options. I-and most Americans-are glad there were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pursuing even the possibility of a much earlier peace was an option that, if it had worked out, would have saved many more lives. fdr was not interested in that. He demonstrated no concern for human life (or freedom or the US Constitution, for that matter), American or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was only one possibility to force Japans to surrender earlier ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only one _possibility_"? Stop drinking for a minute and think about that.
Click to expand...

Yes. " Possibility " if we are talking about abstract branches of alternative history, "opportunity" if we are talking about actual decisions. 
But we were not interested in the abstract "peace". We were interested in "Peaceful, democratical Japan". 


Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were not "beaten" until ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell Admiral Leahy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is already dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like your argument.
Click to expand...

And your "argument" never was alive.
Do you have any real document that Japan government already and actually surrendered before bombs were dropped?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
Click to expand...

Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war proving they had no honor and no valid claim to be treated honorably.
Fact: At the time in question the enemy in question was continuing to wage war, was continuing to kill Americans, and had proclaimed they would continue to fight to the last and had recently done exactly that on several islands. If they were defeated they were unwilling to admit it. If they were willing to suffer extermination rather than admit defeat that was their choice, their fault, and their problem.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

RetiredGySgt said:


> Since Unkotora is ignoring me you all need to keep asking him for links to his lies and misinformation.


Sarge- Actual recorded history makes it plain that he has no interest in actual history and he thinks he can be believed no matter what he says so long as he claims his entirely imaginary moral high ground. He is simply a revisionist that wishes to alter  history to suit his agenda. Many are like him on this site and no sense in letting them get to you. They are worth refuting as a benefit to those who might not know the facts should they read the thread but he is not here to discuss anything and you'll never convince him of anything resembling truth.


----------



## Markle

9thIDdoc said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!  As you know, and know well, there certainly can be murder during a war.  Always has been and always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. I should have said killing the enemy during war (in compliance with the UCMJ) is not legally murder.
Click to expand...


Come back when you've educated yourself on the subject.  Until then you just seem proud of your ignorance.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Markle said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong!  As you know, and know well, there certainly can be murder during a war.  Always has been and always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. I should have said killing the enemy during war (in compliance with the UCMJ) is not legally murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come back when you've educated yourself on the subject.  Until then you just seem proud of your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Apparently you're talking to yourself again. Take your meds?


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
Click to expand...



FACTS:

Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
Click to expand...

Hawaii WAS IN FACT PART of the US you MORON. And BOMBING Production Port and Army headquarters was a legit target in WW2 and even TODAY. As for civilians NO person above the age of 8 was a civilian in Japan once the Government ordered them to arm themselves and attack any allied forces.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

9thIDdoc said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sympathy for Japanese civilians operates in direct ratio to the sympathy they held for the innocent victims of their government.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say, when you can shoot them like fish in a barrel and they can't do much in retaliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly like they did to us at Pearl Harbor except that they weren't provoked and we were.
Click to expand...

Yes, i get it, they sucked.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer them dead or red? 
And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really  terrible. Nuking made them much better.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you prefer them dead or red?
> And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really  terrible. Nuking made them much better.
Click to expand...

You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
Click to expand...

We could argue about some of the details of your "facts" and already have. My response to you is "So what?" Hundreds of millions of people died during that war and the majority of them were civilians as in most wars. That is a fact you can't seem to understand or come to terms with. Another is the fact that the Japanese, Germans, and Russians treated civilians and POWs far more brutally than the USA as standard procedure even when they gained nothing by it. Ask the Jews. Ask the Chinese or most anybody in SE Asia. As for nuclear weapons, The Germans were working on them when we entered the war. And both Germans and Japanese bombed civilian cities and most certainly would have used the bombs however they imagined would be most useful as soon as they were developed. We were at least nice enough to give warning and request they surrender and stop the blood shed. Their refusal; their choice. Real war is not about rules, honor or glory; It's about survival. Kill or be killed. Attend one sometime and, if you come back, I'll be willing to listen to what you have to say. I may not agree but I will listen carefully.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could argue about some of the details of your "facts" and already have. My response to you is "So what?" Hundreds of millions of people died during that war and the majority of them were civilians as in most wars. That is a fact you can't seem to understand or come to terms with. Another is the fact that the Japanese, Germans, and Russians treated civilians and POWs far more brutally than the USA as standard procedure even when they gained nothing by it. Ask the Jews. Ask the Chinese or most anybody in SE Asia. As for nuclear weapons, The Germans were working on them when we entered the war. And both Germans and Japanese bombed civilian cities and most certainly would have used the bombs however they imagined would be most useful as soon as they were developed. We were at least nice enough to give warning and request they surrender and stop the blood shed. Their refusal; their choice. Real war is not about rules, honor or glory; It's about survival. Kill or be killed. Attend one sometime and, if you come back, I'll be willing to listen to what you have to say. I may not agree but I will listen carefully.
Click to expand...

He keeps outright LYING. He has repeatedly claimed, for instance, that HAWAII was not part of the United States.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ... My response to you is "So what?" ...



In which case YOU have made it perfectly clear that  you are a morally barren, empty shell masquerading as a human being.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... My response to you is "So what?" ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case YOU have made it perfectly clear that  you are a morally barren, empty shell masquerading as a human being.
Click to expand...

You are perfectly free to think so. I pity anyone who believes anything just because they want to. When you sneak up and club some unsuspecting person from behind you deserve no sympathy if he turns around kicks your ass. Idiotic to think otherwise. And it would be especially idiotic for the Japanese on whom we spent so much time, effort, and money helping to rebuild.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... My response to you is "So what?" ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case YOU have made it perfectly clear that  you are a morally barren, empty shell masquerading as a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are perfectly free to think so. ....
Click to expand...


Thanks, I will because it is so obvious.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you prefer them dead or red?
> And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really  terrible. Nuking made them much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?
Click to expand...

Sure I pretend to be Christian. BTW, do you remember what two cities were destroyed in the Bible? Not one, not three, but two? Was it good or bad?


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you prefer them dead or red?
> And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really  terrible. Nuking made them much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...
Click to expand...


Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you prefer them dead or red?
> And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really  terrible. Nuking made them much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.
Click to expand...

You KEEP LYING. Hawaii was part of the US in 1941 and had been for quit some time. Guam was part of the US and had been for quite some time. The Philippines were part of the US and had been for quite some time. All attacked 2 invaded. Japan MURDERED MILLIONS of Chinese civilians and MURDERED millions of Filipino civilians. Remind me when you EVER complain about that? Japan murdered tortured and abused allied prisoners of war for the ENTIRE war, remind me when you complained about that?

Japan NEVER offered to surrender AT ALL. NOT ONCE. Not until after 2 Atomic Bombs and a Soviet Invasion and then the Japanese Army attempted a Coup to stop THAT.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you prefer them dead or red?
> And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really  terrible. Nuking made them much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what real Christianity is.


----------



## Silver Cat

It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you prefer them dead or red?
> And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really  terrible. Nuking made them much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what real Christianity is.
Click to expand...

It seems I have a better idea than you do.


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.


You're not an American, not Christian, not a decent human being.


----------



## Silver Cat

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not an American, not Christian, not a decent human being.
Click to expand...

Really? Then, how can you explain this:








						International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US
					

The chief prosecutor at the Hague-based ICC, Fatou Bensouda, is among those sanctioned.



					www.bbc.com
				



----------------------------

The US has imposed sanctions on senior officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused the court of "illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction".

The Hague-based ICC is currently investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

The US has criticised the court since its foundation and is one of a dozen states which have not signed up.

Balkees Jarrah, senior counsel at the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, condemned the sanctions as a "shameful new low for US commitments to justice for victims of the worst crimes".

Mr Pompeo's move marked a "stunning perversion of US sanctions, devised to penalize rights abusers and kleptocrats, to target those prosecuting war crimes", she tweeted.

Created by a UN treaty in 2002, the ICC investigates and brings to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, intervening when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.

----------------------


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you prefer them dead or red?
> And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really  terrible. Nuking made them much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what real Christianity is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems I have a better idea than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think, that "Let's allow these Pagans to kill more Christians " is a trully Christians idea?
Click to expand...



No one has suggested any such thing... except you.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Silver Cat said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not an American, not Christian, not a decent human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then, how can you explain this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US
> 
> 
> The chief prosecutor at the Hague-based ICC, Fatou Bensouda, is among those sanctioned.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> The US has imposed sanctions on senior officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.
> 
> Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused the court of "illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction".
> 
> The Hague-based ICC is currently investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.
> 
> The US has criticised the court since its foundation and is one of a dozen states which have not signed up.
> 
> Balkees Jarrah, senior counsel at the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, condemned the sanctions as a "shameful new low for US commitments to justice for victims of the worst crimes".
> 
> Mr Pompeo's move marked a "stunning perversion of US sanctions, devised to penalize rights abusers and kleptocrats, to target those prosecuting war crimes", she tweeted.
> 
> Created by a UN treaty in 2002, the ICC investigates and brings to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, intervening when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.
> 
> ----------------------
Click to expand...

The USA is not a signatory on the treaty that created the ICC so no American citizen is subject to ICC jurisdiction.  The ICC is a VOLUNTARY organization that only has jurisdiction over signatories.  So if it is trying to stretch it's jurisdiction over Americans (which it appears to be doing) the US government is perfectly within it's rights to sanction it's managers and employees.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than *200,000* civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you prefer them dead or red?
> And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really  terrible. Nuking made them much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what real Christianity is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems I have a better idea than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think, that "Let's allow these Pagans to kill more Christians " is a trully Christians idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one has suggested any such thing... except you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You suggested exactly this - "we would give them more time to think and allow them to kill more Americans".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything like that. Remove those quotation marks immediately.
Click to expand...

Yes you did, you claimed we did not need the Bombs and could just wait out Japan.


----------



## Silver Cat

AZrailwhale said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not an American, not Christian, not a decent human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then, how can you explain this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US
> 
> 
> The chief prosecutor at the Hague-based ICC, Fatou Bensouda, is among those sanctioned.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> The US has imposed sanctions on senior officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.
> 
> Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused the court of "illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction".
> 
> The Hague-based ICC is currently investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.
> 
> The US has criticised the court since its foundation and is one of a dozen states which have not signed up.
> 
> Balkees Jarrah, senior counsel at the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, condemned the sanctions as a "shameful new low for US commitments to justice for victims of the worst crimes".
> 
> Mr Pompeo's move marked a "stunning perversion of US sanctions, devised to penalize rights abusers and kleptocrats, to target those prosecuting war crimes", she tweeted.
> 
> Created by a UN treaty in 2002, the ICC investigates and brings to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, intervening when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USA is not a signatory on the treaty that created the ICC so no American citizen is subject to ICC jurisdiction.  The ICC is a VOLUNTARY organization that only has jurisdiction over signatories.  So if it is trying to stretch it's jurisdiction over Americans (which it appears to be doing) the US government is perfectly within it's rights to sanction it's managers and employees.
Click to expand...

Yes. These Eurasians, Africans, Latinos have no any moral right to judge Americans. That's why we don't join this freak show that they call "ICC".


----------



## Unkotare

Silver Cat said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not an American, not Christian, not a decent human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then, how can you explain this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US
> 
> 
> The chief prosecutor at the Hague-based ICC, Fatou Bensouda, is among those sanctioned.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> The US has imposed sanctions on senior officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.
> 
> Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused the court of "illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction".
> 
> The Hague-based ICC is currently investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.
> 
> The US has criticised the court since its foundation and is one of a dozen states which have not signed up.
> 
> Balkees Jarrah, senior counsel at the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, condemned the sanctions as a "shameful new low for US commitments to justice for victims of the worst crimes".
> 
> Mr Pompeo's move marked a "stunning perversion of US sanctions, devised to penalize rights abusers and kleptocrats, to target those prosecuting war crimes", she tweeted.
> 
> Created by a UN treaty in 2002, the ICC investigates and brings to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, intervening when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USA is not a signatory on the treaty that created the ICC so no American citizen is subject to ICC jurisdiction.  The ICC is a VOLUNTARY organization that only has jurisdiction over signatories.  So if it is trying to stretch it's jurisdiction over Americans (which it appears to be doing) the US government is perfectly within it's rights to sanction it's managers and employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. These Eurasians, Africans, Latinos have no any moral right to judge Americans. That's why we don't join this freak show that they call "ICC".
Click to expand...

Seems like  you want to start a new thread in the Flame Zone, or at least the Race Relations forum. Why not do that?


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
Click to expand...

We forced them into unconditional surrender which stop them from attacking others saving millions of lives idgit.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We forced them into unconditional surrender which stop them from attacking others saving millions of lives idgit.
Click to expand...


You really need to read the entire thread before jumping in. You can't expect everyone to repeat everything said just to catch you up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.
> 
> Those are FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We forced them into unconditional surrender which stop them from attacking others saving millions of lives idgit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to read the entire thread before jumping in. You can't expect everyone to repeat everything said just to catch you up.
Click to expand...

You LIE through out the thread. Nothing to read from you as you claim that Japan offered to surrender but can not LINK to a single offer, claim that all their attempts to get the Soviets or Sweden to broker a deal were surrender attempts even though your own link shows all the offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines No concession in China and no occupation. Claim that Mac Arthur had a sheet of offers to surrender but can not link to a single source for this supposed list nor who actually supposedly offered the surrender.

I have LINKED to SOURCE documents that show Japan never offered to surrender once. That when the bombs were dropped both times the Japanese Government voted NOT to surrender and when the Emperor over rode them the Army staged a Coup in an attempt to stop the surrender.


----------



## Ben Thomson

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ben Thomson said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.
Click to expand...

Ya we should have waited while Japanese troops continued to kill US and allied forces Killed Chinese and the Soviets took a couple Home Islands. Great plan RETARD. By the way if we had waited MILLIONS of Japanese civilians would have starved to death or frozen to death.


----------



## Ben Thomson

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya we should have waited while Japanese troops continued to kill US and allied forces Killed Chinese and the Soviets took a couple Home Islands. Great plan RETARD. By the way if we had waited MILLIONS of Japanese civilians would have starved to death or frozen to death.
Click to expand...

The island campaigns were pretty much over and the Russians knocking on their back door and the civilian population looking at starvation was why they would have eventually surrendered. Truman and the military wanted to see those bombs in action, to see if they were in fact 'war stoppers' They could have cared less about the massive loss of civilian life on that island as a result.


----------



## Silver Cat

It is not "liberalism", it's nothing but treason and anti-Americanism.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Ben Thomson said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.
Click to expand...

Sure we could "wait them out"  meanwhile thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians on the Asian mainland would be murdered by Japanese troops, thousands of Chinese troops would be killed fighting the IJA, all of the allied POWS would be killed and and unknown number of JAPANESE CIVILIANS, certainly in the millions, if not tens of millions, would starve to death while their society collapsed around them which still wouldn't guarantee the surrender of the troops on the Asian mainland. SO yes, we could have waited them out, but it certainly wouldn't have been the humane choice.


----------



## Ben Thomson

AZrailwhale said:


> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure we could "wait them out"  meanwhile thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians on the Asian mainland would be murdered by Japanese troops, thousands of Chinese troops would be killed fighting the IJA, all of the allied POWS would be killed and and unknown number of JAPANESE CIVILIANS, certainly in the millions, if not tens of millions, would starve to death while their society collapsed around them which still wouldn't guarantee the surrender of the troops on the Asian mainland. SO yes, we could have waited them out, but it certainly wouldn't have been the humane choice.
Click to expand...

They were ready to surrender if we assured them their Emperor would not be tried as a war criminal and imprisoned or hung. So all this 'they would have went on a murderous rampage' doesn't make sense. They were beat and they knew it. We had no intention of abasing their Empeor but we didn't tell them that because we needed a little more time..time to test the bombs under war time conditions.


----------



## Silver Cat

__





						Japan Surrenders
					

Enlarge   The Japanese envoys sign the Instrument of Surrender on board the U.S.S. Missouri. Record Group 80-G General Records of the U.S. Navy. On September 2, 1945, the Japanese representatives signed the official Instrument of Surrender, prepared by the War Department and approved by...




					www.archives.gov


----------



## AZrailwhale

Ben Thomson said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Thomson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure we could "wait them out"  meanwhile thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians on the Asian mainland would be murdered by Japanese troops, thousands of Chinese troops would be killed fighting the IJA, all of the allied POWS would be killed and and unknown number of JAPANESE CIVILIANS, certainly in the millions, if not tens of millions, would starve to death while their society collapsed around them which still wouldn't guarantee the surrender of the troops on the Asian mainland. SO yes, we could have waited them out, but it certainly wouldn't have been the humane choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were ready to surrender if we assured them their Emperor would not be tried as a war criminal and imprisoned or hung. So all this 'they would have went on a murderous rampage' doesn't make sense. They were beat and they knew it. We had no intention of abasing their Empeor but we didn't tell them that because we needed a little more time..time to test the bombs under war time conditions.
Click to expand...

No they weren’t.  Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets.  The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms.  Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over.  The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> ...
> No they weren’t.  Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets.  The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms.  Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over.  The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.



Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> No they weren’t.  Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets.  The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms.  Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over.  The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
Click to expand...

I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing.  You have been reading revisionist history.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> No they weren’t.  Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets.  The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms.  Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over.  The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing.  You have been reading revisionist history.
Click to expand...

History you don’t like isn’t “revisionist.” You haven’t been reading enough.


----------



## theHawk

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> No they weren’t.  Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets.  The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms.  Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over.  The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing.  You have been reading revisionist history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History you don’t like isn’t “revisionist.” You haven’t been reading enough.
Click to expand...

The blame is square on the Japanese leadership.  They didn’t care about the atomic bomb, to them it was no different than a normal big bombing raid.  They were too arrogant and racist to concede that they lost to barbarian Americans.  So who cares what any Jap sympathizers say about it.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> No they weren’t.  Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets.  The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms.  Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over.  The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing.  You have been reading revisionist history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History you don’t like isn’t “revisionist.” You haven’t been reading enough.
Click to expand...

Revisionist history isn’t what I don’t like, it’s changing the facts.  What I posted were the facts.  That was the official Japanese government peace offer.  Would they have settled for less?  Possibly, but any sane person would recognize that the Japanese weren’t in any position to dictate surrender terms.  The only choice the allies offered them was the same one offered to Germany:  take it or die.


----------



## Unkotare

theHawk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> No they weren’t.  Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets.  The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms.  Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over.  The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing.  You have been reading revisionist history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History you don’t like isn’t “revisionist.” You haven’t been reading enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The blame is square on the Japanese leadership.  They didn’t care about the atomic bomb, to them it was no different than a normal big bombing raid.  They were too arrogant and racist to concede that they lost to barbarian Americans.  So who cares ....
Click to expand...


You could have just said you know absolutely nothing about the topic and left it at that.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> ....  What I posted were the facts. ....



The problem is you don't know enough facts, and you seem to misunderstand what you think are the few facts you cling to.


----------



## theHawk

Unkotare said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> No they weren’t.  Some private Japanese citizens who had no power or authority floated that to the Soviets.  The official government position was that nothing less than a return to status quo ante on December 5th, 1941, with NO war crimes trials and any disarmament would be under Japanese supervision were the only acceptable terms.  Those aren’t surrender terms, that’s a ten year old child wanting a do-over.  The Japanese militarists Who controlled the country believed that if they could kill enough Americans, they could get those terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever library book you borrowed, you stopped reading too soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen many other people quote primary Japanese sources that said the same thing.  You have been reading revisionist history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History you don’t like isn’t “revisionist.” You haven’t been reading enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The blame is square on the Japanese leadership.  They didn’t care about the atomic bomb, to them it was no different than a normal big bombing raid.  They were too arrogant and racist to concede that they lost to barbarian Americans.  So who cares ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could have just said you know absolutely nothing about the topic and left it at that.
Click to expand...

I know all about the topic.  Read many history books on WWII and Japan.  Now F off.


----------



## Unkotare

theHawk said:


> ...
> I know all about the topic.  ....



Your ignorant comments suggest otherwise.


----------



## theHawk

Unkotare said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I know all about the topic.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorant comments suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

My comments support the facts, the Japs didn’t surrender, so they got Nagasaki smoked.


----------



## Unkotare

theHawk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I know all about the topic.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorant comments suggest otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comments support the facts.....
Click to expand...


The facts don't support your comments. If you have an active library card and really want to learn more, look up the conflicting views within the Japanese government during the war, including those of the emperor (who did not exercise political control anywhere near the degree that the cartoon-historians would have it). The question you are missing is why, if the scumbag fdr cared anything for human life (including especially the lives of American servicemen), the several overtures toward a much sooner end to the war were never even seriously considered let alone pursued. 



			https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/17.pdf
		




			https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/20.pdf
		




			https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/11.pdf
		




			https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I know all about the topic.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorant comments suggest otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comments support the facts.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts don't support your comments. If you have an active library card and really want to learn more, look up the conflicting views within the Japanese government during the war, including those of the emperor (who did not exercise political control anywhere near the degree that the cartoon-historians would have it). The question you are missing is why, if the scumbag fdr cared anything for human life (including especially the lives of American servicemen), the several overtures toward a much sooner end to the war were never even seriously considered let alone pursued.
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/17.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/20.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/11.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
Click to expand...

Sure there were dissenting views but the militarists ran things and the "peace party" had no power whatsoever.  

The Japanese government overtures weren't considered because official allied policy for both Germany and Japan was that nothing except unconditional surrender was acceptable.  The allies had learned their lesson from WWI where conditional surrender led to the rise of Hitler and  a resurgent Germany.  Do you think the USA should have ignored the agreements it had with it's allies?


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I know all about the topic.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorant comments suggest otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My comments support the facts.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts don't support your comments. If you have an active library card and really want to learn more, look up the conflicting views within the Japanese government during the war, including those of the emperor (who did not exercise political control anywhere near the degree that the cartoon-historians would have it). The question you are missing is why, if the scumbag fdr cared anything for human life (including especially the lives of American servicemen), the several overtures toward a much sooner end to the war were never even seriously considered let alone pursued.
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/17.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/20.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/11.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure there were dissenting views but the militarists ran things and the "peace party" had no power whatsoever.
> 
> The Japanese government overtures weren't considered because official allied policy for both Germany and Japan was that nothing except unconditional surrender was acceptable.  The allies had learned their lesson from WWI where conditional surrender led to the rise of Hitler and  a resurgent Germany.  Do you think the USA should have ignored the agreements it had with it's allies?
Click to expand...


That is not what led to WWII, and your own comments reveal that an earlier end to the war was possible. It is interesting that so many 'half-educated' posters cling to the notion of an "all powerful monarch" on the one hand, and simultaneously claim that the emperor "had no power whatsoever." How about the reality of the situation was more complex than fits in the mind of a simpleton? Either way, the possibility of an earlier peace was disregarded by fdr. The same people who grasp at the speculation of casualties in a hypothetical invasion ignore the significance of fdr's indifference.


----------



## Unkotare

" _Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. _ "

      - Alexis de Tocqueville


----------



## Mac-7

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Congratulations on your website

while its not a crazy idea some people have about dropping nukes on japan as a war crime I think you are wrong

the japanese people were fanatical and millions would have died during a US invasion

also you wrote this:

While FDR bent over backwards to befriend the Soviet Union’s brutal, murderous Marxist regime, he showed no such flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. The Japanese offered a wide range of concessions in an effort to get FDR to lift the sanctions, but Roosevelt, perhaps influenced by his pro-Soviet advisers, would not even meet with Japan’s prime minister to discuss the matter.
FDR could have made Japan our ally, and he probably could have persuaded Japan to invade the Soviet Union, which would have almost certainly led to Russia’s defeat and would have spared hundreds of millions of people from Soviet tyranny. The Japanese were seriously considering invading Russia before they concluded that Roosevelt was not interested in a reasonable peace deal and that he was determined to strangle Japan’s economy to the point of collapse. They decided to attack Pearl Harbor only after FDR rejected every peace offer they made to try to get the sanctions lifted, and after FDR refused, on admittedly flimsy grounds, to meet with their prime minister to discuss their differences (Hoover 263-320).

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

i reject the idea that FDR could have or should have allied with japan in a war against the soviet union when nazi germany was the greater threat


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Nothing says "Don't fuck with us!" quite like a nuke up the ass. And that needed to be said. I'm thankful that it was.


----------



## MaryL

Lets see here, Japan bombed  innocent Chinese  and Korean civilians and raped and robbed and otherwise and terrorized  them for years. Lets see, Japan's aggression was being boycotted  by America with oil  embargo  to Japan. Japan, in turn, attacked Pearl Harbor in response. They got nuked 4 years later...because they deserved it. Karma.


----------



## the other mike

candycorn said:


> Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.


No it wasn't......FDR was warned about it.



			https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/29/declassified-memo-hinted-of-1941-hawaii-attack-
		



9thIDdoc said:


> Nothing says "Don't fuck with us!" quite like a nuke up the ass. And that needed to be said. I'm thankful that it was.


Only people with no souls share your opinion.


----------



## MaryL

Japan invaded China and killed millions in China. Japan doesn't get a freebee because of Hiroshima.


----------



## Ben Thomson

However you cut it...we are the only nation to use nukes on civilians. We have no moral high ground here.


----------



## MaryL

Sorry, but Japan isn't the victim here. To be nice, they deserved the A bomb. They brought it on themselves. With the Nanjing atrocities  and Pearl Harbor and everything else, they aren't exactly poor witto victims, are they?


----------



## Ben Thomson

MaryL said:


> Sorry, but Japan isn't the victim here. To be nice, they deserved the A bomb. They brought it on themselves. With the Nanjing atrocities  and Pearl Harbor and everything else, they aren't exactly poor witto victims, are they?


So you think every Japanese citizen was complicit in attacking Peal Harbor? I guess if you have managed to convince yourself of that it makes it easier to look the other way on killing thousands of civilians.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Ben Thomson said:


> So you think every Japanese citizen was complicit in attacking Peal Harbor? I guess if you have managed to convince yourself of that it makes it easier to look the other way on killing thousands of civilians.


Have you managed to convince yourself that it somehow more immoral to be killed by a nuke than a bayonet? Dead is dead and none of the participants in WWII was especially concerned about killing "innocent civilians". Japan treated enemy civilians with special brutality and earned what they got. Some folks just seem to search for any excuse to slam my country. Doesn't make me very happy.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Ben Thomson said:


> However you cut it...we are the only nation to use nukes on civilians. We have no moral high ground here.


We have all the moral high crime babe...both were Military Targets fool.   One was a massive shipping port where military supplies where ship around from and the other was the headquarters of their army.  Tired of the fucking lies told about the not so innocent two cities.   

Bombing their ass ended the war saving millions on both sides---------The japanese then were nasty fucking people who took delight in murdering others---they would have fought to the very last man woman and child to obtain power if not soundly beaten and bombed into submission.


----------



## Mushroom

Turtlesoup said:


> The japanese then were nasty fucking people who took delight in murdering others---they would have fought to the very last man woman and child to obtain power if not soundly beaten and bombed into submission.



Most people today can not even comprehend what the early Showa period was like in Japan.

And those that believe that Japan without the bombs would have simply surrendered, I say they are idiots.  And only have to look at Saipan and Okinawa to see that is a pure lie.

Most Westerners can not even begin to comprehend how fanatical that nation was.  We are literally talking about a nation that believed it was the most powerful nation on the planet, and that no nation could ever withstand their might.  An extreme arrogance of "Racial Might" that makes even the NAZI Germans seem like children.  Of a people and culture that literally belong even to this day to an empire, which can trace their single dynasty unbroken literally into Biblical times.

Because they literally trace their single Imperial Dynasty that far back.  And when Emperor Jimmu took the throne, Hezekiah was the 13th King of Judah, and the events in Kings, Isaiah, and Chronicles were still ongoing.  Romulus had only died a few decades before, after taking kingship after killing his brother Remus.  Most Westerners can not even begin to comprehend what their culture is like, with a single dynasty over 2,700 years old.

Nor do they understand how long Japan had prepared to enter the war.  Their attack on the US was planned months before the embargo was even considered.  Because they intended to conquer all of the Western Pacific, and knew that to do so they would have to defeat the US.


----------



## Mac-7

Ben Thomson said:


> However you cut it...we are the only nation to use nukes on civilians. We have no moral high ground here.


Are you an American?

I doubt that you are


----------



## Flash

Ben Thomson said:


> However you cut it...we are the only nation to use nukes on civilians. We have no moral high ground here.




...and it was the right thing to do to a brutal war mongering country that had killed millions of civilians.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

9thIDdoc said:


> you managed to convince yourself that it somehow more immoral to be killed by a nuke than a bayonet?


Because it is. Nuclear bombs are indiscriminate.


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> I agree
> There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.
> 
> While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary




America didn't have dozens more bombs however in August 1945.

The problem with lying is the fact that the Empire of Japan might have known the truth and it would have destroyed American credibility.

Remember there were Americans spying for our enemies back then, people like Julius & Ethel.


----------



## Correll

Mac-7 said:


> Congratulations on your website
> 
> while its not a crazy idea some people have about dropping nukes on japan as a war crime I think you are wrong
> 
> the japanese people were fanatical and millions would have died during a US invasion
> 
> also you wrote this:
> 
> While FDR bent over backwards to befriend the Soviet Union’s brutal, murderous Marxist regime, he showed no such flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. The Japanese offered a wide range of concessions in an effort to get FDR to lift the sanctions, but Roosevelt, perhaps influenced by his pro-Soviet advisers, would not even meet with Japan’s prime minister to discuss the matter.
> FDR could have made Japan our ally, and he probably could have persuaded Japan to invade the Soviet Union, which would have almost certainly led to Russia’s defeat and would have spared hundreds of millions of people from Soviet tyranny. The Japanese were seriously considering invading Russia before they concluded that Roosevelt was not interested in a reasonable peace deal and that he was determined to strangle Japan’s economy to the point of collapse. They decided to attack Pearl Harbor only after FDR rejected every peace offer they made to try to get the sanctions lifted, and after FDR refused, on admittedly flimsy grounds, to meet with their prime minister to discuss their differences (Hoover 263-320).
> 
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> 
> i reject the idea that FDR could have or should have allied with japan in a war against the soviet union when nazi germany was the greater threat




Economic sanctions are a serious matter. If FDR had deescalated our conflict with Japan and Japan had attacked the Soviet Union, I don't know that that would have seriously hampered their war effort against the Germans. 


Yes, it would have been wrong to divert resources from war with Nazi Germany to help the Japanese Empire. 


But Imperialists and Commies killing each other in Manchuria and Siberia, might not have been a bad thing for America.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because it is. Nuclear bombs are indiscriminate.


Conventional bombs are more discriminating than nuclear bombs? I don't think so. Weapons cannot, and do not, discriminate no matter the weapon.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

9thIDdoc said:


> Conventional bombs are more discriminating than nuclear bombs? I don't think so.


Okay great, but i dont totally agree (regular bombs can still be more discriminate), and you compared bayonets and nukes. Obviously we recognize a scale of our methods and weaponry. Else we would just drop a nuke every time we were annoyed with a nonnuclear state.


----------



## Polishprince

During WW2, America bombed a lot of civilians both in the Empire of Japan- including long before Hiroshima as well as in Germany.  

And the axis did the same kind of thing too.

It was just part of the war- the fact that new technology- the A-bomb- was used isn't particularly shameful.   The Axis used the equally new V2 missile technology to attack the Allies civilians during the same conflict.  Has Merkel apologized for that?


----------



## Correll

Polishprince said:


> During WW2, America bombed a lot of civilians both in the Empire of Japan- including long before Hiroshima as well as in Germany.
> 
> And the axis did the same kind of thing too.
> 
> It was just part of the war- the fact that new technology- the A-bomb- was used isn't particularly shameful.   The Axis used the equally new V2 missile technology to attack the Allies civilians during the same conflict.  Has Merkel apologized for that?




If the UK had the bomb, they would have used it.

If France had the bomb, they would have used it.

If POLAND, had the bomb, they would have used it.

If the Netherlands had the bomb, they would have used it.

The fact that we are the ones that did use it, is a testimony to our technical and scientific and economic prowess. 


Not a sign of a moral failing.


----------



## Mac-7

Correll said:


> Economic sanctions are a serious matter. If FDR had deescalated our conflict with Japan and Japan had attacked the Soviet Union, I don't know that that would have seriously hampered their war effort against the Germans.


There was no chance of that

the japanese and soviets had several border conflicts in the 30’s when no less than Zukoff himself was in command and the jspanese got their ass kicked

besides siberia was a secondary goal of japan

SE Asia was a much richer target


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ...and it was the right thing to do to a brutal war mongering country that had killed millions of civilians.


The hundreds of thousands of civilians who were incinerated "had killed millions"?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> .... those that believe that Japan without the bombs would have simply surrendered, I say they are idiots.  ...


Are you saying that General MacArthur was an idiot?


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> Most people today can not even comprehend ...
> 
> Most Westerners can not even begin to comprehend...





Mushroom said:


> ...  Most Westerners can not even begin to comprehend ....
> 
> Nor do they understand .....



Hmmm....but YOU can, huh?


----------



## gipper

9thIDdoc said:


> Have you managed to convince yourself that it somehow more immoral to be killed by a nuke than a bayonet? Dead is dead and none of the participants in WWII was especially concerned about killing "innocent civilians". Japan treated enemy civilians with special brutality and earned what they got. Some folks just seem to search for any excuse to slam my country. Doesn't make me very happy.


The Japanese used bayonets.  Truman used nukes. You condemn them and commend Truman. CRAZY!!


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> The hundreds of thousands of civilians who were incinerated "had killed millions"?




They enabled a government that did it and they sent their sons off to do it and they provided support for the military production.

If you don't want shit don't start shit.


----------



## Ben Thomson

9thIDdoc said:


> Have you managed to convince yourself that it somehow more immoral to be killed by a nuke than a bayonet? Dead is dead and none of the participants in WWII was especially concerned about killing "innocent civilians". Japan treated enemy civilians with special brutality and earned what they got. Some folks just seem to search for any excuse to slam my country. Doesn't make me very happy.


That's a weird justification..a nuke is the same as a bayonet so no big deal.


----------



## Correll

Mac-7 said:


> There was no chance of that
> 
> the japanese and soviets had several border conflicts in the 30’s when no less than Zukoff himself was in command and the jspanese got their ass kicked
> 
> besides siberia was a secondary goal of japan
> 
> SE Asia was a much richer target




Didnt' say that they would win. Just that war with the US could have been avoided.


----------



## Mac-7

Correll said:


> Didnt' say that they would win. Just that war with the US could have been avoided.


Not as long as the militarists were running japan


----------



## Ben Thomson

9thIDdoc said:


> Nothing says "Don't fuck with us!" quite like a nuke up the ass. And that needed to be said. I'm thankful that it was.


It's easy to be the tough guy when you have the upper hand isn't it.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> They enabled a government that did it.....


How so? Do you think they had any choice in the matter?


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Not as long as the militarists were running japan


Did you say "the militarists were running Japan"? So, the people did not have a say in what their government did such as would be the case in a more democratic nation?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> " _Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. _ "
> 
> - Alexis de Tocqueville


" _Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. _"

- Alexis de Tocqueville


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...---they would have fought to the very last man woman and child to obtain power if not soundly beaten and bombed into submission.


Do you realize how little sense that makes?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Did you say "the militarists were running Japan"? So, the people did not have a say in what their government did such as would be the case in a more democratic nation?


Unkotare thinks he’s found an acorn

let’s see if he did

Yes the militarists were in control 

which means the people were not responsible for crimes of their government

but they did support their government and their god, the Emperor, and were willing to fight to the death if told to do so


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> How so? Do you think they had any choice in the matter?


You are confused and are trying to argue the morality of total war.  That doesn't hold water when the shit hits the fan.  All morality is out the window.

The Jap leadership knew they were putting their civilians and children at risk when they went to war.

The Jap civilian population was aiding and abetting that total war effort and they paid the price with the nuking and fire bombing.

If you want to bitch about soldiers killing civilians then bitch about the filthy ass Union Army killing over 100,000 Southerner civilians in their war of aggression.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Do you realize how little sense that makes?


It makes a lot of sense

are you just going to attack his intelligence without explaining why?


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> ...
> 
> Yes the militarists were in control
> 
> which means the people were not responsible for crimes of their government
> 
> ....


But we incinerated hundreds of thousands of "the people" in atomic fire.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> You are confused and are trying to argue the morality of total war.  That doesn't hold water when the shit hits the fan.  All morality is out the window.
> ....


So, you are saying that it was immoral to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians via atomic bomb?


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> It makes a lot of sense
> 
> are you just going to attack his intelligence without explaining why?


Was I talking to you?


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> ....
> 
> but they did support their government and their god, the Emperor, and were willing to fight to the death if told to do so


Are you claiming to know the thoughts and intentions of every one of the hundreds of thousands of civilians annihilated in the atomic bombings?


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> So, you are saying that it was immoral to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians via atomic bomb?




Are you saying that it was immoral for the Union turds to kill 100K Southerners?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Are you saying that it was immoral for the Union turds to kill 100K Southerners?


Why are you trying to change the subject?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> But we incinerated hundreds of thousands of "the people" in atomic fire.


And saved a million others who would have died in an invasion


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Are you claiming to know the thoughts and intentions of every one of the hundreds of thousands of civilians annihilated in the atomic bombings?


Any scholar worth his keep would point you you the civilians who killed themselves on Saipan and Okinawa during the US invasion there


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Why are you trying to change the subject?




Because the issue is the same.

You supported the Union filth and their war of destruction against Americans and 100K Southerners were killed according to most historical articles that I have read.

I want you to apply the same morality to a war that you claim was right to a war that you obviously don't think was right.

In other words I want to see if you have any real convictions or you are just blowing smoke out your Moon Bat ass.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because it is. Nuclear bombs are indiscriminate.


while murdering thousands of civilians in a town by bayonet is of course not right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> while murdering thousands of civilians in a town by bayonet is of course not right?


Of course not. But i doubt the tactic of just running around a city and stabbing every person you see is in the field manual. So let's stay grounded in reality.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course not. But i doubt the tactic of just running around a city and stabbing every person you see is in the field manual. So let's stay grounded in reality.


And yet the Japanese did it over and over to civilians in ww2.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> And saved a million others who would have died in an invasion


Speculation.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Because the issue is the same.
> ...


It is not. Stay on topic.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Okay great, but i dont totally agree (regular bombs can still be more discriminate), and you compared bayonets and nukes. Obviously we recognize a scale of our methods and weaponry. Else we would just drop a nuke every time we were annoyed with a nonnuclear state.


I stand by what I said. It is the killing that is either moral or immoral; not the weapon used to do the job. Weapons themselves are simply tools and one is no more able to make moral decisions than another. Nuclear weapons were a new and largely unknown item that time and it was not even known for sure they would work or how well. Silly to try to hold our ancestors accountable to some perceived SOP that was decades a was from being developed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet the Japanese did it over and over to civilians in ww2


And Germany committed genocide. I am glad to be on the side of the good guys.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Any scholar worth his keep would point you you the civilians who killed themselves on Saipan and Okinawa during the US invasion there


Any "scholar" who did not understand the situation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

9thIDdoc said:


> It is the killing that is either moral or immoral; not the weapon used to do the job.


well, then you disqualify yourself from any serious dicsussion of war and tactics, as we have long realized that there are degrees of morality to our tactics and recognize that certain tactics are not justifiable at certain times. We literally have signed global treaties to this effect. So enjoy being outside the class looking in the window, I guess.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And Germany committed genocide. I am glad to be on the side of the good guys.







__





						japanese bayoneting civilians in ww2 - Bing images
					






					www.bing.com
				




Germany wisely surrendered,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> japanese bayoneting civilians in ww2 - Bing images
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bing.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany wisely surrendered,


Correct. Lets be vlear, i am not saying there is no way for a nuke to be justified. But its hard to have an honest discussion about the morality and ethics of them, when some of the kids in the class make the absurd insistence that they are no morally different then using bayonets.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Speculation


No

its the informed opinion of the officers who planned Operation Downfall

they knew it would be a bloodbath for US troops

one million dead was not beyond possibility

and coincidentally even more for the japanese


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> No
> 
> its the informed opinion of the officers who planned Operation Downfall
> 
> they knew it would be a bloodbath for US troops
> 
> one million dead was not beyond possibility
> 
> and coincidentally even more for the japanese


All true. And if one considers that the only other option, the justification for nukes becomes crystal clear. But were they the only two options? That's a big part of the discussion.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> No
> 
> .....


Yes. Anything that didn't actually happen is speculation.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> All true. And if one considers that the only other option, the justification for nukes becomes crystal clear. But were they the only two options? That's a big part of the discussion.


There were several other options.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> All true. And if one considers that the only other option, the justification for nukes becomes crystal clear. But were they the only two options? That's a big part of the discussion.


we could have waited and starved and frozen millions of Japanese civilians


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> There were several other options.


ya we could have met Japanese demands and done nothing to them for the war


----------



## Markle

Ben Thomson said:


> However you cut it...we are the only nation to use nukes on civilians. We have no moral high ground here.


We saved the lives of millions of Japanese and at least a million Americans.  THAT is the moral high ground.

To you, Ben Thomson, the "MORAL HIGH GROUND" is lying to your military and civilians and forcing them to commit suicide by the thousand.  Mothers slashing the throats of their children before throwing them off cliffs and leaping to their own deaths.  Yep, that's the moral high ground.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> It is not. Stay on topic.




Stop running away from the question I asked.

What are your convictions on the morality of war?

You don't really have any, do you?


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> We saved the lives of millions of Japanese and at least a million Americans.  THAT is the moral high ground.
> ....


THAT is speculation.


----------



## Markle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because it is. Nuclear bombs are indiscriminate.


What bombs discriminate between a military target and a civilian target?  Were no civilians killed at Pearl Harbor?

Knowing you're wrong, you'd argue with a fencepost, wouldn't you Fort Fun Indiana?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Stop running away from the question I asked.
> 
> ....


The one who can't stay on topic is the one running away. Do you have a question about THIS topic?


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> What bombs discriminate between a military target and a civilian target?  Were no civilians killed at Pearl Harbor?
> 
> Knowing you're wrong, you'd argue with a fencepost, wouldn't you Fort Fun Indiana?


Are you equating a military attack on a military base with the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Are you equating a military attack on a military base with the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians?


Both cities WERE ALSO military targets dumb ass.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Markle said:


> What bombs discriminate between a military target and a civilian target?


Smaller ordinance, guided ordinance, etc. You are going to have to find someone dumber to talk to, if you want to equate the morality and ethics of all bombs or all weapons. Sorry. Travel back a few decades and join the debate on our global treaties on both. You know, the one you lost already. Good luck.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Yes. Anything that didn't actually happen is speculation.


After a hundred invasions against japanese held islands our military knew what to expect

it is highly informed opinion

who else would know better?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> we could have waited and starved and frozen millions of Japanese civilians


Right, which is arguably more immoral than incinerating 100,000 of them.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> well, then you disqualify yourself from any serious dicsussion of war and tactics, as we have long realized that there are degrees of morality to our tactics and recognize that certain tactics are not justifiable at certain times. We literally have signed global treaties to this effect. So enjoy being outside the class looking in the window, I guess.


WTH "we" are you talking about? I have at least have been a part of the US Army and involved in combat in Vietnam. I believe that I have a more highly informed opinion of war and tactics than most. Has your life ever depended on correct tactics? Have you ever been required to to carry out tactics devised by someone else? Why should anyone consider your mutterings on the subject anything other than the wild delusions of a fool?


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> The one who can't stay on topic is the one running away. Do you have a question about THIS topic?




You are too chickenshit to answer the valid question.

If it was wrong for the US to kill civilian Japs was it also wrong for the Union turds to kill Americans?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

9thIDdoc said:


> WTH "we" are you talking about?


The united states. And the other signatories to the global treaties that, unlike yourself, recognize the baseline truth that some methods are less moral and less ethical than others, and so the time and place where they are acceptable varies. I did not think this discussion would devolve to such a stupid place. I will leave you guys to hash out that silly talking point amongst yourselves. Say hello to 1950 for me.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> You are too chickenshit to answer the valid question.
> 
> ....


Ask a valid question about _this topic_ and I'll be happy to answer.


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But were they the only two options? That's a big part of the discussion.


Of course there were options

the soviet union declared war on japan 9 Aug 1945

the same day we bombed Hiroshima

thank goodness we avoided dividing japan into a soviet and US zone of occupation


----------



## Moonglow

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Well then, the Japanese should have thought about that when attacking on December 7th, 1941.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> There were several other options.


Specifically, what other options were there that would have led to fewer casualties on both sides as well as lead to long-term peace and the US and Japan becoming strong allies?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The united states. And the other signatories to the global treaties that, unlike yourself, recognize the baseline truth that some methods are less moral and less ethical than others, and so the time and place where they are acceptable varies. I did not think this discussion would devolve to such a stupid place. I will leave you guys to hash out that silly talking point amongst yourselves. Say hello to 1950 for me.


*I did not think this discussion would devolve to such a stupid place. I will leave you guys to hash out that silly talking point amongst yourselves.*

Another way of saying you prefer your precious (if ignorant) delusions to reality.


----------



## gipper

Markle said:


> Specifically, what other options were there that would have led to fewer casualties on both sides as well as lead to long-term peace and the US and Japan becoming strong allies?


Jesus really?  You don’t know after 71 fucking years. Get informed.

Accept their surrender and go home. No need to drop the bombs or occupy their country.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Jesus really?  You don’t know after 71 fucking years. Get informed.
> 
> Accept their surrender and go home. No need to drop the bombs or occupy their country.


They never offered to surrender


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Specifically, what other options were there that would have led to fewer casualties on both sides as well as lead to long-term peace and the US and Japan becoming strong allies?


Pursuing terms of surrender earlier in the war, for one.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> They never offered to surrender


We’ve through this you dumb grunt. They tried to surrender several times. They were trying to get the US to allow the emperor to live, which your beloved Truman ignored with his dumb unconditional surrender. Then he mass murdered babies and women with the two bombs…and then agreed to not touching the emperor.

Baby killers love Dirty Harry.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> We’ve through this you dumb grunt. They tried to surrender several times. They were trying to get the US to allow the emperor to live, which your beloved Truman ignored with his dumb unconditional surrender. Then he mass murdered babies and women with the two bombs…and then agreed to not touching the emperor.
> 
> Baby killers love Dirty Harry.


that is a lie they never offered to surrender they offered a cease fire and return to 41 start lines.


----------



## AZrailwhale

JoeB131 said:


> Except that the bombs didn't end the war.  The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.


The Japanese war with the Soviets' went on after the surrender.


----------



## MaryL

Ben Thomson said:


> So you think every Japanese citizen was complicit in attacking Peal Harbor? I guess if you have managed to convince yourself of that it makes it easier to look the other way on killing thousands of civilians.


Well. Ok you want to spilt hairs?  In 1941, Do you think the Japanese military/government cared about "individual"  Chinese or Koreans they killed? Please, don't play that game.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Are you equating a military attack on a military base with the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians?


"From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture (such as the view that those enemy soldiers who surrender while still able to resist were criminals)."



			STATISTICS OF JAPANESE GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER


----------



## Markle

gipper said:


> Jesus really?  You don’t know after 71 fucking years. Get informed.
> 
> Accept their surrender and go home. No need to drop the bombs or occupy their country.


As you know, the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese included keeping their Emperor in power which was no surrender at all.  The peace we have enjoyed for 71 years was made possible only by unconditional surrender.  As you know too, that is the same with Germany.  Do you believe we'd have had 71 years of peace had Hitler been allowed to remain in command?

You can't give any other option that would have led to the same peace.


----------



## Mac-7

gipper said:


> They tried to surrender several times.


Nonsense RetiredGySgt  has it right


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

9thIDdoc said:


> *I did not think this discussion would devolve to such a stupid place. I will leave you guys to hash out that silly talking point amongst yourselves.*
> 
> Another way of saying you prefer your precious (if ignorant) delusions to reality.


Right, my delusions and the delusion of every civilized country on earth that has signed weapons treaties and rules of war treaties. We are all delusional, and you have a lot to teach us.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> "From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others...


So, you're saying that we used the atomic bomb for the sake of all those countries, and not solely for our own interests? Was the US military working for them?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> So, you're saying that we used the atomic bomb for the sake of all those countries, and not solely for our own interests? Was the US military working for them?


I believe the idea is that our enemy was so evil, nothing we did to them could ever be considered immoral or unethical.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> As you know, the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese included keeping their Emperor in power which was no surrender at all.  The peace we have enjoyed for 71 years was made possible only by unconditional surrender.  .....


The offer was for the exact same terms that we finally DID accept AFTER incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians.


----------



## whitehall

The FDR/Truman administration pretty much took control over the media during WW2 but it wasn't necessary after the war. The media writes the history books and generations of kids were taught that the Japanese deserved nuclear annihilation, but did they? Is it possible that the eggheads who developed the Bomb were desperate to test it on humans or sub-humans? You have to dig deep but indications are that the Japanese holdouts were so desperate to surrender with reasonable terms that they contacted Stalin when Truman refused to negotiate. The U.S. had total superiority in the air and the Japanese navy was reduced to a couple of rogue submarines. The war was over but the eggheads were still determined and they had a rube president who never heard of the technology. The fix was in and the last thing Japanese civilians saw was a flash before they became shadows on the wall.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I believe the idea is that our enemy was so evil, nothing we did to them could ever be considered immoral or unethical.


"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

- Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

whitehall said:


> Is it possible that the eggheads who developed the Bomb were desperate to test it on humans or sub-humans?


Sure, maybe, but the order came down from the president. He knew what the testing showed. He knew what the bombs were, and what they would do. And in making this decision, he was surrounded by people just as informed as he was, from several sectors of the government, not just the military or scientific community.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

whitehall said:


> The FDR/Truman administration pretty much took control over the media during WW2 but it wasn't necessary after the war. The media writes the history books and generations of kids were taught that the Japanese deserved nuclear annihilation, but did they? Is it possible that the eggheads who developed the Bomb were desperate to test it on humans or sub-humans? You have to dig deep but indications are that the Japanese holdouts were so desperate to surrender with reasonable terms that they contacted Stalin when Truman refused to negotiate. The U.S. had total superiority in the air and the Japanese navy was reduced to a couple of rogue submarines. The war was over but the eggheads were still determined and they had a rube president who never heard of the technology. The fix was in and the last thing Japanese civilians saw was a flash before they became shadows on the wall.


The Japanese Army never intended to surrender. The Army was the Government. Even after 2 atomic bombs and the Soviets attacking them the Army REFUSED to surrender. The Emperor who was seen as a LIVING God by the Army ordered the surrender. The Army Attempted a Coup to stop the Emperor  from surrendering.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> So, you're saying that we used the atomic bomb for the sake of all those countries, and not solely for our own interests? Was the US military working for them?


Where did I say that?  I provided a quote describing the barbarian actions of Japan and a link.

If you want to believe Japan would have unconditionally surrendered without being totally crushed you are either intentionally ignorant or a complete fool.  Your choice.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> ....
> 
> If you want to believe Japan would have unconditionally surrendered without being totally crushed .....


The terms being sought were exactly the ones we eventually accepted anyway.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, my delusions and the delusion of every civilized country on earth that has signed weapons treaties and rules of war treaties. We are all delusional, and you have a lot to teach us.


"Treaties" my aching red ass. Exactly what treaty does your fevered brain tell you we had with Japan and violated? What treaties did Japan have with anybody that they actually honored during WWII? They attacked us without any declaration of war and with considerable slaughter of both our military and civilians. Who violated any peace treaties we had with them? During the war they made no pretense of abiding by the Geneva (or any other)Convention as it applied to military or civilians. They raped murdered enslaved plundered and occasionally ate both POWs and civilians they captured. A Nation that doesn't act like a civilized Nation has no reason to expect to be treated as one. American leaders have a responsibility to the American people; not those who have decided to make themselves our mortal enemies. It would have been totally irresponsible to send our boys into very great risk of death or dismemberment unless it was absolutely necessary to winning the war. It wasn't. They didn't. We won. End of story...almost. We then spent a very great deal time trouble and money on rebuilding Japan which contributed greatly to their prosperity today.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> ...We then spent a very great deal time trouble and money on rebuilding Japan which contributed greatly to their prosperity today.


You really think we did that because we wanted to be 'nice'?


----------



## Markle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I believe the idea is that our enemy was so evil, nothing we did to them could ever be considered immoral or unethical.





RetiredGySgt said:


> The Japanese Army never intended to surrender. The Army was the Government. Even after 2 atomic bombs and the Soviets attacking them the Army REFUSED to surrender. The Emperor who was seen as a LIVING God by the Army ordered the surrender. The Army Attempted a Coup to stop the Emperor  from surrendering.


100% true.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> You really think we did that because we wanted to be 'nice'?


Actually yes I do. Do you think Japan would have been as nice if the shoe had been on the other foot? I think history indicates otherwise.


----------



## HenryBHough

It should have been done sooner.  Opportunity lost to save thousands of American lifes.

True, though, that American lives WERE held in high value in those days.

Today?  Not so much.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> You really think we did that because we wanted to be 'nice'?


Actually, yes.  We wanted a long lasting peace.  Which is exactly what we have today.  NOTHING you can hypothize about could have a better outcome, only a far worse outcome.

Why do you demand a inferior outcome?


----------



## Mushroom

Polishprince said:


> America didn't have dozens more bombs however in August 1945.
> 
> The problem with lying is the fact that the Empire of Japan might have known the truth and it would have destroyed American credibility.



Here is the amazing thing.  Japan actually had started to believe that they did.

On 8 August, US B-29 pilot Lieutenant Marcus McDilda was captured outside of Osaka, where he was quickly captured and beaten by civilians before he was dragged to the Kempeitai.  There he was tortured and repeatedly asked about the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.  In reality he knew nothing of this, but after being threatened with execution he told them that the US had at least 100 of them, and that Tokyo and Kyoto were to be the next target within a matter of days.



> As you know, when atoms are split, there are a lot of pluses and minuses released. Well, we've taken these and put them in a huge container and separated them from each other with a lead shield. When the box is dropped out of a plane, we melt the lead shield and the pluses and minuses come together. When that happens, it causes a tremendous bolt of lightning and all the atmosphere over a city is pushed back! Then when the atmosphere rolls back, it brings about a tremendous thunderclap, which knocks down everything beneath it.


Recorded confession of Lt. McDilda

This was a complete fabrication, but it was close enough to the effects witnessed that he was soon moved to Tokyo to undergo further interrogation until the war ended.

But the fact is, the next bomb was already in shipment to the Pacific at the time of the surrender, and the next was already being prepared for shipment in California.  And even with the slowdown in production after the war and the use of two bombs at Operation Crossroads in 1946 with those two bombs, the inventory still stood at 9 at the end of 1946.  And that was at the post-war reduction in the devices until after the Soviet test in 1950.

So a dozen bombs by the end of 1946?  That is not really questioned if the war went on that long.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> The terms being sought were exactly the ones we eventually accepted anyway.


So you are intentionally ignorant.  Got it!


----------



## Mushroom

Correll said:


> Economic sanctions are a serious matter. If FDR had deescalated our conflict with Japan and Japan had attacked the Soviet Union, I don't know that that would have seriously hampered their war effort against the Germans.



So is slaughtering hundreds and thousands of civilians.

You are aware of the sporting contest that was carried in Japanese Newspapers during the Massacre of Nanking, are you not?  "The contest to behead 100 people with a sword"?  It is a real thing, where two Japanese Officers decided to stage a contest, to see who could behead the most people first.  It was actually reported in most Japanese newspapers of the time, normally on the sports page.







The above image was after it was announced it had gone into "extra innings", as they were considered tied at 106 to 105.

Toshiaki Mukai and Tsuyoshi Noda were eventually tried and executed for this at their war crimes trial in 1948.

De-escalation would have been freaking easy.  Japan should have stopped their brutal invasion and slaughter.  You are aware that most place the actual casualties in China by the Japanese at somewhere between 10 and 15 million, right?  Why are you whining about the US backing down, while that was going on?


----------



## Unkotare

HenryBHough said:


> It should have been done sooner.  Opportunity lost to save thousands of American lifes.
> 
> True, though, that American lives WERE held in high value in those days.
> 
> Today?  Not so much.


American lives were not held in high value by that piece of shit FDR. That’s for damn sure.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> The terms being sought were exactly the ones we eventually accepted anyway.


No, they were not.

Japan was still wanting a _status quo ante bellum _up until after the bombs.  They were trying over and over to get any country they were neutral to propose their own intention of ending the war.  And it was not a surrender.  They would leave all territory they had conquered after the start of December 1941, and the Allies would do the same thing.  The Philippines would remain neutral and demilitarized under a joint US-Japanese leadership, and there would be no war crime trials.

In other words, pretend the war never happened, but still neutralize the Philippines.

Needless to say, not a single country would even agree to present that to the Allied Powers.  Even the Soviet Ambassador wrote a letter to Stalin with the proposal, saying that he believed the Japanese leadership was delusional and maybe even insane if they believed that the Soviets would even transmit that, let alone the Allied powers accept it.  And Stalin returned directions that the ambassador was to stall the Japanese.

That was only accepted because the leadership realized their entire nation and the Imperial Family was at risk.  But prior to 6 August they were unwilling to accept anything other than a reset to 1941.  And not even the Swiss, Soviets, or Sweden would forward their demands to the Allied Powers.  They all knew the Japanese proposals would never be accepted, and they themselves would lose credibility in the eyes of the Allied Powers for even proposing such a silly proposal.

There was an opportunity to open an actual dialog that might have ended the ear sooner, but once again the Japanese killed it.  Literally.

When the Potsdam Declaration was received in Japan, the only response by the government was the famous Mokusatsu speech, by Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki.



> I believe the Joint Proclamation by the three countries is nothing but a rehash of the Cairo Declaration. As for the Government, it does not find any important value in it, and there is no other recourse but to _ignore it entirely_ (_mokusatsu_) and resolutely fight for the successful conclusion of this war.'



And Japan did exactly that, it was never referred to again.  They never changed their attempt to end the war, they never even tried to indicate through anybody they were willing to discuss terms.  They continued to act like they were winning the war.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> The terms being sought were exactly the ones we eventually accepted anyway.


^^^


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> ^^^


And point out a single one of those attempts prior to August that was anywhere even close to what was finally negotiated.

Come on, show us.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Hmmm....but YOU can, huh?



A lot better than you can, poopy.

If you have not noticed, I quote a lot of actual original sources.  Speeches by the Japanese leadership itself.  Actual discussions of how the individuals in the Imperial Council, and even who voted what and when.  I have even discussed the decoding of Japanese dispatches to their own diplomatic staff.

Even those back and forth between Tojo, and Naotake Sato.  A previous foreign minister and Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time.  And even he thought that the attempt would fail, because Japan itself had no intent to actually surrender but was only hoping to delay things and maybe get the Soviets in on their side.

When even the very top Diplomat of the Japanese Government to the Soviets knows that the proposal would fail, nobody else should ever take it seriously either.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> A lot better than you can, ....


What gives you that idea?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> They enabled a government that did it .....


Enabled a government they had no say in?


----------



## Unkotare

Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
					

Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Mushroom said:


> And point out a single one of those attempts prior to August that was anywhere even close to what was finally negotiated.
> 
> Come on, show us.


he is referring to attempts by Japanese outside the government, people with no authority and no power,


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.



Recent research indicates that Truman was surprised by the nuking of Nagasaki, that he did not specifically authorize it but that the military brass assumed that his previous authorization permitted them to drop another atomic bomb at their discretion. After Nagasaki, Truman issue an order that no more A-bombs were to be dropped without his express authorization. 

Recent research also suggests that Truman favored giving the Japanese private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered, but that Byrnes and some other advisors pressured him into not doing this by arguing that the American public would not accept such a surrender (yet they did just that when we allowed the emperor to remain in power after Japan surrendered).


----------



## mikegriffith1

RetiredGySgt said:


> he is referring to attempts by Japanese outside the government, people with no authority and no power,



That old myth was debunked decades ago. How can you be so uninformed about this? Most of the peace feelers were blessed and/or supported by senior Japanese officials. The peace feeler to the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the Americans was supported by the emperor himself, and Truman knew this.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> That old myth was debunked decades ago. How can you be so uninformed about this? Most of the peace feelers were blessed and/or supported by senior Japanese officials. The peace feeler to the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the Americans was supported by the emperor himself, and Truman knew this.


You mean the offer for a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines? That offer?


----------



## Flash

mikegriffith1 said:


> That old myth was debunked decades ago. How can you be so uninformed about this? Most of the peace feelers were blessed and/or supported by senior Japanese officials. The peace feeler to the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the Americans was supported by the emperor himself, and Truman knew this.




All this is bullshit about the Japs wanting to surrender but we wouldn't let them.

If they wanted to surrender then all they had to do was put down their arms.  They sure as hell didn't do they at Okinawa, did they?

Instead they fought almost to the last man and took tens of thousands civilians with them.

No, they didn't really want to surrender.  They wanted to fiddle fart around and it got them nuked.


----------



## Correll

Mushroom said:


> So is slaughtering hundreds and thousands of civilians.
> 
> You are aware of the sporting contest that was carried in Japanese Newspapers during the Massacre of Nanking, are you not?  "The contest to behead 100 people with a sword"?  It is a real thing, where two Japanese Officers decided to stage a contest, to see who could behead the most people first.  It was actually reported in most Japanese newspapers of the time, normally on the sports page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above image was after it was announced it had gone into "extra innings", as they were considered tied at 106 to 105.
> 
> Toshiaki Mukai and Tsuyoshi Noda were eventually tried and executed for this at their war crimes trial in 1948.
> 
> De-escalation would have been freaking easy.  Japan should have stopped their brutal invasion and slaughter.  You are aware that most place the actual casualties in China by the Japanese at somewhere between 10 and 15 million, right?  Why are you whining about the US backing down, while that was going on?




I'm not whining about it. I was commenting on it. I do worry that often our leaders follow polices that lead to war without being prepared for that. or being honest with the voters about it.


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> he is referring to attempts by Japanese outside the government, people with no authority and no power,


Or the ones proposed that were so absolutely silly that even their own former Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the Soviets through they were a complete joke and waste of time.


----------



## Mushroom

mikegriffith1 said:


> Most of the peace feelers were blessed and/or supported by senior Japanese officials. The peace feeler to the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the Americans was supported by the emperor himself, and Truman knew this.



Yes, we know that also.

It was also so impossible that even their own former Foreign Minister and the Japanese Ambassador to the Soviet Union outright told them the Allied Powers would never accept it, and that they needed to get serious about considering surrender options before it was too late.

He knew the Soviets would never deliver it, and indeed they did not.  Their even attempting to deliver such a stupid demand would have had them lose respect in the eyes of the Allied Powers.

That would be like expecting the Swiss in behalf of Iraq on 28 February 1991 that they would return to their borders after the Invasion of Kuwait, and there would be no sanctions, no occupation, no ill effects after losing a war of aggression.

This is why you and others keep failing, just because an offer was made, is not the same as a reasonable offer.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ... just because an offer was made, is not the same as a reasonable offer.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> View attachment 523160


The Japanese offering to accept the Unconditional Surrender of the US forces in August 1945 is an offer also.

That does not make it a reasonable offer.

And by the way, that is actually closer to what they were demanding than what they finally accepted.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

9thIDdoc said:


> Treaties" my aching red ass. Exactly what treaty does your fevered brain tell you we had with Japan and violated?


You confuse yourself. My reference to treaties was to illustrate a baseline truth that we don't consider all weaponry and tactics to be morally equivalent. That's all. You can say they are, but you are on an island.


----------



## whitehall

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Japanese Army never intended to surrender. The Army was the Government. Even after 2 atomic bombs and the Soviets attacking them the Army REFUSED to surrender. The Emperor who was seen as a LIVING God by the Army ordered the surrender. The Army Attempted a Coup to stop the Emperor  from surrendering.


Apparently the Japanese Bushido holdouts were intent on keeping the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to negotiate. The ironic thing is that the Emperor was protected anyway.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You confuse yourself. My reference to treaties was to illustrate a baseline truth that we don't consider all weaponry and tactics to be morally equivalent. That's all. You can say they are, but you are on an island.


Then you obviously don't understand what treaties are. Nations that do not sign a treaty are not part of that treaty and are in no way obligated or protected by it's terms.
.Since nuclear weapons had not been invented previously I don't much think you can find a prior treaty wherein we promised not to use them against Japan.
Incendiary bombs were in common use during WWII and did in fact cause more death and destruction than nuclear weapons. But feel free to look for a treaty that supports your bullshit.


----------



## Man of Ethics

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


This is one big Crime on a long list of USA's Crimes Against Humanity.


----------



## jackflash

Mac-7 said:


> Congratulations on your website
> 
> while its not a crazy idea some people have about dropping nukes on japan as a war crime I think you are wrong
> 
> the japanese people were fanatical and millions would have died during a US invasion
> 
> also you wrote this:
> 
> While FDR bent over backwards to befriend the Soviet Union’s brutal, murderous Marxist regime, he showed no such flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. The Japanese offered a wide range of concessions in an effort to get FDR to lift the sanctions, but Roosevelt, perhaps influenced by his pro-Soviet advisers, would not even meet with Japan’s prime minister to discuss the matter.
> FDR could have made Japan our ally, and he probably could have persuaded Japan to invade the Soviet Union, which would have almost certainly led to Russia’s defeat and would have spared hundreds of millions of people from Soviet tyranny. The Japanese were seriously considering invading Russia before they concluded that Roosevelt was not interested in a reasonable peace deal and that he was determined to strangle Japan’s economy to the point of collapse. They decided to attack Pearl Harbor only after FDR rejected every peace offer they made to try to get the sanctions lifted, and after FDR refused, on admittedly flimsy grounds, to meet with their prime minister to discuss their differences (Hoover 263-320).
> 
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> 
> i reject the idea that FDR could have or should have allied with japan in a war against the soviet union when nazi germany was the greater threat


Mac-7 speakum truth about saving MILLIONS of Japanese lives!!!!!! My dads ship the USS James O' Hara pulled into Nagoya harbor with occupation troops right after the end of hostilities. He said the Japanese had dug in hard & deep & ready to die fighting in mass... including women & children. He had watched the 'suiciders(women holding newborn babies along with kids) a year before jumping off the cliffs of Saipan & he was horror struck @ the needless death(he never forgot it). Those two atomic weapons may have been the greatest life saving devices used in the entire 2nd world war!









						Suicide Cliff - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Do you realize how little sense that makes?


Do you realize how uneducated you sound when you say nonsense like this?   I'll help you out since you obviously Know nothing ----------the Japanese ran a scorch earth policy in their war.    They made sure that their people would fight to each and everyone of their deaths to win the war or just avoid capture.  The Japanese were known to toss their kids over cliffs to avoid any of their people being capture.  To people they captured, they did all sorts of fun things like run bayonets through pregnant womens stomachs and even cannibalism.    Their emperor (their god on earth) ordered that they fight to the deaths and so they did-----not until their emperor got a clue that the US could just bomb him with a nuke, did he change his orders.  

The US did the right thing-------but communists like you keep trying to spin shit about it.


----------



## Mac-7

jackflash said:


> Mac-7 speakum truth about saving MILLIONS of Japanese lives!!!!!! My dads ship the USS James O' Hara pulled into Nagoya harbor with occupation troops right after the end of hostilities. He said the Japanese had dug in hard & deep & ready to die fighting in mass... including women & children. He had watched the 'suiciders(women holding newborn babies along with kids) a year before jumping off the cliffs of Saipan & he was horror struck @ the needless death(he never forgot it). Those two atomic weapons may have been the greatest life saving devices used in the entire 2nd world war!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suicide Cliff - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


How could Unkotare object to that post?

jackflash is correct


----------



## mikegriffith1

RetiredGySgt said:


> You mean the offer for a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines? That offer?



Nope. It is pointless to talk with you until you educate yourself. FYI, the vast majority of scholars who specialize in Japan's surrender acknowledge the facts I've been discussing. 

And, incidentally, China and Korea would have been far, far better off if we had kept the Soviets out of China and out of Korea and had allowed the Japanese to keep Manchuria.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Nope. It is pointless to talk with you until you educate yourself. FYI, the vast majority of scholars who specialize in Japan's surrender acknowledge the facts I've been discussing.
> 
> And, incidentally, China and Korea would have been far, far better off if we had kept the Soviets out of China and out of Korea and had allowed the Japanese to keep Manchuria.


Yet you have not EVER linked to a single supposed veritable supposed valid offer with proof it came from the Japanese Government. You claim all these scholars have proof where is it? I can and have linked to the ACTUAL Japanese intercepts.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Do you realize how uneducated you sound when you say nonsense like this?   I'll help you out since you obviously Know nothing --....


There you go again. Every time one of you 'scholars of insistence' starts running out of steam, you resort to the absolutely empty "I know history and you don't!" refrain. It's completely transparent. Throwing in some common knowledge as if it were the product of your own original research only makes you look more desperate.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> There you go again. Every time one of you 'scholars of insistence' starts running out of steam, you resort to the absolutely empty "I know history and you don't!" refrain. It's completely transparent. Throwing in some common knowledge as if it were the product of your own original research only makes you look more desperate.


All you have cited is an unsourced News article with no links and no corroboration. I ask again LINK to any source that factually sources an offer to surrender BY Japan before their surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> .....   They made sure that their people would fight to each and everyone of their deaths to win the war or just avoid capture.  .....


Another 'scholar' who watches too many cartoons.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Another 'scholar' who watches too many cartoons.


You have no actual evidence no links no sources nothing.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ....
> 
> The US did the right thing-------but communists like you keep trying to spin shit about it.


And what the hell is this? You make accusations about being "uneducated" but you play the "anyone who disagrees with me on ANYTHING = communist" game? Hard to get more ignorant than that, especially if you are trying to cast that accusation against ME.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Another scholar' who watches too many cartoons.


And you are another revisionist historian blowhard that does not understand the concept of Bushido and loyalty to the emperor in ww2 japan


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> And what the hell is this? You make accusations about being "uneducated" but you play the "anyone who disagrees with me on ANYTHING = communist" game? Hard to get more ignorant than that, especially if you are trying to cast that accusation against ME.


Ignorant is making claims with out any links any cites or any facts to call on.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> And you are another revisionist historian blowhard that does not understand the concept of Bushido and loyalty to the emperor in ww2 japan


There you go again. "You don't agree, so you don't understand!"  
I understand just fine.
What history do you imagine to be under threat of revision? Does the mere notion that you might have to actually think about a comfortable narrative unnerve you so much?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> There you go again. "You don't agree, so you don't understand!"
> I understand just fine.
> What history do you imagine to be under threat of revision? Does the mere notion that you might have to actually think about a comfortable narrative unnerve you so much?


CITE some fact retard link to a source verifying that fact.


----------



## toobfreak

mikegriffith1 said:


> The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima​



Yes.  Too bad we didn't have a big enough bomb to nuke the island of Japan clean into two parts with the sea filling in-between!

It would have helped lower the ocean a bit and it would have ensured far more victims of the Emperor's stubbornness to surrender were immediately incinerated for a quick and easy death.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Does the mere notion that you might have to actually think about a comfortable narrative unnerve you so much?


I have listened to the revisionist narrative that evil Americans bombed hiroshima for no reason for many years

you will NEVER say anything on this topic that I have not heard before


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Mac-7 said:


> I have listened to the revisionist narrative that evil Americans bombed hiroshima for no reason for many years
> 
> you will NEVER say anything on this topic that I have not heard before


Ask him for a link he thinks no one sees my posts that make him look ignorant as fuck. All he has ever linked to is a newspaper article with no sources.


----------



## Mac-7

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ask him for a link he thinks no one sees my posts that make him look ignorant as fuck.


The internet is full of crackpots that are sure to agree with him no matter how crazy he gets

so if Unkotare looks long enough he will find something


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

9thIDdoc said:


> Then you obviously don't understand what treaties are. Nations that do not sign a treaty are not part of that treaty and are in no way obligated or protected by it's terms.
> .Since nuclear weapons had not been invented previously I don't much think you can find a prior treaty wherein we promised not to use them against Japan.
> Incendiary bombs were in common use during WWII and did in fact cause more death and destruction than nuclear weapons. But feel free to look for a treaty that supports your bullshit.


Again, i am not suggesting anyone broke a treaty. I am saying that, in a discussion of the morality and ethics of the bombs, there is no real place for a stupid declaration of moral equivalence with bayonets. That's all.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> I have listened to the revisionist narrative ...


There is no "revision" in the actual words, actions, and documents of that time.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> The internet is full of crackpots ....


YOU are proof of that.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> And you are another revisionist historian blowhard that does not understand the concept of Bushido ....


But YOU think you do, right?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> There is no "revision" in the actual words, actions, and documents of that time.


And the men who were leading our military in tje pacific knew very well that invading japan would cost many American lives


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> But YOU think you do, right?


You obviously dont know how strong emperor worship and militarism was in japan


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> You obviously dont know how strong emperor worship and militarism was in japan



But YOU do?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> But YOU do?


I accept the word of the men who were there at the time


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> And the men who were leading our military in tje pacific knew very well that invading japan would cost many American lives











						Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> I accept the word of the men who were there at the time











						Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Again, i am not suggesting anyone broke a treaty. I am saying that, in a discussion of the morality and ethics of the bombs, there is no real place for a stupid declaration of moral equivalence with bayonets. That's all.


What is more stupid than thinking bombs or bayonets have morals or ethics? They are not intelligent beings and cannot consider such things. *If* in fact there are moral or ethical considerations in the use of weapons they are entirely concerned with the *use* of weapons to kill maim or destroy and there is no reason to believe that some weapons are more ethical than others. Yes, some treaties have attempted to limit the weapons used as well as other acts of war and I am well aware that you are using this fact to beg the question concerning ethics. But Nations make treaties with other Nations when they think it is in their best interest to do so. Such treaties apply (to the extent they actually do) only to those Nations that sign the treaties. And it is far from unknown for Nations to form treaties that are only made to deceive other Nations. Treaties are easily broken. You have yet to provide support that any treaty makes a statement about the ethics of a weapon. "Strategic Arms Limitations" are concerned with International strategy; not ethics.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


There are always dissenting opinions on anything 

speaking of Halsey he truly was a  bull

but for every military leader with a dissenting opinion there are many more who support the decision


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> There are always dissenting opinions on anything
> 
> speaking of Halsey he truly was a  bull
> 
> but for every military leader with a dissenting opinion there are many more who support the decision


I presented you with several prominent names. Where's your list?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

9thIDdoc said:


> What is more stupid than thinking bombs or bayonets have morals or ethics?


A desperate, stupid response. The discussion of morals and ethics is about using them. Just give it up. Ya said something dumb. Moving on...


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> presented you with several prominent names. Where's your list?


The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ge orge C Marshsll, Douglas MacArthur, Winston Churchill

estimates were as high as 1 million US wounded and 380,000 killed









						Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ge orge C Marshsll, Douglas MacArthur, Winston Churchill
> 
> estimates were as high as 1 million US wounded and 380,000 killed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


Wikipedia?  but you’re the‘scholar’ who “really understands” things.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Wikipedia?  but you’re the‘scholar’ who “really understands” things.


Do you disagree with Marshall and MacArthur?

the bomb saved 380,000 American lives


----------



## Ben Thomson

Unkotare said:


> Do you realize how little sense that makes?


He doesn't...just spouting BS.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Do you disagree with Marshall and MacArthur?
> 
> the bomb saved 380,000 American lives


MacArthur? This MacArthur?

"General Dwight Eisenhower voiced his opposition at Potsdam. "The Japanese were already defeated," he told Secretary of War Henry Stimson, "and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Admiral William Leahy, President Harry Truman's chief of staff, said that the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender….The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan." *General Douglas MacArthur said that the Japanese would have gladly surrendered as early as May if the U.S. had told them they could keep the emperor.* Similar views were voiced by Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey, and General Henry Arnold."

"Retention of the emperor, as MacArthur noted, was the main stumbling block to surrender. Truman was well aware of the situation. He referred to the intercepted July 18 cable as the "telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace." His close advisors concurred. "

"As postwar U.S. intelligence reports made clear, the atomic bombs had little impact on the Japanese decision. "



			https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-27/its-time-to-confront-painful-truths-about-using-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan


----------



## Ben Thomson

By the time we decided to use nukes Japan was done. Their naval and air power was decimated and no longer any real threat. We had a new 'toy' and were determined to see how it worked...civilians be damned.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> MacArthur? This MacArthur?
> 
> "General Dwight Eisenhower voiced his opposition at Potsdam. "The Japanese were already defeated," he told Secretary of War Henry Stimson, "and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Admiral William Leahy, President Harry Truman's chief of staff, said that the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender….The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan." *General Douglas MacArthur said that the Japanese would have gladly surrendered as early as May if the U.S. had told them they could keep the emperor.* Similar views were voiced by Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey, and General Henry Arnold."
> 
> "Retention of the emperor, as MacArthur noted, was the main stumbling block to surrender. Truman was well aware of the situation. He referred to the intercepted July 18 cable as the "telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace." His close advisors concurred. "
> 
> "As postwar U.S. intelligence reports made clear, the atomic bombs had little impact on the Japanese decision. "
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-27/its-time-to-confront-painful-truths-about-using-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan


The japanese were not surrendering

they wanted a ceasefire followed  by a negotiated settlement


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> The japanese were not surrendering
> ...


America's top military leaders disagreed with that comfortable little narrative.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> top military leaders disagreed with that comfortable little narrative.


If you think only in military terms the war could have ended without using atomic bombs

we would have invaded the mainland, 300,000 plus Americans would die, and possibly the Red Army would have landed on Japanese soil

That is a much worse choice


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> America's top military leaders disagreed with that comfortable little narrative.


And yet you can not link to a single source that agrees with you that has a source linked to it.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> If you think only in military terms the war could have ended without using atomic bombs
> 
> we would have invaded the mainland, 300,000 plus Americans would die, and possibly the Red Army would have landed on Japanese soil
> 
> That is a much worse choice


Invasion was not the only other option. America's top military leaders recognized that the decision to use that terrible weapon was a political one, not a military necessity. It was widely understood on both sides that Japan was defeated for all intents and purposes.  America's military leaders also saw that Japan was looking for a way to surrender and end the war. Over 75 years later, simpletons like you react like petulant children when confronted with a reality more complex than the comfortable narrative that has let you sleep at night all your life.


----------



## Unkotare

So many of these little boys who think they understand "Bushido" because they read a few comic books or watched a few cartoons seem to think that in the time when that philosophy really was followed - by only a very select segment of society - that fighters (and civilians apparently) never surrendered in any war or any battle. Everyone on the losing side killed themselves? Every farmer, merchant, or peasant? Only dimwitted children and/or those completely ignorant of Japanese history believe such nonsense. Bushido did not mean a complete disregard for life, or a love of death. It meant much more, but - uh oh, here it comes - "you just don't understand." By the 1930s and 40s not only had the social class associated with the philosophy long since passed, but the idea of Bushido was a mere tool in state propaganda, not something intended to be used by foolish apologist foreigners some 75 years later. 

"But what about Okinawa?" you may say. Here's another "oh, you just don't understand!" moment. For all the "you're uneducated!" and "if only you understood as I do!" bullshit, I have yet to hear anyone recognize how the residents of Okinawa (to say nothing of even more outlying areas) were viewed by most people (and especially those in positions of influence) on Honshu and in the government. Are you familiar with the notion of "cannon fodder" in the western tradition? Why not turn up the propaganda on those in outlying areas and scare the bejeesus out of them about an inhuman enemy (ever see any propaganda posters produced by our own government in WWI/WWII about Germans and Japanese - even American citizens who happened to be of Japanese descent?) if it would serve the purpose of convincing the enemy that it would be too costly to try and take the real homeland? Just importing a few examples from the actual American media of the time would be enough to convince people with very little contact with the outside world prior to the war, that Americans were so full of hate and violence that death might be easier. Do you think any Americans at the time thought they would have been treated nicely if the tables were turned? How much easier did it make the work of propagandists to read story after story in American newspapers, replete with racial slurs, about American servicemen sending home  the ears, and noses, and skulls of Japanese prisoners and war dead to their sweethearts back home? 

But no, you who know so much more, never thought about any of that. So much easier and more comfortable to just snuggle up with a comfy narrative you never bothered to really think about. Just screaming "Yeh! Fuk 'em! Fuk yeah!" while you crush a Bud Lite on your empty forehead feels so much better than actually thinking.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> General Douglas MacArthur said that the Japanese would have gladly surrendered as early as May if the U.S. had told them they could keep the emperor.



Which is not true.

You keep saying this over and over again, but the list of demands that Japan was trying to propose even into late July was nothing like that.

They wanted no occupation.  No war crime trials.  No reparations.  That all Allied powers leave all territory that Japan had occupied before the war started.  That most Allied powers demilitarize territories they occupied before the war started.

And finally, that the Philippines be completely demilitarized, and that it be joint occupied by the US and Japan.

Those were their demands in July 1945.  And it was only after the bombs did the "Emperor" remain became an issue.  They were still trying to behave like they were the victors, and could dictate the terms.  Which was stupid, as they had already witnessed the Allied Powers fighting all the way to Berlin and knocking on the door of Der Paper Hangar's house as he decided to eat a Walther sandwich.

The very fact that they outright refused to even discuss the Potsdam Declaration and even try to negotiate it shows they had absolutely no interest at all in "surrender".  They wanted an Armistice, and a pro quo ante bellum, and would not even consider anything else.  Only after 2 atomic bombs did they suddenly realize that they had no choice.

And even then, half of the Imperial Council was still demanding that the war continue no matter what.  Even if the entire nation was burned to ash and everybody was dead.  And even after the Emperor made the final call (the first time ever), there were coup attempts to try and prevent the surrender and keep the war going.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> I have yet to hear anyone recognize how the residents of Okinawa (to say nothing of even more outlying areas) were viewed by most people (and especially those in positions of influence) on Honshu and in the government.



Trust me, I do know.

In fact, most of the deaths of civilians on Okinawa was at the hands of the Japanese military themselves.  They did not have the almost insane drive to self-destruction and suicide as those on the mainland did.  Hence, the Japanese soldiers "helping them" make the right choice.

However, those on islands like Saipan were almost all settlers who came from the mainland themselves, so shared the same beliefs.  Hence, the mass suicides (which did not happen on Okinawa - because Okinawan culture is vastly different than that of mainland Japan).

And even today, to most on the mainland (especially popular culture), those on Okinawa are largely seen as the "backwards rural cousins".  Not unlike say Gomer Pile in most of the US.  Quiet, somewhat backwards and maybe stupid cousins in the backwater.  I know more than a few that told me they actually resented the "popular opinion" of them in the popular Japanese media.  That it was insulting, and offensive.

Like some in the US, who see all that live on Hawaii as slightly stupid, screw at the drop of a hat, and want to do nothing but surf, frolic on the beach, and eat pineapple and spam.


----------



## Unkotare

Hiroshima: Quotes
					

Quotes from prominent Americans on why the atomic bombing of Japan was probably wrong.



					www.doug-long.com


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> Trust me, I do know.
> 
> In fact, most of the deaths of civilians on Okinawa was at the hands of the Japanese military themselves.  They did not have the almost insane drive to self-destruction and suicide as those on the mainland did.  Hence, the Japanese soldiers "helping them" make the right choice.
> 
> However, those on islands like Saipan were almost all settlers who came from the mainland themselves, so shared the same beliefs.  Hence, the mass suicides (which did not happen on Okinawa - because Okinawan culture is vastly different than that of mainland Japan).
> 
> And even today, to most on the mainland (especially popular culture), those on Okinawa are largely seen as the "backwards rural cousins".  Not unlike say Gomer Pile in most of the US.  Quiet, somewhat backwards and maybe stupid cousins in the backwater.  I know more than a few that told me they actually resented the "popular opinion" of them in the popular Japanese media.  That it was insulting, and offensive.
> 
> Like some in the US, who see all that live on Hawaii as slightly stupid, screw at the drop of a hat, and want to do nothing but surf, frolic on the beach, and eat pineapple and spam.


I'm the palest, map-of-Ireland Bostonian you'll find, and I love pineapple and Spam. Ever try to frolic on Revere Beach? Hardly worth all the time pulling syringes out of your feet later.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A desperate, stupid response. The discussion of morals and ethics is about using them. Just give it up. Ya said something dumb. Moving on...


The discussion is about war. War is killing or being killed and only fools think otherwise. It's about killing; not what someone is killed with. People killed with bayonets bombs or anything else smell exactly the same after a few days of lying in the sun and one is not more or less dead than the other. Not using a weapon that would likely save the lives of a great many of your fellow countrymen is itself the height of immorality. How are you going to explain such idiocy to their loved ones? No thought for the children and grandchildren those young men might have had had you done your part to see them return home alive? The President and other military leaders are charged with doing their best to protect the lives of our soldiers and the other citizens of our Country. Your argument that their failure to do their duty is somehow the more moral choice is idiotic. And you have totally failed to provide any support for your lame argument. That is beyond dumb.


----------



## Unkotare

9thIDdoc said:


> .... People killed with bayonets bombs or anything else smell exactly the same after a few days of lying in the sun....


You really think so?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Quotes
> 
> 
> Quotes from prominent Americans on why the atomic bombing of Japan was probably wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> www.doug-long.com


Still no facts and no links to any,


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Invasion was not the only other option.


Really?

what did you have in mind?


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next


 Why did it matter?    The U.S. had already firebombed every major Japanese city anyway


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Unkotare said:


> You really think so?


Do to me anyway. Your results may vary.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Really?
> 
> what did you have in mind?


Naval blockade

Continued conventional bombing

Acceptance of other surrender conditions

Potential surrender conditions EXACTLY as those ultimately accepted anyway

Just for few


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Naval blockade
> 
> Continued conventional bombing
> 
> Acceptance of other surrender conditions
> 
> Potential surrender conditions EXACTLY as those ultimately accepted anyway
> 
> Just for few


If we blockaded them and held for months MILLIONS of Japanese civilians would have starved and or frozen to death, Fire bombing killed more people then the nukes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Naval blockade
> 
> Continued conventional bombing
> 
> Acceptance of other surrender conditions
> 
> Potential surrender conditions EXACTLY as those ultimately accepted anyway
> 
> Just for few


After 2 nukes the hardliners did not want to surrender, how would more bombing or blockade convince them?


----------



## DudleySmith

One very good reason to end it quick with the nuke was the Soviets plan to occupy as much of the islands as they could grab, and that would have been a lot if given more time after they finally declared war on Japan. Sorry but no Pity Party for Japanese is necessary; they reaped what they sowed, and that goes for the Japanese here in the states as well; they cheered on their homeland heroes all through their massacres right up to Pearl, held parades and sent lots of 'Care' packages to the Japanese troops over the decades, and a few in Hawaii were helping arm downed Japanese pilots, hence the interning program on the West Coast. OVer a third of them were not American citizens, and it is noteworthy that out of the entire population hardly any ever turned in Japanese spies and agents to the U.S. govt. who were over here recruiting in the 1930's to work for the Japanese military as saboteurs and spies.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Naval blockade
> 
> Continued conventional bombing
> 
> Acceptance of other surrender conditions
> 
> Potential surrender conditions EXACTLY as those ultimately accepted anyway
> 
> Just for few


In order to do it your way you would have to keep the greatest navel armada in history floating around in the Pacific Ocean for months

while continued conventional bombing over that time would kill as many civilians as the atomic bomb did

assuming we didnt drop a 3rd atomic bomb 

in the meantime Russia would be gobbling up more and more Japanese territory and soon
demanding their share of post war occupation of japan

Revisionists put too faith in the belief that japan was going to act rationally prior to an invasion


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> ... Sorry but no Pity Party for Japanese is necessary; they reaped what they sowed, and that goes for the Japanese here in the states as well; ....


Then why weren't ALL German Americans on the East Coast thrown into concentration camps? You're no American.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Then why weren't ALL German Americans on the East Coast thrown into concentration camps? You're no American.


Actually Germans and Italians WERE arrested and in fact some were held until 1946.

one source, Internment of German Americans - Wikipedia


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> .... it is noteworthy that out of the entire population hardly any ever turned in Japanese spies and agents to the U.S. govt. who were over here recruiting in the 1930's to work for the Japanese military as saboteurs and spies.


Unlike German Americans, no Japanese American was ever convicted of espionage or sabotage throughout the war, you ignorant dope.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> Then why weren't ALL German Americans on the East Coast thrown into concentration camps? You're no American.



lol as if I care about some deviant's racist opinions. Ypu love them Japs so much mover there. Oh yeah, you can't, because they don't need any white fetish deviants for anything.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> Unlike German Americans, no Japanese American was ever convicted of espionage or sabotage throughout the war, you ignorant dope.



They weren't given the chance you moron.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> In order to do it your way you would have to keep the greatest navel armada in history floating around in the Pacific Ocean for months
> 
> ....


By that time, the Japanese navy had been decimated, you dope.


----------



## Flash

To emphasize what goddamn animals the Japs were they murdered 250,000 Chinese citizens just for helping some of the Dolittle Raiders escape.  That, by itself, were more civilians killed by both nuclear bombs.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> They weren't given the chance you moron.


Well, you should turn yourself in at the nearest prison then. You will commit murder if given the chance. We can't afford to wait for you to actually commit a crime, right?


----------



## Esdraelon

mikegriffith1 said:


> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


They'd more than earned the hellish misery they suffered:




__





						Rape of Nanking - Crime Museum
					

Early in the 20th century, the Japanese government saw an opportunity to dominate the Eastern world, and began actively asserting dominance over the region. This began with minor skirmishes over territorial borders, but by the 1930s, their actions escalated and they launched a full scale...



					www.crimemuseum.org
				








__





						UNIT 731 – Japan's Biological Warfare Project
					





					unit731.org
				




This regime was more efficient and brutal than even the Nazis.  Had we bombed Tokyo, Kokura, and Kyoto it would still have been no more than this evil stain on humanity deserved.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ..... they murdered 250,000 Chinese citizens just for helping some of the Dolittle Raiders escape.  That, by itself, were more civilians killed by both nuclear bombs.


So again you are saying we used the atomic bomb in revenge for China? They really should have paid for the Manhattan Project if we were working for them. Mao can't open his checkbook? He had his face on the money and everything.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> So again you are saying we used the atomic bomb in revenge for China? They really should have paid for the Manhattan Project if we were working for them. Mao can't open his checkbook? He had his face on the money and everything.


keep making shit up.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> lol as if I care about some deviant's racist opinions. ....


That doesn't look like an answer to my question. You only raise more questions, such as how on earth you accuse me of being some kind of racist?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> By that time, the Japanese navy had been decimated, you dope.


Fuck you

the Kamakazi threat was real 

though I suppose Admiral Unkotre would keep the fleet  a safe distance away, huh?


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> ....
> 
> Revisionists put too faith in the belief that japan was going to act rationally prior to an invasion


"Revisionists" like Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy, and Bull Halsey?


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> That doesn't look like an answer to my question. You only raise more questions, such as how on earth you accuse me of being some kind of racist?



Nobody cares what you demand, twinkie. Now go cruise some public toilets; somebody might have forgotten to flush and you can play for a while.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> So again you are saying we used the atomic bomb in revenge for China? They really should have paid for the Manhattan Project if we were working for them. Mao can't open his checkbook? He had his face on the money and everything.




Your comprehension skills are not all that great.  Another sign of being uneducated.

Just pointing out that the Japs were vicious assholes that needed to have their asses kicked.  

If you knew anything about history you would know that it was the Japs that attacked the US first.  You would know how vicious they were to our POWs (like at Bataan) and how they were brutal to everybody.

Fighting to the last man was not a very good war strategy for them, was it?  It got their sorry asses nuked, didn't it?


----------



## DudleySmith

Mac-7 said:


> Fuck you
> 
> the Kamakazi threat was real
> 
> though I suppose Admiral Unkotre would keep the fleet  a safe distance away, huh?



The only 'boats' that turd licker would 'Admiral' are in toilet bowls.


----------



## DudleySmith

Flash said:


> Your comprehension skills are not all that great.  Another sign of being uneducated.
> 
> Just pointing out that the Japs were vicious assholes that needed to have their asses kicked.
> 
> If you knew anything about history you would know that it was the Japs that attacked the US first.  You would know how vicious they were to our POWs (like at Bataan) and how they were brutal to everybody.
> 
> Fighting to the last man was not a very good war strategy for them, was it?  It got their sorry asses nuked, didn't it?



He's just a punk troll. He's only here to be abused and mocked. Do a search on that handle of his; he's a sicko freak.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Fuck you
> ...


Solid rebuttal, professor.


----------



## Flash

DudleySmith said:


> He's just a punk troll. He's only here to be abused and mocked. Do a search on that handle of his; he's a sicko freak.




I understand.  He is a uneducated dumbass that doesn't know what he is talking about most of the time.

He claims to be a teacher but he spends all day trolling on the Internet (even during the school year) so I doubt he understands what he is posting most of the time.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Nobody cares what you demand,......


So you can't answer questions either, huh?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> I understand.  He is a uneducated dumbass .....


There you go again. You never did indicate upon what you base a sense of superior education. Go ahead.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Your comprehension skills are not all that great.  ....


Actually, they are pretty solid. YOUR ability to answer simple questions is not.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> So you can't answer questions either, huh?


Answer questions you say? You mean like me asking for a valid link to a single supposed offer of surrender by Japan before the bombs were dropped?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> "Revisionists" like Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy, and Bull Halsey?


I must respect the opinion up to the point of remembering they were republicans and Truman was president for 7 years after Hiroshima


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Solid rebuttal, professor.


I’m not a turn the other cheek guy

Dont call me names and i wont either


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ....
> 
> If you knew anything about history you would know that it was the Japanese that attacked the US first.  ....


I don't think anyone has denied that the Japanese military attacked the American military first. Why are you trying to put forward straw men? Could it be that you have nothing to actually say about the real topic?


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> I must respect the opinion up to the point of remembering they were republicans and Truman was president for 7 years after Hiroshima


But you are more of a military expert than they were? Is that what you're trying to say?


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> I’m not a turn the other cheek guy
> 
> Dont call me names and i wont either


Well then, fuck you. Is that what you're looking for?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Answer a question you say? You mean like you answering a request for a link to ANY supposed surrender offer by Japan prior to the bombs?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> But you are more of a military expert than they were?


I’m not running for president

Remember what great friends Truman and MacArthur were?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Well then, fuck you. Is that what you're looking for?


You got carried away by your war of personal insults with Dudley and it spilled over onto me


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> I’m not running for president
> 
> ....


I didn't ask you anything about running for president.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> You got carried away by your war of personal insults with Dudley and it spilled over onto me


If you're too sensitive, you'll take everything personally.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> you're too sensitive, you'll take everything personally.


Sometimes not sensitive enough when dealing with libs


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> I didn't ask you anything about running for president.


You should have remembered that Ike and Mac did have ambitions to replace Truman


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Sometimes not sensitive enough when dealing with libs


Go find a lib and tell him all about it.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> You should have remembered that Ike and Mac did have ambitions to replace Truman


Which has nothing to do with this topic or my comments.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Go find a lib and tell him all about it.


If it walks like a duck…


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> If it walks like a duck…


Go find a duck and tell him all about it.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Which has nothing to do with this topic or my comments.


A politician cashing in on his military reputation to take potshots at his political rival is germane to the topic


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> A politician cashing in on his military reputation to take potshots at his political rival is germane to the topic


How is that germane to the question of the morality of dropping atomic bombs on civilians?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> that germane to the question of the morality of dropping atomic bombs on civilians?


You mean the morality of ending a war

where it fits nicely


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> You mean the morality of ending a war
> ...


I mean what I said.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> I mean what I said.


The hangup is what you refuse to say

Hiroshima ended the war


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> The hangup is what you refuse to say
> 
> Hiroshima ended the war


Do you want to start the whole thing over again from page one? Our top military leadership recognized that the war was rapidly coming to a close anyway, and that the atomic bomb did NOT play a material role in Japan's inevitable defeat.


----------



## Unkotare

"Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." Moreover, Leahy continued, "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." 

President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." 

Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "









						Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu


----------



## Unkotare

"Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it." 

Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." 

Or take Ed Everts, a major in the 7th weather squadron of the Army Air Corps. Everts, who received an air medal for surviving a crash at sea during the battle at Iwo Jima, told us that America's use of atomic bombs was "a war crime" for which "our leaders should have been put on trial as were the German and Japanese leaders."


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Our top military leadership recognized that the war was rapidly coming to a close anyway, and that the atomic bomb did NOT play a material role in Japan's inevitable defeat.


It foes not matter what eisenhower thought but what hirohito thought

and the japanese high command retained illusions of a cease fire without foreign occupation of the home islands

yes an invasion by the allies, meaning America and russia was one option but it involved millions of casualties and a divided post war japan

the bomb avoided that


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." Moreover, Leahy continued, "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."
> 
> President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
> 
> Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


The japanese were ready to negotiate a truce but not a surrender


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> It foes not matter what eisenhower thought but what hirohito thought
> 
> and the japanese high command retained illusions of a cease fire without foreign occupation of the home islands
> 
> yes an invasion by the allies, meaning America and russia was one option but it involved millions of casualties and a divided post war japan
> 
> the bomb avoided that


Read my last two posts.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> The japanese were ready to negotiate a truce but not a surrender


MacArthur says you're wrong. Eisenhower says you're wrong. Halsey says you're wrong.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Read my last two posts.


I did.  

But your sources are mistaken 

japan was militarily defeated long before we invaded Okinawa but kept on fighting

the japanese high command was ready to fight to the last man in order to preserve their honor


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> MacArthur says you're wrong. Eisenhower says you're wrong. Halsey says you're wrong.


And yet you can not link to a single instance of Japan offering a surrender. Go figure.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> MacArthur says you're wrong. Eisenhower says you're wrong. Halsey says you're wrong.


Truman and the joint chiefs of staff say they are wrong


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> There you go again. Every time one of you 'scholars of insistence' starts running out of steam, you resort to the absolutely empty "I know history and you don't!" refrain. It's completely transparent. Throwing in some common knowledge as if it were the product of your own original research only makes you look more desperate.


Unk, you can try to blow smoke--but several things became very obvious.  You don't know history, you believe the shit you post about America being the bad guys for bombing Japan or you want everyone else to believe your bullshit.  My grandfather and all 5 of his brothers were in ww2 so I do know what actually went on.  He was traumatized by what he saw till the day that he died.  You are an asshole for making up and believing the bullshit that you post instead of looking up history or more likely not caring that you spread lies about the americans including our soldiers that were forced to fight the very EVIL Japanese.   You can try to lie and then mix in insults about posters all you want, but that won't stop me from pointing out the obvious about you and your propaganda.  Japan was evil, they needed to be bombed to stop them from being evil, they deserved the bombs and much much worse---------


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> I did.
> 
> But your sources are mistaken
> 
> .....


My sources are Eisenhower, Halsey, MacArthur, Leahy, and others of the day. Your source is...just you?


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> .... You don't know history....


That is incorrect.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ... you believe the shit you post about America being the bad guys .....-------


Find a post where I said that. Go ahead, go find one.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> .....My grandfather and all 5 of his brothers were in ww2 so I do know what actually went on. .....----


That conclusion is illogical. Personal experiences are not genetic. If my grandfather were a surgeon, would you want me to perform surgery on you?


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...r making up and believing the bullshit that you post .....--


Just what do you think I "made up"? I have provided quite a bit of documentation.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Another 'scholar' who watches too many cartoons.


Another lib child, who insults posters when they don't like the facts of the real world.    Grow up.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Unk, you can try to blow smoke--but several things became very obvious.  You don't know history, you believe the shit you post about America being the bad guys for bombing Japan or you want everyone else to believe your bullshit.  My grandfather and all 5 of his brothers were in ww2 so I do know what actually went on.  He was traumatized by what he saw till the day that he died.  You are an asshole for making up and believing the bullshit that you post instead of looking up history or more likely not caring that you spread lies about the americans including our soldiers that were forced to fight the very EVIL Japanese.   You can try to lie and then mix in insults about posters all you want, but that won't stop me from pointing out the obvious about you and your propaganda.  Japan was evil, they needed to be bombed to stop them from being evil, they deserved the bombs and much much worse---------


Do you not recognize that you are merely responding emotionally? Read your own post.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Another lib child, who insults posters when they don't like the facts of the real world.    Grow up.


I have provided "the facts of the real world."


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Invasion was not the only other option. America's top military leaders recognized that the decision to use that terrible weapon was a political one, not a military necessity. It was widely understood on both sides that Japan was defeated for all intents and purposes.  America's military leaders also saw that Japan was looking for a way to surrender and end the war. Over 75 years later, simpletons like you react like petulant children when confronted with a reality more complex than the comfortable narrative that has let you sleep at night all your life.


.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> So many of these little boys who think they understand "Bushido" because they read a few comic books or watched a few cartoons seem to think that in the time when that philosophy really was followed - by only a very select segment of society - that fighters (and civilians apparently) never surrendered in any war or any battle. Everyone on the losing side killed themselves? Every farmer, merchant, or peasant? Only dimwitted children and/or those completely ignorant of Japanese history believe such nonsense. Bushido did not mean a complete disregard for life, or a love of death. It meant much more, but - uh oh, here it comes - "you just don't understand." By the 1930s and 40s not only had the social class associated with the philosophy long since passed, but the idea of Bushido was a mere tool in state propaganda, not something intended to be used by foolish apologist foreigners some 75 years later.
> 
> "But what about Okinawa?" you may say. Here's another "oh, you just don't understand!" moment. For all the "you're uneducated!" and "if only you understood as I do!" bullshit, I have yet to hear anyone recognize how the residents of Okinawa (to say nothing of even more outlying areas) were viewed by most people (and especially those in positions of influence) on Honshu and in the government. Are you familiar with the notion of "cannon fodder" in the western tradition? Why not turn up the propaganda on those in outlying areas and scare the bejeesus out of them about an inhuman enemy (ever see any propaganda posters produced by our own government in WWI/WWII about Germans and Japanese - even American citizens who happened to be of Japanese descent?) if it would serve the purpose of convincing the enemy that it would be too costly to try and take the real homeland? Just importing a few examples from the actual American media of the time would be enough to convince people with very little contact with the outside world prior to the war, that Americans were so full of hate and violence that death might be easier. Do you think any Americans at the time thought they would have been treated nicely if the tables were turned? How much easier did it make the work of propagandists to read story after story in American newspapers, replete with racial slurs, about American servicemen sending home  the ears, and noses, and skulls of Japanese prisoners and war dead to their sweethearts back home?
> 
> But no, you who know so much more, never thought about any of that. So much easier and more comfortable to just snuggle up with a comfy narrative you never bothered to really think about. Just screaming "Yeh! Fuk 'em! Fuk yeah!" while you crush a Bud Lite on your empty forehead feels so much better than actually thinking.


.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> That conclusion is illogical. Personal experiences are not genetic. If my grandfather were a surgeon, would you want me to perform surgery on you?


You obviously weren't raised to respect your elders or can even to begin understand not only a father but grandfathers and their brothers raising their kids and grandkids together and close by in small towns.   I liked old people growing up---they were always a wealth of knowledge.   Something I can see that you never understood and still don't understand....seeking anything that is knowledge seems to be a no-go for you and the rest of the communists.  To many from WW2, or greatest generation, are gone now--but there was a time that if you wanted to actually know what happened then, instead of listening to communist propaganda like you do, that you would only have to open your ears and listen to your elders.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> You obviously weren't raised to respect your elders ....


Wrong again.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> .... I can see that you never understood and still don't understand........


Wrong again. A trend with you, I see.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ....eeking anything that is knowledge seems to be a no-go for you.....


Very much wrong - again.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> .... you and the rest of the communists.  ....


There you go again. Falling back on "anyone who disagrees with me on anything = commie!" childish, illogical nonsense makes it very difficult to take you seriously.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ... there was a time that if you wanted to actually know what happened then..., that you would only have to open your ears and listen to your elders.


I know that very well, and I spoke to quite a few veterans of that era (on both sides) some time ago.


----------



## Dayton3

Unkotare said:


> .



"surrender" was NOT the only option for Japan.

But,  it was the *only option for Japan that wouldn't result in even more massive loss of civilian lives for Japan*.    Continued conventional bombing or even worse a naval blockade by the U.S. when combined with the Rice Famine in Japan the following year would've caused massive levels of starvation and disease all across Japan.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> There you go again. Falling back on "anyone who disagrees with me on anything = commie!" childish, illogical nonsense makes it very difficult to take you seriously.


It's not just disagreeing dear---its the spewing of communist propaganda about the bombing of the evil, truly evil Japanese.   Normal moral people don't attack americans for doing what needed to be done  to stop the evil Japanese in the 1940's.  Two groups-----either you are a moron and don't know nothing about what really happened and are either to lazy or to stupid to go research the facts even once corrected multiple times in your case OR you are purposely spreading propaganda (communists try to push this hate American nonsense, america is evil for killing the Japanese (no matter how evil the japanese were).  

I hate stupid people-------almost as much as I hate LIARS and I take both comments SERIOUSly as they try to spread SHIT.


----------



## Flash

Mac-7 said:


> The japanese were ready to negotiate a truce but not a surrender




Dat "truce" ship sailed with all the American casualties on Okinawa.

They figured that at that time the Americans were tired of war and would agree to something less than unconditional surrender.

They gambled and they lost.

Those nukes made it easy to continue the war without tremendous Americans casualties.

After Pearl Harbor and the atrocious treatment of American POWs there was never going to anything other than unconditional surrender.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> I know that very well, and I spoke to quite a few veterans of that era (on both sides) some time ago.


You know shit or you are purposely spreading shit...I believe more likely the later.    If you knew shit and weren't spreading lies, then you would know that the evil Japanese had to be taken out and wouldn't be spreading blatant propaganda which includes the stupid line about the two cities being just wittle innocent japanese cities and not military targets.


----------



## Flash

Turtlesoup said:


> It's not just disagreeing dear---its the spewing of communist propaganda about the bombing of the evil, truly evil Japanese.   Normal moral people don't attack americans for doing what needed to be done  to stop the evil Japanese in the 1940's.  Two groups-----either you are a moron and don't know nothing about what really happened and are either to lazy or to stupid to go research the facts even once corrected multiple times in your case OR you are purposely spreading propaganda (communists try to push this hate American nonsense, america is evil for killing the Japanese (no matter how evil the japanese were).
> 
> I hate stupid people-------almost as much as I hate LIARS and I take both comments SERIOUSly as they try to spread SHIT.




I go with Unkotare being a moron.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> There you go again. Falling back on "anyone who disagrees with me on anything = commie!" childish, illogical nonsense makes it very difficult to take you seriously.


If you wouldn't spout childish illogical Moon Bat nonsense trolling like you do we Americans would have a little more respect for you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Just what do you think I "made up"? I have provided quite a bit of documentation.


NO YOU HAVE NOT, You have NEVER provided a link to any supposed surrender offer by Japan before the bombs.


----------



## Mac-7

Flash said:


> Dat "truce" ship sailed with all the American casualties on Okinawa.
> 
> They figured that at that time the Americans were tired of war and would agree to something less than unconditional surrender.
> 
> They gambled and they lost.
> 
> Those nukes made it easy to continue the war without tremendous Americans casualties.
> 
> After Pearl Harbor and the atrocious treatment of American POWs there was never going to anything other than unconditional surrender.


The japanese high command was trying to avoid occupation and would have held out till they were invaded


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> The japanese high command was trying to avoid occupation and would have held out till they were invaded


Is that what your feelings tell you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Is that what your feelings tell you?


Thats what the facts indicate even after one nuke all Japan offered was a ceasefire,


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> It's not just disagreeing dear---its the spewing of communist propaganda about the bombing of the evil, truly evil Japanese.   Normal moral people don't attack americans for doing what needed to be done  to stop the evil Japanese in the 1940's.  Two groups-----either you are a moron and don't know nothing about what really happened and are either to lazy or to stupid to go research the facts even once corrected multiple times in your case OR you are purposely spreading propaganda (communists try to push this hate American nonsense, america is evil for killing the Japanese (no matter how evil the japanese were).
> 
> I hate stupid people-------almost as much as I hate LIARS and I take both comments SERIOUSly as they try to spread SHIT.


Here we go again...  Do you have anything other than your emotions to offer? You realize that historians don't often rely on screaming about "good guys and bad guys" or "Evil" and similar emotive terminology to discuss history, right?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> that what your feelings tell you?


Its what history tells us


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ... are either to [sic] lazy or to [sic] stupid to go research the facts .....


I think that when I present news reports and quotations from American military leaders of the day, that counts as "the facts." You seem to be clinging to a warm, comfortable narrative that doesn't require you to think even a little. You know what happens when you try to take away a child's security blanket.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Its what history tells us


Every time I show you what history tells us you get upset. Turtleboy gets absolutely hysterical.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ...childish illogical Moon Bat nonsense.....


Such as?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> I go with Unkotare being a moron.


You still haven't told me about your great education.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ..... the stupid line about the two cities being just wittle innocent japanese cities and not military targets.


How many military personnel were killed in the bombings vs how many civilians?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Every time I show you what history tells us you get upset.


I am disappointed that you cant see the big picture

you just keep saying that general eisenhower in germany said the japanese were defeated militarily without grasping the fact that they were not ready to stop fighting


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> How many military personnel were killed in the bombings vs how many civilians?


The japanese people would have unquestionably marched to their death during an invasion 

they were weapons of war in imperial japan


----------



## Unkotare

"Hiroshima’s port and main industrial and military districts were located outside the urban regions, to the southeast of the city."









						The Bureaucrats Who Singled Out Hiroshima for Destruction
					

How committee meetings, memos, and largely arbitrary decisions ushered in the nuclear age




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> I am disappointed that you cant see the big picture
> 
> you just keep saying that general eisenhower in germany said the japanese were defeated militarily without grasping the fact that they were not ready to stop fighting


So, Eisenhower is not a legitimate source for you? I see. How about Admiral Leahy? Bull Halsey? MacArthur?


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Here we go again...  Do you have anything other than your emotions to offer? You realize that historians don't often rely on screaming about "good guys and bad guys" or "Evil" and similar emotive terminology to discuss history, right?


I go with the facts----JAPAN was purely evil and had to be stopped by any means necessary.   This is the HISTORIC FACTS.........


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> So, Eisenhower is not a legitimate source for you? I see. How about Admiral Leahy? Bull Halsey? MacArthur?


We are going in circles

the joint chiefs of staff disagreed with the revisionists

eisenhower and macArthur had political and personal reasons for disagreeing with truman


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> The japanese people would have unquestionably marched to their death during an invasion
> 
> ...


Back to the cartoons now? Still trying to swallow 75 year old propaganda that was never meant for you in the first place? Do you know that one of the major concerns for the militarists in the latter years of the war was the possibility of a civil uprising? By the end, people were really tired of the war and the starvation. But you think that starving, demoralized women and children with sticks would have killed a million US Marines?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> So, Eisenhower is not a legitimate source for you?


Ike had his opinion and other leaders like sec of war Stinson had theirs





__





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

Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb:



					www.nuclearfiles.org
				






“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. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his 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 







 E-mail this Page

 Printer Friendly


dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second 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.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions." 
Source: _The White House Years: Mandate for Change: 1953-1956: A Personal Account _(New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 312-313. 


Copyright © 1998 - 2021 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation | Powered by Media Temple​


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> I go with the facts----JAPAN was purely evil and had to be stopped by any means necessary.   This is the HISTORIC FACTS.........


What "facts"? Screaming "evil!" over and over again does not amount to the presentation of fact.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> How many military personnel were killed in the bombings vs how many civilians?




Who gives a shit?  It was not a military target.  It was a "surrender your ass" target.  It worked.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Who gives a shit?  ...


People with any sense of morality. In other words, not you.


----------



## Flash

I worked as an Engineer at the Hanford Nuclear Facility for seven years.

I toured the building where they built the pit for the plutonium bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki.   It is a national landmark building.

Oak Ridge built the uranium bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.

Hanford built the plutonium bomb.

The plutonium bomb was better.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> People with any sense of morality. In other words, not you.




You mean like the Japs that practiced cannibalism with American POWs?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> You mean like....


I mean what I said. Do you consider yourself a person with any sense of morality?


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> I mean what I said. Do you consider yourself a person with any sense of morality?




LOL!  I am a Vietnam War vet.  According to you stupid uneducated Moon Bats I am a baby killer so you are asking the wrong person.

Have you ever been in a war?

I doubt you have or you wouldn't be spouting your ignorant bullshit.

There is no morality in war.  By definition it is immoral.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> LOL!  I am a Vietnam vet. ...


That doesn't answer my question. Do you consider yourself a person with any sense of morality?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> . According to you stupid uneducated Moon Bats I am a baby killer ....
> 
> ....


Don't try to tell me what I think or believe, you dishonest scumbag. Do not misrepresent me in order to put forth a straw man because you can't address the thread topic.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> That doesn't answer my question. Do you consider yourself a person with any sense of morality?




My father was a WWII veteran.  He didn't serve in the Pacific.  He served in Europe.  Landed at Normandy and fought until the Krauts surrendered.  He was in that Hertgen Forest bloodbath.

He was damn glad we nuked the goddamn Japs.

He is a much better judgement of war morality than a chickenshit little punk like you.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Don't try to tell me what I think or believe, you dishonest scumbag. Do not misrepresent me in order to put forth a straw man because you can't address the thread topic.




So you have never served in a war and here you are an Internet Keyboard Commando trying to tell veterans about the morality of war.

That make you a filthy little chickenshit punk, doesn't it?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> .... a chickenshit little punk like you.


Where does that come from, big mouth?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> So you have never served in a war and here you are an Internet Keyboard Commando trying to tell veterans about the morality of war.
> 
> That make you a filthy little chickenshit punk, doesn't it?


I keep asking you simple questions that YOU keep avoiding. That makes YOU the chickenshit, big mouth.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> My father was a WWII veteran.  He didn't serve in the Pacific.  He served in Europe.  Landed at Normandy and fought until the Krauts surrendered.  He was in that Hertgen Forest bloodbath.
> 
> He was damn glad we nuked ....
> 
> He is a much better judgement of war morality than a chickenshit little punk like you.


What about these men who served in the Pacific, big mouth?

" Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."

Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima."

Or take Ed Everts, a major in the 7th weather squadron of the Army Air Corps. Everts, who received an air medal for surviving a crash at sea during the battle at Iwo Jima, told us that America's use of atomic bombs was "a war crime" for which "our leaders should have been put on trial as were the German and Japanese leaders."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> I keep asking you simple questions that YOU keep avoiding. That makes YOU the chickenshit, big mouth.


the one avoiding answering is YOU,


----------



## toobfreak

Sweet, sweet justice.  All those deaths on the Emperor's hands.

Hope you think Pearl Harbor was worth it!  Now if only we had taken out Tokyo as well.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> estimates were as high as 1 million US wounded and 380,000 killed


But those estimates are kind of bogus. The japanese civilization was beaten doen and the military castrated. Thats an estimate in the extreme event that nearly the entire populace had to be subdued. I get the reason that the estimate was made, but i doubt anyone at any high level actually took that seriously. And if they pretended to do so, it is fair yo question their motives, i would say.


----------



## Unkotare

toobfreak said:


> Sweet, sweet justice.  All those deaths on the Emperor's hands.
> 
> Hope you think Pearl Harbor was worth it!  Now if only we had taken out Tokyo as well.
> 
> .....


Tokyo WAS destroyed, you idiot.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> I'm the palest, map-of-Ireland Bostonian you'll find, and I love pineapple and Spam. Ever try to frolic on Revere Beach? Hardly worth all the time pulling syringes out of your feet later.



But it is a stereotype of Hawaiians.  Even the movie a few years ago "50 First Dates" poked some fun at that.

And for the media, it is easy to see, although there are not many specifically said to be from Okinawa.  But on many it can be inferred.

Iwao Shimabukuro from "Hajime no Ippo" is one.  A boxer known as the "Ryukyu Warrior", he is large, considered by many to be "dim", and is much darker than the other characters from Mainland Japan.  His trainer "Okinawa Coach" 







And in the series "Love Hina", where Mutsumi Otohime is from Okinawa, just outside of Naha.  An airhead, somewhat frail, always confuses people with each other, and has a fascination with sea turtles which always seem to be around her.  She has a fascination with watermelon, and always has a stuffed cat toy with her, even as an adult.






And she is largely just a darker skinned clone visually of the main female character, Naru Narusagawa who lives somewhere near Tokyo.  But Naru is very intelligent and fair skinned, Mutsumi is not.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> But it is a stereotype of Hawaiians. ...


Spam is even more popular in South Korea.


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> but i doubt anyone at any high level actually took that seriously.


They would have been fools not to take the estimates seriously

the planners were experienced in dealing with the japanese having fought them from Guadalcanal to Okinawa


----------



## mikegriffith1

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yet you have not EVER linked to a single supposed veritable supposed valid offer with proof it came from the Japanese Government. You claim all these scholars have proof where is it? I can and have linked to the ACTUAL Japanese intercepts.



This is clown material. We've had this same discussion at least twice, and you just keep repeating your drivel. Now, there are very good, scholarly books that provide detailed discussions on the Japanese peace feelers, the fact that most of them were supported by senior Japanese leaders, and the moderates' efforts--supported by the emperor--to bring about an early surrender. Read Gar Alperovitz's still-unrefuted book _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_, or Washington State University professor Noriko Kawamura's book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War,_ or John Toland's book _The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire_, or Lester Brooks' book _Behind Japan's Surrender_.

Let's review, yet again, the evidence regarding Japan's peace feelers:

-- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.

Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.

-- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.

Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did *not* shut down the approach.

Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.

So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support.

And why were the militarists able to shut down this peace feeler? And why were they able to repeatedly block the moderates' efforts to bring about a surrender? Because they were able to stress that there was no guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. This was militarists' trump card, and they were able to play it over and over again against the moderates, thanks to Truman's foolish, disastrous refusal to simply give a private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed if Japan surrendered.

We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.

On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”

So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.

-- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.

This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.

When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.

We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”

William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.

-- Furthermore, Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.

These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender, _and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb._

Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:

The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., _The Forrestal Diaries_ (New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​
Are you ever going to start telling the truth about this stuff?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is clown material. We've had this same discussion at least twice, and you just keep repeating your drivel. Now, there are very good, scholarly books that provide detailed discussions on the Japanese peace feelers, the fact that most of them were supported by senior Japanese leaders, and the moderates' efforts--supported by the emperor--to bring about an early surrender. Read Gar Alperovitz's still-unrefuted book _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_, or Washington State University professor Noriko Kawamura's book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War,_ or John Toland's book _The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire_, or Lester Brooks' book _Behind Japan's Surrender_.
> 
> The Japanese intercepts, as important as they are, only tell part of the story because they don't discuss some of the peace feelers, since those feelers were presented through back channels and were not the subject of intercepts. But even the intercepts show that many weeks before Hiroshima, most of Japan's civilian leaders, and even some senior military officials, wanted to end the war and surrender. And Truman and his advisers knew this, and they knew that the main stumbling block, the biggest issues, was the fate of the emperor in a surrender.


And YET after the first Atomic bomb the Japanese did not offer to surrender instead making 4 demands.


----------



## mikegriffith1

RetiredGySgt said:


> And YET after the first Atomic bomb the Japanese did not offer to surrender instead making 4 demands.



Gosh, this is idiotic. _The moderates were trying to offer to surrender before and after the first bomb, but the militarists were able to block them because they were able to harp on the fact that there was no guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender_.

And let's review the facts about Japan's peace feelers--again:

-- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.

Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.

-- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.

Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did *not* shut down the approach.

Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.

So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support.

And why were the militarists able to shut down this peace feeler? And why were they able to repeatedly block the moderates' efforts to bring about a surrender? Because they were able to stress that there was no guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. This was militarists' trump card, and they were able to play it over and over again against the moderates, thanks to Truman's foolish, disastrous refusal to simply give a private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed if Japan surrendered.

We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.

On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”

So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.

-- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.

This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.

When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.

We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”

William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.

-- Furthermore, Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.

These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender, _and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb._

Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:

The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., _The Forrestal Diaries_ (New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​
Are you ever going to start telling the truth about this stuff?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Lets discuss these supposed peace feelers shall we? In every case the Japanese in fact did not offer to surrender. They offered a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with no concessions in China. They refused any occupation troops and flatly refused any foreign troops on Japanese soil at all. Their "offer' was so stupid none of the approached Countries  were even willing to be laughed out of the meeting with the US and so did not forward them on.


----------



## Flash

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is clown material. We've had this same discussion at least twice, and you just keep repeating your drivel. Now, there are very good, scholarly books that provide detailed discussions on the Japanese peace feelers, the fact that most of them were supported by senior Japanese leaders, and the moderates' efforts--supported by the emperor--to bring about an early surrender. Read Gar Alperovitz's still-unrefuted book _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_, or Washington State University professor Noriko Kawamura's book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War,_ or John Toland's book _The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire_, or Lester Brooks' book _Behind Japan's Surrender_.
> 
> Let's review, yet again, the evidence regarding Japan's peace feelers:
> 
> -- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.
> 
> Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.
> 
> -- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.
> 
> Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did *not* shut down the approach.
> 
> Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.
> 
> So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support.
> 
> And why were the militarists able to shut down this peace feeler? And why were they able to repeatedly block the moderates' efforts to bring about a surrender? Because they were able to stress that there was no guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. This was militarists' trump card, and they were able to play it over and over again against the moderates, thanks to Truman's foolish, disastrous refusal to simply give a private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed if Japan surrendered.
> 
> We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.
> 
> On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”
> 
> So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.
> 
> -- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.
> 
> This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.
> 
> When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.
> 
> We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”
> 
> William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.
> 
> -- Furthermore, Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.
> 
> These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender, _and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb._
> 
> Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:
> 
> The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., _The Forrestal Diaries_ (New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​
> Are you ever going to start telling the truth about this stuff?


This is really bullshit.

The idiot Jap apologists claim that the goddamn Japs really wanted to surrender but the meannie US just wanted to nuke them.  Horseshit.

The way you surrender is to put down your arms and say "I give up".

If you aren't doing that then you aren't doing it right.  Their negotiations weren't working and it is their own damn fault for fiddle farting around with a country that wanted unconditional surrender.

The goddamn Japs sure as hell didn't put down their arms at Okinawa when they had the perfect chance, did they?

Instead they fought to the last man inflicting tremendous casualties on the US then they go whining like little school girls when they got their asses nuked.   Piss on them!


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> This is really bullshit.
> 
> The idiot Jap apologists claim that the goddamn Japs really wanted to surrender but the meannie US just wanted to nuke them.  Horseshit.
> 
> The way you surrender is to put down your arms and say "I give up".
> 
> If you aren't doing that then you aren't doing it right.  Their negotiations weren't working and it is their own damn fault for fiddle farting around with a country that wanted unconditional surrender.
> 
> The goddamn Japs sure as hell didn't put down their arms at Okinawa when they had the perfect chance, did they?
> 
> Instead they fought to the last man inflicting tremendous casualties on the US then they go whining like little school girls when they got their asses nuked.   Piss on them!


Go take a nap, old fool. You respond to copious amounts of actual researched information with slurs and childish emotion. Act your age.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Go take a nap, old fool. You respond to copious amounts of actual researched information with slurs and childish emotion. Act your age.




Once agin the little punk that never had the courage to serve in the miltary gives us his two cents worth.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Once agin the little punk .....


You're just flailing now, grandma. Go take your nap or no Jell-O for you today.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> You're just flailing now, grandma. Go take your nap or no Jell-O for you today.




Let me ask you a serious question punk.

Didn't you claim one time that you were a public school teacher?

If so why do you spend all day long posting on the internet instead of teaching your students?

You must be a crummy teacher, huh?

Does your school administrator know that you spend all your time on the internet posting hate and stupidity?  Do the parents know that?  I understand you have the time in the summer but you do it even during the school year.

Are you even what you claim you are or are you lying to us?

Don't worry.  I am not a Karen that will track you down and report you.  I really don't give a shit but you need to be honest with the forum members.

My wife was a school teacher for 30 years.  She never had the time to spend doing things like posting on the internet during the school year.  She actually did teaching, unlike you.  You must really be a terrible teacher.  We know you don't know a damn thing about History from your post on this thread, don't we?  Are you a band teacher or something?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Let me ask you a serious question .....


You don't seem to have any serious question to ask. Stay on topic, or start a new thread.


----------



## Flash




----------



## Flash




----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Go take a nap, old fool. You respond to copious amounts of actual researched information with slurs and childish emotion. Act your age.


You have not presented a SINGLE link much less copious amounts.


----------



## Mushroom

mikegriffith1 said:


> Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did *not* shut down the approach.



And what exact authority did he have?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Mushroom said:


> And what exact authority did he have?


The Army ran the Japanese Government not the Navy


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Army ran the Japanese Government not the Navy



Both had equal say in the Supreme War Council.  Often called the "Big Six", those are the only people in the entire nation that could make policy for the country.

Prime Minister, Admiral Suzuki
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Togo
Minister of War, General Anami
Minister of the Navy, Admiral Yonai
Army Chief of Staff, General Umezu
Navy Chief of Staff, Admiral Toyoda

Those six and only those six could make the decision to surrender.  And if you notice, that is 1 civilian, 2 Army Generals, and 3 Admirals.  You are confusing "run the country" with who was physically in control of the land in the nation, with the political power of who ran the country itself.  And while the battles between Army and Navy in Showa era Japan are well known, at this top level they actually worked together fairly well.  It was the lower leadership at the operational levels that had most of the friction.

But it could have been anybody holding those talks, it does not matter if it was Army, Navy, some part of a diplomatic delegation, or anything else.  If they were not sent out at the order of the Big Six, it was meaningless.  They had absolutely no power to negotiate anything.  It would be like if I stepped into a professional sports strike, and said I wanted to negotiate for the players.  I have no authority to do so, and the owners should absolutely ignore anything I try to say.  I have no authority to speak for the players.

The same way that and all the other things like this are meaningless, because they had no authority to hold those talks in the first place.

And the Prime Minister actually swapped several times during the war, before Suzuki it was General Koiso.  Before him, General Tojo.  But the Prime Minister was always the leader of the Taisei Yokusankai, or "Imperial Rule Assistance Association".  Essentially the Japanese equivalent of the "NSDAP".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> They would have been fools not to take the estimates seriously


They would have been fools to take all estimates with equal value. Like you just did to prop up your talking points.


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They would have been fools to take all estimates with equal value.


Oh no I didnt

I trust the planners and the joint chiefs of staff over even eisenhower


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Oh no I didnt
> 
> I trust the planners and the joint chiefs of staff over even eisenhower


How about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> Oh no I didnt
> 
> I trust the planners and the joint chiefs of staff over even eisenhower


Sure you did. Its the only estimate you used or presented. More cheap gaslighting. 

The planners and joint chiefs set the plans and advise. The President chooses one. The joint chiefs were not unanimous.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> How about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?


There was no such person in 1945


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sure you did. Its the only estimate you used or presented. More cheap gaslighting.


they were the ultimate military authority


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> they were the ultimate military authority


Red herring. NWS is the authority on weather. But you won't catch them running around saying the outliers in the hurricane path map are equally likely as any path. This is what you have done, in a dishonest way without qualifications, for emotional effect, in lieu of compelling argument.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> There was no such person in 1945


"Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war."


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war."


Truman created the chairman position in 1949


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> There was no such person in 1945


Actually, at that time we had the  "Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and Special Presidential Military Advisor"  There was no real need for the position of the "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" until the Air Force was founded in 1947 as there were only two branches.

But the equivelent position did exist, it just got renamed after the war.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.



I disagree.
No one ever attacked whole civilian cities before.
For example, when Germany bombed London, they actually only attacked industrial targets, with fairly precise bomb raids.
Only the allies did indiscriminate bombing or deliberate firestorms to wipe out whole cities, like Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, etc.

Just like there are international laws we adhere to, like against poison gas and chemical warfare, nuclear weapons have always been illegal.
Atomic weapons are both poisons and chemical weapons that slowly and painfully kill by illness, not fast kinetic energy weapons.

They are and always will be illegal really.
The fact we used them only meant we did not care, because we did not think ahead to the future when they will be used on us.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> Except that the bombs didn't end the war.  The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.



Actually, if you read "The Potsdam Diary" by Truman, the Japanese had been trying to surrender for over a year, but since there were no official diplomatic relations, they were communicating through Stalin, and Truman told Stalin to pretend to be confused over what they wanted.
They deliberately stalled because they had spend billions on the nuclear weapons, and wanted the opportunity to test and compare the 2 types, plutonium vs uranium.

If you are wondering why Japan was so anxious to surrender, it was because they were being starved to death.
By mining the waters between China and Japan, we prevented the civilian population from obtaining sufficient food.
Called Operation Starvation.








						Operation Starvation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



{,,, *Operation Starvation* was a naval mining operation conducted in World War II by the United States Army Air Forces, in which vital water routes and ports of Japan were mined from the air in order to disrupt enemy shipping.
...
The mission was initiated at the insistence of Admiral Chester Nimitz who wanted his naval operations augmented by an extensive mining of Japan itself conducted by the air force. While General Henry H. Arnold felt this was strictly a naval priority, he assigned General Curtis LeMay to carry it out.

LeMay assigned one group of about 160 aircraft of the 313th Bombardment Wing to the task, with orders to plant 2,000 mines in April 1945. The mining runs were made by individual B-29 Superfortresses at night at moderately low altitudes.[2] Radar provided mine release information.[2] The 313th Bombardment Wing received preliminary training in aerial mining theory while their B-29 aircraft received bomb-bay modification to carry mines.[2] Individual aircrew were then given four to eight training flights involving five radar approaches on each flight and dummy mine drops on the last flight.[2]

Beginning on March 27, 1945, 1,000 parachute-retarded influence mines with magnetic and acoustic exploders were initially dropped, followed by many more, including models with water pressure displacement exploders. This mining proved the most efficient means of destroying Japanese shipping during World War II.[3] In terms of damage per unit of cost, it surpassed strategic bombing and the United States submarine campaign.[3]

Eventually most of the major ports and straits of Japan were repeatedly mined, severely disrupting Japanese logistics and troop movements for the remainder of the war with 35 of 47 essential convoy routes having to be abandoned. For instance, shipping through Kobe declined by 85%, from 320,000 tons in March to only 44,000 tons in July.[4] Operation _Starvation_ sank more ship tonnage in the last six months of the war than the efforts of all other sources combined. The Twentieth Air Force flew 1,529 sorties and laid 12,135 mines in twenty-six fields on forty-six separate missions. Mining demanded only 5.7% of the XXI Bomber Command's total sorties, and only fifteen B-29s were lost in the effort. In return, mines sank or damaged 670 ships totaling more than 1,250,000 tons.[2]
...}


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> Actually, if you read "The Potsdam Diary" by Truman, the Japanese had been trying to surrender for over a year, but since there were no official diplomatic relations, they were communicating through Stalin, and Truman told Stalin to pretend to be confused over what they wanted.
> They deliberately stalled because they had spend billions on the nuclear weapons, and wanted the opportunity to test and compare the 2 types, plutonium vs uranium.


simply not true, We KNOW what Japan offered to the Soviets, a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with no concessions in China.


----------



## Rigby5

RetiredGySgt said:


> simply not true, We KNOW what Japan offered to the Soviets, a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with no concessions in China.



That is untrue.
The only reservation from total unconditional surrender the Japanese wanted, was some sort of protection for the Emperor.
That was because the role of Emperor was more than political, but also religious.

Of course we know exactly what the Japanese offered to the Soviets, but it was absolute.
They were willing to give up everything but the Emperor.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> That is untrue.
> The only reservation from total unconditional surrender the Japanese wanted, was some sort of protection for the Emperor.
> That was because the role of Emperor was more than political, but also religious.
> 
> Of course we know exactly what the Japanese offered to the Soviets, but it was absolute.
> They were willing to give up everything but the Emperor.


Be VERY SPECIFIC and link to the intercept that said that because the only intercepts I saw said wat I said and then another saying don't offer anything.


----------



## Rigby5

RetiredGySgt said:


> Be VERY SPECIFIC and link to the intercept that said that because the only intercepts I saw said wat I said and then another saying don't offer anything.



There were no intercepts involved.
The Soviets were our allies and wanted us to have all the latest communications from the Japanese.
Like I said, read the "Postdam Diaries".
Truman is clear that Stalin told him the Japanese were willing to give unconditional surrender, but were hoping to negotiate some protection of the Emperor.  

{... 

*8/10/45 Diary Entry:*

"Ate lunch at my desk and discussed the Jap offer to surrender which came in a couple of hours earlier. They wanted to make a condition precedent to the surrender. Our terms are 'unconditional'. They wanted to keep the Emperor. We told 'em we'd tell 'em how to keep him, but we'd make the terms."
...}




__





						Hiroshima: The Harry Truman Diary and Papers
					

Harry Truman's Diary and the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima.



					www.doug-long.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> There were no intercepts involved.
> The Soviets were our allies and wanted us to have all the latest communications from the Japanese.
> Like I said, read the "Postdam Diaries".
> Truman is clear that Stalin told him the Japanese were willing to give unconditional surrender, but were hoping to negotiate some protection of the Emperor.
> 
> {...
> 
> *8/10/45 Diary Entry:*
> 
> "Ate lunch at my desk and discussed the Jap offer to surrender which came in a couple of hours earlier. They wanted to make a condition precedent to the surrender. Our terms are 'unconditional'. They wanted to keep the Emperor. We told 'em we'd tell 'em how to keep him, but we'd make the terms."
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: The Harry Truman Diary and Papers
> 
> 
> Harry Truman's Diary and the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> www.doug-long.com


Sorry but we do have the intercepts.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> How many military personnel were killed in the bombings vs how many civilians?


Like it matters--------We were at war with the very EVIL japanese then and they needed to be bombed to stop them from killing others including their own.   It had to be done, and our military did it.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Truman created the chairman position in 1949


You had better hurry and tell the Admiral.


Turtlesoup said:


> Like it matters--------....


What do you think the topic of this thread is, stupid?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> You had better hurry and tell the Admiral.


Why?

you are the one trying to rewrite history


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Why?
> 
> you are the one trying to rewrite history


Because YOU are denying the Admiral's own words? You are suffering from a serious reverse-cognition problem.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Because YOU are denying the Admiral's own words?


Did the admiral promise that japan would not be a divided half communist country after the war?

and its just speculation that no invasion was necessary to begin with


----------



## gipper

Turtlesoup said:


> Like it matters--------We were at war with the very EVIL japanese then and they needed to be bombed to stop them from killing others including their own.   It had to be done, and our military did it.


Yet you don’t think Truman’s mass murdering defenseless women and children was NOT evil. Crazy!!!


_The only obstacle to ending the war months earlier had been the Allied Powers insistence on unconditional surrender (which meant that the emperor could be removed from his figurehead position in Japan and perhaps even brought before a war crimes tribunal). That demand was intolerable for Japan’s military leaders, who regarded the emperor as a deity.


The USSR had declared war against Japan two days after Hiroshima was bombed on August 6. The USSR was hoping to regain some of the territories that had been lost to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War 40 years earlier. Stalin’s army had already begun advancing across Manchuria. Russia’s entry into the war had been encouraged by President Truman before he knew of the success of the atom bomb test in New Mexico on July 16.

But now, knowing how powerful the “Gimmick bomb” was, Truman and his strategists knew that they could force Japan’s surrender without Stalin’s help. So, not wanting to divide any of the spoils of war with the USSR, and because the US wanted to send an early cold war message to the USSR (that the US was the new planetary superpower because it was the only nation that had such powerful weapons), Truman ordered bomber command to deploy the two atomic bombs “as soon as they became available”.

The list of protected cities included Niigata, Kokura, Kyoto, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The intent was to preserve them as potential large population targets for the new weapon that had been developed in labs and manufacturing plants all across America under the auspices of the Manhattan Project.

Prior to August 6 and 9, the residents of those five cities had considered themselves fortunate for not having been fire-bombed as had the other large cities. Little did the residents of the doomed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki know that they were only temporarily being spared a fate far worse than simply being burned to death.
The 77th Anniversary of the Bombing of Nagasaki - LewRockwell_


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> But YOU do?


Certainly you do not.  On an almost daily basis you seem to demand to remain ignorant about the extent to which the Emperor controlled the Japanese people.  
Tens of thousands of military and civilians had already committed suicide and murdered their children rather than surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Certainly you do not.  On an almost daily basis you seem to demand to remain ignorant about the extent to which the Emperor controlled the Japanese people.
> Tens of thousands of military and civilians had already committed suicide and murdered their children rather than surrender.


Read the thread before bringing up points that have already been addressed several times.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare
unkotare \ woon-ko-ta-re \ , noun;Japanese. Roughly translated as dripping poop. This word is used to describe a pornographic genre commonly known as Scat.


----------



## Markle

The anti-nuke cult can hypothize about whether the two bombs should have been dropped or not.  Perhaps it gives them a false sense of superiority.

The bottom line is dropping the two bombs ENDED the war in weeks.  Their battle plan did NOT.

QED


----------



## Unkotare

Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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."*


----------



## Mushroom

Rigby5 said:


> Only the allies did indiscriminate bombing or deliberate firestorms to wipe out whole cities, like Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, etc.



That is only because neither the Germans, Italians, or Japanese invested much into heavy bombers.  All three of those powers saw little use in such aircraft, and they are pretty much required if one is going to do massive bombing raids.

And the single Heavy Bomber that the Germans developed was essentially a flop.  The He-177 was not ready for use until 1942, and it had serious issues.  A weak frame, underpowered and slow, and with a low bomb load.  And they were prone to mechanical failure and with catching fire that was never explained.  And as with all other German Bombers, it was required to largely perform as a dive bomber.  That stupid mandate prevented Germany from ever putting much into anything above small to medium bombers.

In one mission, 14 were assembled for a raid on London.  One burst a tire on the runway.  Eight more returned to base after taking off with either engine failure, or engines on fire.  One was lost on approach to British night fighters, so only 4 of the 14 designated for the mission actually dropped bombs on target.

And the largest missions of the war for the He-177 were raids on Moscow.  The largest in July 1944, where they managed to amass only 87 aircraft.  But each bomber only had four 500 pound bombs, or a two 1,000 pound bomb.  That makes it not even half the bomb load of a long range B-17 mission, and a quarter of the bomb load of a short range B-17 mission.  And the US built over 10 times the number of B-17 bombers (12,731) than Germany did the He-177 (1,169).

Italy was even worse, with only 36 P.108 bombers built.  They were constantly plagued by problems also, and by 1943 they only had 8 that were operational.  At the time of the surrender, Italy had managed to return only 9 to operational condition.  And all were converted to cargo aircraft because they were failures as bombers.

And for the Japanese, it was the Mitsubishi G3M "Nell" bomber.  Japan built 1,048 and they were very effective in carpet bombing cities in China.  But it was only a medium bomber, with a payload of only 1,800 pounds.  They did not have the range to attack the advancing Allied forces closing in on Japan, and by 1943 were largely relegated to long range reconnaissance.  The Allies did not even get to within range of these bombers until July 1945 when they invaded Okinawa.  And even then, their longest range fighter (Nakajima Ki-84 "Frank") was the only possible fighter they had to escort it.  

But Germany did develop both the V-1 and V-2, and launched thousands of them.  Large areas of London were leveled by them.


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sorry but we do have the intercepts.


Hell, we had already broken both their Naval Code, as well as their Diplomatic Code.  We were reading their instructions to their Ambassador to the Soviets, and his responses back to Tokyo.  And even he was telling his leadership that the attempt to arrange an armistice (not surrender, armistice) was doomed to failure because the Japanese leadership itself was unwilling to negotiate or compromise on any of their demands.

When even your own ambassador to a foreign nation is telling you that your demands were impossible, then it is obvious they never had any intention of "surrender".  They still thought they were winning the war, and that nobody would ever conquer them.  

I posted this before, here it is yet again.



> Sato explained his duty as he saw it: “my first responsibility [is] to prevent the harboring of illusions which are at variance with reality.” The critical illusion his cables exposed is the myth that Japan’s leaders were near to ending the war by diplomacy prior to Hiroshima. Moreover, American code breaking delivered to American leaders, starting with President Harry S. Truman, Sato’s withering cross examination of Japanese diplomacy in his cables with Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo in Tokyo.
> 
> The sole Japanese diplomatic effort sanctioned by the key Japanese leadership was to secure the Soviet Union as a mediator to negotiate an end to the war. That effort ran through Sato. Decoded Japanese cables made American leaders fully aware that none of the Japanese diplomatic or military representatives in Europe who presented themselves as seeking peace on behalf of Japan carried actual sanction.
> 
> Japan’s one authorized diplomatic initiative required two things: 1) concessions that would enlist the Soviets as mediators; and 2) Japanese terms to end the war. Sato relentlessly exposed the fact that Japan never completed either of these two fundamental steps.
> 
> When Togo presented a pledge not to retain Japan’s conquests as “concessions” to secure Soviet mediation, Sato’s scathing reply was “How much effect do you expect our statements regarding the non-annexation and non-possession of territories which we have already lost or are about to lose will have on the Soviet authorities?” He added that mere “abstract statements” on concessions, which he slammed as “pretty little phrases devoid of all connection with reality,” would have no impact on “extremely realistic” Soviet authorities.   And he then inserted the knife thrust: “If the Japanese empire is really faced with the necessity of terminating the war, we must first of all make up our minds to terminate the war.” Sato thus charged that Japan’s leaders still lacked a real intent to end the war.
> 
> Togo’s reply acknowledged that Tokyo knew securing Soviet services for a proposal to send Prince Fumimaro Konoe, a former prime minister, to Moscow for talks would be difficult. Togo affirmed that Japan would not accept anything like unconditional surrender. Konoe represented the will of the emperor and he would have “positive intentions” to “negotiate details” to set up “a cooperative relationship between Japan and Russia.” Again, Togo only offered more of the “pretty little phrases” Sato had condemned.
> 
> Sato then went for the jugular. He insisted that the crucial proof that Japan seriously sought an end to the war would be a statement of Japan’s peace terms. Togo could not provide terms because even within the tiny inner circle who authorized the Soviet initiative, there was never serious discussion, much less agreement, on actual Japanese terms to end the war. This was clear both from Togo’s inability to present such terms to Sato and confirmed in post-war interviews with key officials who admitted they never agreed on concessions to obtain Soviet mediation, much less peace terms.











						"Pretty Little Phrases": Japanese Diplomacy in 1945 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans
					

Misguided Japanese diplomacy in 1945 helped to ensure that the war would not have a peaceful end.




					www.nationalww2museum.org


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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."*



Fine, show us where the "Big Six" in any of their meetings prior to 6 August 1945 voted in any way other than 6 to 1 to continue the war forever no matter what, or where they actually arranged to offer any kind of reasonable terms to the Allies.

Anything said by anybody other than those Six individuals is absolutely meaningless.


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## Unkotare

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is clown material. We've had this same discussion at least twice, and you just keep repeating your drivel. Now, there are very good, scholarly books that provide detailed discussions on the Japanese peace feelers, the fact that most of them were supported by senior Japanese leaders, and the moderates' efforts--supported by the emperor--to bring about an early surrender. Read Gar Alperovitz's still-unrefuted book _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_, or Washington State University professor Noriko Kawamura's book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War,_ or John Toland's book _The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire_, or Lester Brooks' book _Behind Japan's Surrender_.
> 
> Let's review, yet again, the evidence regarding Japan's peace feelers:
> 
> -- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.
> 
> Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.
> 
> -- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.
> 
> Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did *not* shut down the approach.
> 
> Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.
> 
> So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support.
> 
> And why were the militarists able to shut down this peace feeler? And why were they able to repeatedly block the moderates' efforts to bring about a surrender? Because they were able to stress that there was no guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. This was militarists' trump card, and they were able to play it over and over again against the moderates, thanks to Truman's foolish, disastrous refusal to simply give a private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed if Japan surrendered.
> 
> We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.
> 
> On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”
> 
> So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.
> 
> -- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.
> 
> This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.
> 
> When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.
> 
> We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”
> 
> William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.
> 
> -- Furthermore, Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.
> 
> These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender, _and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb._
> 
> Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:
> 
> The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., _The Forrestal Diaries_ (New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​
> Are you ever going to start telling the truth about this stuff?


^^^^^


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> View attachment 524823



And once again, you make no significant reply when confronted with the simple facts that Japan was not trying to surrender.

They were only willing to consider an armistice.  One that even their own ambassador said was a joke nobody would listen to.

An armistice is not a surrender.


----------



## Mushroom

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is clown material. We've had this same discussion at least twice, and you just keep repeating your drivel. Now, there are very good, scholarly books that provide detailed discussions on the Japanese peace feelers



And exactly which ones were sent by "The Big Six"?  What terms were they instructing any of these "feelers" were they willing to offer to end the war?

Because the only single mission they ever actually sent out was that of Ambassador Sato to the Soviets.  One even the Ambassador himself said would fail because the Big Six were not serious about surrender.

Without authority, nothing said in any "feelers" means anything.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> And once again, you make no significant reply when confronted with the simple facts that Japan was not trying to surrender.
> 
> They were only willing to consider an armistice.  One that even their own ambassador said was a joke nobody would listen to.
> 
> An armistice is not a surrender.


Second column, under the photo.








						Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
					

Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## Unkotare

mikegriffith1 said:


> Gosh, this is idiotic. _The moderates were trying to offer to surrender before and after the first bomb, but the militarists were able to block them because they were able to harp on the fact that there was no guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender_.
> 
> And let's review the facts about Japan's peace feelers--again:
> 
> -- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.
> 
> Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.
> 
> -- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.
> 
> Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did *not* shut down the approach.
> 
> Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.
> 
> So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support.
> 
> And why were the militarists able to shut down this peace feeler? And why were they able to repeatedly block the moderates' efforts to bring about a surrender? Because they were able to stress that there was no guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. This was militarists' trump card, and they were able to play it over and over again against the moderates, thanks to Truman's foolish, disastrous refusal to simply give a private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed if Japan surrendered.
> 
> We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.
> 
> On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”
> 
> So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.
> 
> -- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.
> 
> This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.
> 
> When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.
> 
> We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”
> 
> William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.
> 
> -- Furthermore, Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.
> 
> These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender, _and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb._
> 
> Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:
> 
> The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., _The Forrestal Diaries_ (New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​
> Are you ever going to start telling the truth about this stuff?


^^^^^^^


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> I disagree.
> No one ever attacked whole civilian cities before.
> *For example, when Germany bombed London, they actually only attacked industrial targets, with fairly precise bomb raids.
> Only the allies did indiscriminate bombing or deliberate firestorms to wipe out whole cities, like Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, etc.
> 
> Just like there are international laws we adhere to, like against poison gas and chemical warfare, nuclear weapons have always been illegal.*
> Atomic weapons are both poisons and chemical weapons that slowly and painfully kill by illness, not fast kinetic energy weapons.
> 
> *They are and always will be illegal really.*
> The fact we used them only meant we did not care, because we did not think ahead to the future when they will be used on us.









You really need to do some serious research.  You're 100% wrong.  It is so obvious that it can't be that you're lying, rather you are ignorant.

Why not accept the FACTS?

You are obviously ignorant about the viciousness and atrocities committed by Japan when they invaded China.  The same with Germany when they invaded Western Europe and Russia.

There were NO military targets in London.  A Nazi bomber was off course and dumped their bombs which happened to be over London.  England retaliated by bombing cities in Germany.  Nazi Germany then began the bombing of London in earnest.  Saying that the Nazis were using targeted bombing is just foolish.  Were the Nazis using targeted bombing when they were launching thousands of V-1 and V-2 bombs on England?  Of course not.

There was TOTAL WAR.  That's not just a term, it is a description of the situation.  Yes, a few things were off-limits, poison gas for instance.

Saying that nuclear weapons are illegal is foolish.  I understand your link to poison gas but the world has no such law.  You may not like it, but try to deal in the real world.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> ...
> 
> You are obviously ignorant about the viciousness and atrocities committed by Japan when they invaded China.  ...


A lot of people keep saying that, but no one has denied or disputed it.


----------



## Flash

All the Japs had to do to surrender was lay down their arms.

They didn't do that until they were nuked.

They should have done it sooner.


----------



## Markle

Flash said:


> View attachment 524384









You might be right.  I'm really old and my Ol' Man lost his leg fighting with Patton in the Battle of the Bulge.

Here is where he is telling my Mom that he is with the 3rd Army, Patton's command.  It was bitter cold and the fighting was fierce.  My Dad just said "we didn't have it bad, considering the circumstances.





After months of having her letters returned marked, "NO RECORD".  She received this telegram in March of 1945.


----------



## Flash

If the Japs had surrendered on 1 April 1945 the 100,000 soldiers that died on Okinawa would have lived.  So would the 100,000 civilians on the island.  In addition 20,000 Americans killed.  So would the civilians killed in the firebombing of Japan and the nuclear bombing.

By that time the Japs had lost the heart of their Army, most of their air power and almost all of their Navy.  They were defeated.

But the idiots didn't lay down their arms.  Instead the sonofabitches were assholes and fought to the last man and they paid the price.

Assholes got their due.  The blood shed in the nuclear attacks are on the hands of the idiot Jap leadership.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Second column, under the photo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com



You once again miss it.  Show me where in any of the meetings the Big Six authorized such an offer.

You are missing over and over that this is a claim by General MacArthur.  Yet not a single mention is ever made of this in any meeting of the Big Six.  Which is why I keep asking over and over again where they authorized such an offer.  Because none exist, and your article never says where it came from.  This is why you keep failing.


----------



## Mushroom

Flash said:


> But the idiots didn't lay down their arms. Instead the sonofabitches were assholes and fought to the last man and they paid the price.



Which they did all during the war.  When the Marines landed on Tarawa, there were over 4,700 Japanese soldiers on it.  Only 17 were alive at the end of the battle.

There were over 20,000 Japanese troops on Iwo Jima.  At the end of the battle, only 216 were alive.  Entire Regiments and Battalions that were out of food and ammunition charged American lines with bayonets, willing to die rather than surrender.  In both of those battles, most of those captured were already injured and unable to resist.

People keep forgetting, this is not like any enemy the US had ever fought before.  One that literally would fight to the death, no matter what.  In most cases, that was only a metaphor.  But to the Japanese, that was a reality.

Why would they behave any differently, just because we were preparing to land on Japan itself?  Anybody that believes they would suddenly decide to just up and quite is a fool.  They had already proven they would do things seen nowhere on the planet if the alternative was surrender.  The bombs shocked the leadership to reality.  And they realized there would be no courageous last stand.  The Allies would just bomb them into oblivion with no effort from a mile in the air.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> A lot of people keep saying that, but no one has denied or disputed it.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Second column, under the photo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


That doesn't say what you wish it said.  It says that they were unofficial offers and part of 45 pages which we never see.  In addition, it is an article written twenty years after the event.

One out of five supposed proposals is shown.  I read just this one and there is not a word spoken about the Emperor.  That is one of the most important issues in the surrender.  Do you disagree that there is no mention of the Emperor of Japan?  If you do, please point it out for all of us.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> and its just speculation that no invasion was necessary to begin with


* thanks to dropping nukes

What an absurd thing for you to say, in this context.


----------



## Flash

This flag could have saved the lives of hundred of thousands of Japs.  They didn't use it until the hundred of thousands had needlessly died.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> That doesn't say what you wish it said.  It says that they were unofficial offers and part of 45 pages which we never see.  In addition, it is an article written twenty years after the event.
> 
> One out of five supposed proposals is shown.  I read just this one and there is not a word spoken about the Emperor.  That is one of the most important issues in the surrender.  Do you disagree that there is no mention of the Emperor of Japan?  If you do, please point it out for all of us.


The exact same terms we eventually accepted anyway. Are you having a hard time grasping this?


----------



## AZrailwhale

JoeB131 said:


> Except that the bombs didn't end the war.  The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.


If that’s the case, why did combat with the Soviets go on for long after the peace treaty was signed?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

AZrailwhale said:


> If that’s the case, why did combat with the Soviets go on for long after the peace treaty was signed?


Soviet land grab


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Read the thread before bringing up points that have already been addressed several times.


That is because the FACTS do not change with your wishes.  Repeating your malarkey, time, after time, after time does not make them right, just old.  Therefore, you get the same answers.  Why would you get a different answer?

What is that definition of insanity?  Oh yeah, Unkotare's motto.  “*Insanity* is *repeating* *the* *same* *mistakes* and expecting different results.”


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> The exact same terms we eventually accepted anyway. Are you having a hard time grasping this?


Why do you lie so much?  Just to enhance your image as a worthless Troll?

You forgot to show us all where the Japanese would remove their Emperor from power.  Oops.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> That is because the FACTS do not change with your wishes.  .....


YOU seem to think that "fact" = what you want to believe and nothing else. That is NOT the case. You keep playing Twister to avoid the actual topic of this thread.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Why do you lie so much?  .....


I have provided documented sources over and over and over, as have others. You ignore "facts" and then squawk about "lies."


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> ...
> 
> You forgot to show us all where the Japanese would remove their Emperor from power.  Oops.


You keep forgetting that we allowed that condition.


----------



## Markle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Soviet land grab


*STOP THE PRESSES!  STOP THE PRESSES!*

Markle and Fort Fun Indiana agree on something!


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> You keep forgetting that we allowed that condition.








As you know, he was stripped of all his power and was maintained as a figurehead.  Not unlike the King and/or Queen of England.

Prior to that change.

"Although by convention Hirohito behaved as a constitutional monarch, the Meiji Constitution granted him absolute power – he was after all enshrined as a God. On three separate occasions during his rule he had demonstrated his absolute powers; in 1929 he forced the resignation of his prime minister; in 1936 he overruled his military advisors to insist on the harshest treatment of the young officers involved in the coup d’etat known as the 26 February Incident in 1945; and finally in August 1945 he overruled his advisors by insisting on a Japanese surrender. Hirohito had the power to stop Japan’s military adventurism in the 1930s but chose not to."

"Furthermore, although the Emperor’s court papers were destroyed before the Allies could seize them, it seems clear from contemporary accounts that as Japan’s war situation deteriorated, that he became increasingly shrill in his criticisms of the military, and more insistent on his own strategic suggestions."  [Identical to the actions of Adolph Hitler]

"
The Rape of Nanking was widely reported in the Japanese Press, even relaying in gory detail a competition between officers as to who could cut off most Chinese heads. Hirohito could not have been unaware of these reports particularly as his own family was closely involved in the atrocities in China. His own uncle, Prince Asaka had commanded the Japanese troops at Nanking. As a reward Hirohito gifted Asaka a pair of silver vases and they also resumed their regular games of golf.

In a genocide that killed 20 to 30 million Chinese, the Emperor’s relation, Field Marshal Prince Kanin, gave the authorization for the use of gas. Prince Mikasa, Hirohito’s youngest brother, even visited Unit 731 in Manchurian where live vivisection and other experiments were carried out on Chinese and western prisoners. Although unproven, it seems highly unlikely that the inquisitive Hirohito would have been uninformed by his relatives of these activities conducted by the Japanese Army. Like Hirohito, all the imperial family was excused prosecution at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal."





__





						Five Myths About Emperor Hirohito |  History News         Network
					






					historynewsnetwork.org


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> As you know, he was stripped of all his power and was maintained as a figurehead.  Not unlike the King and/or Queen of England.
> 
> Prior to that change.
> 
> "Although by convention Hirohito behaved as a constitutional monarch, the Meiji Constitution granted him absolute power – he was after all enshrined as a God. ....


You keep talking about "facts" but you are painfully ignorant  of this subject.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> I have provided documented sources over and over and over, as have others. You ignore "facts" and then squawk about "lies."


You have provided a single source ad nauseum, with nothing to back it up, and no explanation of when the Big Six ever discussed it prior to 6 August.


----------



## Mushroom

Markle said:


> As you know, he was stripped of all his power and was maintained as a figurehead. Not unlike the King and/or Queen of England.


The Emperor never really had any power.

The most he could ever do is arrange for one of the members in the cabinet to advance something he wished to have debated.  But they were forbidden to say it was from him, it was always advanced as that member's position, and then the other five members would discuss it and vote.  As he sat behind a screen and said absolutely nothing.  The only time he was allowed to actually say or vote on anything is in the event that they were deadlocked at 3-3 and could not make a decision.  Not unlike the Vice President in the Senate.

However, that happened only one time in the entire history of the Cabinet.  And that was when they were finally deadlocked at 3-3 after the bombing of Nagasaki, and the entrance of the Soviet Union into the war.

Admiral Toyoda was the first of the Big Six to defect and start to urge the council to end the war.  And there has been much speculation over the years if that was done at the request of the Emperor or not.  But it must be remembered, that was on the evening of 6 August.  And it was not until the evening of 9 August, 3 days later that he was joined by Togo and Suzuki.  Which left the cabinet deadlocked at 3-3.

And here is the key.  They were also proposing a settlement even if they decided to end the war.  And this is very important.  All 6 of them still agreed that there would be no occupation, no disarmament, no war crime trials, and no occupation.  They all agreed that those were requirements of a surrender, but the remaining three hardliners still insisted that they fight on to the bitter end.

It was only in the early morning of 10 August that Prime Minister Suzuki finally declared them to be hopelessly deadlocked.  And for the first time ever, the final resolution was handed over to the Emperor.  Who threw out their joint decision, and ordered them to accept a slightly modified Potsdam Declaration.  With only the Imperial family remain in office.  He was even willing if required to face trial and execution himself, so long as the Imperial Line remained on the throne.

And offer that he later repeated to General MacArthur himself, but was declined.


----------



## Quasar44

I think the second nuke had to happen as Japan was never going to surrender


----------



## DudleySmith

Markle said:


> There was TOTAL WAR. That's not just a term, it is a description of the situation. Yes, a few things were off-limits, poison gas for instance.



Even though it was never used, the Brits knew the bombings were coming, same as the zeppelins did in WW II; they had a yellow paint that would change colors that would tell a person there was gas being used and the Brtis painted their mailboxes with it in the lead up to the Germans taking France. They saw what happened to Rotterdam. They assumed London would be entirely rubble in the first bombing run, which didn't turn out to be quite true, thankfully.


----------



## DudleySmith

Mac-7 said:


> There was no such person in 1945


The kid is  complete idiot.


----------



## gipper

Quasar44 said:


> I think the second nuke had to happen as Japan was never going to surrender


You just admitted to knowing nothing about the topic. You’re better off posting inane threads about your business and it’s customers.


----------



## Quasar44

gipper 
Do folks get sick of them 
I love posting them


----------



## DudleySmith

Flash said:


> This is really bullshit.
> 
> The idiot Jap apologists claim that the goddamn Japs really wanted to surrender but the meannie US just wanted to nuke them.  Horseshit.
> 
> The way you surrender is to put down your arms and say "I give up".
> 
> If you aren't doing that then you aren't doing it right.  Their negotiations weren't working and it is their own damn fault for fiddle farting around with a country that wanted unconditional surrender.
> 
> The goddamn Japs sure as hell didn't put down their arms at Okinawa when they had the perfect chance, did they?
> 
> Instead they fought to the last man inflicting tremendous casualties on the US then they go whining like little school girls when they got their asses nuked.   Piss on them!



We learned from the mistake in WW I, not occupying Germany and demonstrating without a doubt they lost the war. That failure played a large role in leading to WW II.


----------



## gipper

DudleySmith said:


> We learned from the mistake in WW I, not occupying Germany and demonstrating without a doubt they lost the war. That failure played a large role in leading to WW II.


Wrong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> You just admitted to knowing nothing about the topic. You’re better off posting inane threads about your business and it’s customers.


And yet not one of you can link to a single offer of surrender.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> The exact same terms we eventually accepted anyway. Are you having a hard time grasping this?


Seriously, what is wrong with you?  You think the japanese would have unconditionally surrendered if not bombed?  WTH is wrong with you.   Their evil leader up till that point thought he could do anything and get away with it----it wasn't till they were bombed that he stopped doing whatever killing he wanted and surrendered.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet not one of you can link to a single offer of surrender.


There it is again. Dumb!  I’ve given you proof multiple times over the years, but you’re a closed minded imperialist.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> There it is again. Dumb!  I’ve given you proof multiple times over the years, but you’re a closed minded imperialist.


you have NEVER linked to any sourced surrender offer by the big 6 EVER. No one has.


----------



## Flash

Mushroom said:


> All 6 of them still agreed that there would be no occupation, no disarmament, no war crime trials, and no occupation.


That is not surrender.  That is a cease fire.

If you are getting your ass kicked you would much rather have a cease fire than an unconditional surrender any day, wouldn't you?  

No wonder we had to use nukes to get their attention.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Seriously, what is wrong with you?  You think the japanese would have unconditionally surrendered if not bombed?  WTH is wrong with you.   Their evil leader up till that point thought he could do anything and get away with it----it wasn't till they were bombed that he stopped doing whatever killing he wanted and surrendered.


Seems like you learned history from coloring books. Facts have been posted over and over again. You just deny and emote.


----------



## Flash

The thing these stupid uneducated Jap apologists always seem to forget is that  for all the scenarios for ending the war with unconditional surrender the nuking probably produced the fewest number of Jap casualties not including allied casualties.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> The thing these stupid uneducated apologists always seem to forget is that  for all the scenarios for ending the war with unconditional surrender the nuking probably produced the fewest number of casualties not including allied casualties.


Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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.*"


----------



## Mac-7

DudleySmith said:


> The kid is complete idiot.


He’s got Yellow Fevor

Unkotare got the admiral’s title wrong, but I accept that he was a high muckity muck in the Pentagon

even higher than most other flag officers of which they were as common as cockroaches by 1945

and from that high number a few disagree with dropping the bomb

big deal


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> .... I accept that he was a high muckity muck in the Pentagon
> ....


How big of you to recognize reality for once. 


Still haven't seen a moral justification for dropping atomic bombs on civilians that doesn't rely on assumption and speculation. The mere _consideration_ that the choice to use the bomb was unnecessary and/or immoral sends the simple minded into emotive hysteria. Children don't take well to questioning comfortable narratives that they need to make their world palatable.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Still haven't seen a moral justification for dropping atomic bombs on civilians that doesn't rely on assumption and speculation.


You speculate that japan would have surrendered without an invasion which is the real leap of faith


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> You speculate that Japan would have surrendered without an invasion which the real leap of faith


Since there were verified attempts at offering terms of surrender (per significant evidence posted here many times), it is not such a great leap.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Since there were verified attempts at offering terms of surrender (per significant evidence posted here many times), it is not such a great leap.


That been exposed as a half truth many times by others here

the japanese were never committed to surrender with disarmament and occupation


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> That been exposed as a half truth many times by others here
> ....


So you insist despite all the evidence to the contrary. Your position depends entirely on denying even the slightest possibility that it may have been so. Even the slightest possibility.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> So you insist despite all the evidence to the contrary.


There is no evidence other that the opinions of a few officers


----------



## DudleySmith

Mac-7 said:


> He’s got Yellow Fevor
> 
> Unkotare got the admiral’s title wrong, but I accept that he was a high muckity muck in the Pentagon
> 
> even higher than most other flag officers of which they were as common as cockroaches by 1945
> 
> and from that high number a few disagree with dropping the bomb
> 
> big deal



At the time they didn't really know what the nukes were or what their effects would be. We do know they pretty much single-handedly shut down 'total war' tactics in favor of relatively low intensity proxy conflicts from then on, and we should all be very grateful for that, since the lives saved globally are far far greater than the million or so lives of servicemen of our own.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> There is no evidence other that the opinions of a few officers


That is not true, as has been demonstrated here many times.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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.*"




Then why didn't the fuckers surrender?

Hell the bastards continued to fight even during the interlude between the two bombings.

You are not too bight, are you?

Maybe since you did not have the courage to ever serve in the military you don't understand things like this.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> There is no evidence other that the opinions of a few officers


"Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that *"we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it." *

Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that *the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. *He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." 

Or take Ed Everts, a major in the 7th weather squadron of the Army Air Corps. Everts, who received an air medal for surviving a crash at sea during the battle at Iwo Jima, told us that America's use of atomic bombs was "a war crime" for which "our leaders should have been put on trial as were the German and Japanese leaders."


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> .....
> 
> Maybe since you did not have the courage to ever serve in the military you don't understand things like this.


That logical fallacy hasn't and isn't going to work for you, grandma.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> That is not true, as has been demonstrated here many times.


You demonstrated nothing except to drop the opinions of a few officers


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> "Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that *"we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it." *
> 
> Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that *the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. *He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima."
> 
> Or take Ed Everts, a major in the 7th weather squadron of the Army Air Corps. Everts, who received an air medal for surviving a crash at sea during the battle at Iwo Jima, told us that America's use of atomic bombs was "a war crime" for which "our leaders should have been put on trial as were the German and Japanese leaders."


Thats 3 enlisted men to go along with a few officers

they are entitled to their opinion 

but far more know the atomic bomb saved lives and prevented post war japan from being a divided country


----------



## Mushroom

DudleySmith said:


> not occupying Germany and demonstrating without a doubt they lost the war



They did not lose the war.  WWI ended in an armistice, not a surrender.

Which is why all the Allies agreed that this time around all of the Axis powers had to surrender, and they would not accept an armistice.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> Thats 3 enlisted men to go along with a few officers
> ....


How many do you need? 1000? 100,000? More? How about instead of losing the argument on mathematical grounds you try defending your position on moral grounds that do NOT rely on assumptions that are in dispute to say the least?


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war.



And was the Admiral a member of the Big Six?  Did he have any input as to the actual surrender in the Japanese government?

No?  Then his opinion matters about as much as a bowl of dog snot.


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> You speculate that japan would have surrendered without an invasion which is the real leap of faith



Well, since the day before the first bomb they voted 6-0 to continue the war no matter what, and by the time of the second bomb that had changed to a staggering 5-1 to continue the war no matter what, and even after two bombs the most they could do was deadlock, I think it's safe to say that even after two bombs, they only barely surrendered.

Because as sure as yen for yeast, if the Emperor voted for them to continue fighting, they would have done exactly that.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> And was the Admiral a member of the Big Six?  Did he have any input as to the actual surrender in the Japanese government?
> 
> No?  Then his opinion matters about as much as a bowl of dog snot.


Lots of yeahbutts.......


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> How many do you need? 1000? 100,000? More?


How about the writings of the only 6 men in the planet that really matter?

You know, the Big Six?  The very ones you keep ignoring over and over again, and giving us the opinions of almost everybody but them.

Is like you keep telling us over and over about Germany about to surrender, but give us the opinions of everybody but Hitler.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Lots of yeahbutts.......



Not at all.  Only 6 people had that power.  Nobody else in the world.

I am sure I could find identical beliefs floating around that German was about to surrender, we did not have to do the firebombings, or let the Soviets destroy Berlin.

And we know for a fact that also is a lie.  Because the Soviets were literally within a stone throw of the bunker Hitler was hiding in when he ate his Walther sandwich.

Ultimately, opinions are like an anus.  Everybody has one, and a lot of them stink.  I do not care about opinions, I care about facts.  So unless you can present an opinion from one of the Big Six, it is meaningless.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Seems like you learned history from coloring books. Facts have been posted over and over again. You just deny and emote.


I've done what?  The only thing that I have done was point out a clear fucking fact---without the bombs, the japanese god-emperor would not have unconditionally surrendered causing millions of more deaths for both sides.  Its some serious crazy shit that you are claiming that isnt the case.      If you think that coloring books teach common sense and actual history, then you should be doing some coloring of your own because you either know shit or are spewing it hoping that no one catches you with your bizarre off the wall claims.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> try defending your position on moral grounds


I already have 

the bomb saved lives and prevented a divided japan


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> How about the writings of the only 6 men in the planet that really matter?
> 
> You know, the Big Six?  The very ones you keep ignoring over and over again, and giving us the opinions of almost everybody but them.
> 
> Is like you keep telling us over and over about Germany about to surrender, but give us the opinions of everybody but Hitler.


Long, well documented post about exactly that have been posted here over and over again. They are ignored and then the same argument put  forth again. It’s just a circular waste of time. Make a personal moral argument about the topic of the thread without making claims that cannot be categorically supported one way or the other.


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> I already have
> 
> the bomb saved lives and prevented a divided japan


Speculation


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Seems like you learned history from coloring books. Facts have been posted over and over again. You just deny and emote.


No facts have been posted you and no one else has EVER linked to a reliable source for ANY of your claims.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Since there were verified attempts at offering terms of surrender (per significant evidence posted here many times), it is not such a great leap.


You nor anyone else has linked to ANY such offer.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Long, well documented post about exactly that have been posted here over and over again. They are ignored and then the same argument put  forth again. It’s just a circular waste of time. Make a personal moral argument about the topic of the thread without making claims that cannot be categorically supported one way or the other.



Of course it's a waste of time.  Because you never talk about anybody that actually has the power to negotiate such a surrender.  Or that the actual leaders of the nation ever had any consideration of surrender.

Poopy, I am still laughing at your claims as they are worthless.  Might as well try to claim some Private in the Iraqi Army in 1991 had the power to surrender in Kuwait.


----------



## DudleySmith

Mushroom said:


> They did not lose the war.  WWI ended in an armistice, not a surrender.
> 
> Which is why all the Allies agreed that this time around all of the Axis powers had to surrender, and they would not accept an armistice.



They got beat. Wilson's attempts to sign a unilateral peace with Germany behind his allies' backs made them distrust him completely and rather than chase the routed German army back into Germany they sued for peace in order to keep America from dominating he victory for its own benefit. The Germans were fully defeated and their front collapsed, which is how the allies later pushed through the Versailles Treaty with Germany unable to do a damn thing about it. That 'armistice' later became a major selling point for Nazis, claiming the 'stab in the back' rubbish. The terms dictated to Germany were terms offered a defeated enemy; they had no choice but to accept the terms, something they would not have done if they were still capable of fighting.

Anybody who doubts this can read *Cataclysm: WW I as Political Tragedy* by David Stephenson,  by far one of the best and latest books out there on WW I.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> "Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that *"we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it." *
> 
> Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that *the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. *He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima."
> 
> Or take Ed Everts, a major in the 7th weather squadron of the Army Air Corps. Everts, who received an air medal for surviving a crash at sea during the battle at Iwo Jima, told us that America's use of atomic bombs was "a war crime" for which "our leaders should have been put on trial as were the German and Japanese leaders."



Anecdotal stories from a cook at Fort Sill or whatever don't amount to squat as 'proof' of anything. Out of 160 million people you could find at least 100 people who claim the moon was made of blue cheese.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


*The Yellow Yell and Hollow Fools Follow*

Pacifists are cowards and traitors.  If Americans were aware of that, they would eliminate the Conscientious Objector draft exemption.  And they would charge you with treason.


----------



## DudleySmith

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *The Yellow Yell and Hollow Fools Follow*
> 
> Pacifists are cowards and traitors.  If Americans were aware of that, they would eliminate the Conscientious Objector draft exemption.  And they would charge you with treason.



Actually CO status didn't automatically exempt anyone from being drafted; lots of CO's served, and served in Nam. Not all CO's were pacifists, either; some had Constitutional objections and other reasons and were volunteers, not draftees.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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.*"


Dodging the issue.  I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY?


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> How many do you need? 1000? 100,000? More? How about instead of losing the argument on mathematical grounds you try defending your position on moral grounds that do NOT rely on assumptions that are in dispute to say the least?


----------



## Mushroom

DudleySmith said:


> They got beat. Wilson's attempts to sign a unilateral peace with Germany behind his allies' backs made them distrust him completely and rather than chase the routed German army back into Germany they sued for peace in order to keep America from dominating he victory for its own benefit. The Germans were fully defeated and their front collapsed, which is how the allies later pushed through the Versailles Treaty with Germany unable to do a damn thing about it.


Actually, they did not get beat.  Not a single foreign soldier had stepped their foot inside of Germany.  The entire "Western Front" was well inside of France when the war ended.  What happened was that the German Government collapsed, and the new interim one requested an armistice that was granted.

They were not beat, their front did not collapse.  In fact, they were already sending even more soldiers to the West after the end of the fighting with the Russians when their government collapsed.  And would likely have rebuilt over the winter, and started an even stronger offensive when the snows melted.

Sorry, you have been listening to some really bad propaganda.  There is a reason why WWI ended with an armistice.


----------



## Mushroom

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Pacifists are cowards and traitors.



What a load of crock.

I am a pacifist, and have spent well over 20 years in uniform.

So pardon me, but blow it out your ass.


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> How many do you need? 1000? 100,000? More? How about instead of losing the argument on mathematical grounds you try defending your position on moral grounds that do NOT rely on assumptions that are in dispute to say the least?


In my humble opinion, after decades, if everyone agrees on an idea or plan, there is something wrong, something they are missing.  Do you and your wife agree on everything, all the time?  Of course not.

Were there not disagreements, strong disagreements on virtually every planned battle?  Some went great, others failed.  Operation Market Garden was presented to Eisenhower by Gen. Montgomery to preserve bridges needed for the allies.  Patton argued against the plan as being impossible.  Montgomery and Patton were not great friends.  They detested one another.  In fact, there was a movie made called "A Bridge Too Far".  This was in September 1944 and it was a terrible failure.  Montgomery was one of the most respected and successful generals of WW II.  He was WRONG.

The bottom line is that dropping the two bombs, which we really had no clue if they would work or what would be the result, was successful in a grand manner.  Yep, it was a crapshoot effort to end the war without sacrificing the lives of millions of others.  If someone wanted to ignore the battle of Okinawa and the massive casualties, they were fools.

Unkotare, all you have are WHAT IFs.  Don't even consider the fact that to the Japanese he was a God.  The FACTS are that the Japanese would commit suicide rather than surrender even with hopeless odds.  How can you deny that fact since the evidence is right there on film and still photographers?

What argument can you possibly make, moral or otherwise, for extending the war by at least a year with millions of more casualties?


----------



## Markle

Mushroom said:


> Actually, they [Nazi Germany] did not get beat. Not a single foreign soldier had stepped their foot inside of Germany. The entire "Western Front" was well inside of France when the war ended. What happened was that the German Government collapsed, and the new interim one requested an armistice that was granted.
> 
> They were not beat, their front did not collapse. In fact, they were already sending even more soldiers to the West after the end of the fighting with the Russians when their government collapsed. And would likely have rebuilt over the winter, and started an even stronger offensive when the snows melted.
> 
> Sorry, you have been listening to some really bad propaganda. There is a reason why WWI ended with an armistice.


You're being facetious, right?  You really cannot be serious.


----------



## Mushroom

Markle said:


> The bottom line is that dropping the two bombs, which we really had no clue if they would work or what would be the result,



Actually, we knew they would work.  Especially the Fat Man implosion bomb, as it was the exact same weapon that was code named "Gadget" that was tested at White Sands in July.  That was the only one that was questionable and it worked perfectly when it was tested.


----------



## Mushroom

Markle said:


> You're being facetious, right?  You really cannot be serious.



I am completely serious.  Hell, just look at a map.







Hell, the actual battle lines hardly changed during the entire war once Germany bogged down in their initial push way back in 1918.  From then on, it barely moved more than a mile or so before the other side counter attacked and pushed it back to where it was before.  In November 1918, Germany still occupied most of Belgium, and large areas of France.  And showed absolutely no sign of breaking or retreating.

What ended the war was the German Revolution of 1918, which broke out on 29 October 1918, and by 9 October forced the Kaiser to abdicate.  The new government immediately offered an armistice, and the UK-France-US alliance agreed.  But do not think it was a surrender, there is a damned good reason it was an Armistice.  And it was celebrated as "Armistice Day".

A huge difference between VE and VJ days.  It ended the same way the Korean War stopped.  With an armistice, not a surrender.

But I am also aware that a lot of people are amazingly ignorant of WWI.  Every time I hear that the US joined because of the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, I just want to shake my head at the incredible ignorance.  I have absolutely no idea why people do not even bother to do basic research before spouting off their nonsense.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Anecdotal stories from a cook at Fort Sill or whatever don't amount to squat as 'proof' of anything. Out of 160 million people you could find at least 100 people who claim the moon was made of blue cheese.


"Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." Moreover, Leahy continued, "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." 

President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." 

Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." Moreover, Leahy continued, "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."
> 
> President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
> 
> Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "



And once again, you discuss everybody *but the actual leaders of the country that needed to surrender!*

Now kindly present us with proof that the Big Six were willing to surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

mikegriffith1 said:


> Where is the real rightwinger? What have you done with him? He would never be agreeing with me on something like this. The gig is up. Who are you, really?
> 
> To follow up on your valid points, Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them. He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender." Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.
> 
> Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.
> 
> The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:
> 
> 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. (USSBS 26)​


^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

mikegriffith1 said:


> Gosh, this is idiotic. _The moderates were trying to offer to surrender before and after the first bomb, but the militarists were able to block them because they were able to harp on the fact that there was no guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender_.
> 
> And let's review the facts about Japan's peace feelers--again:
> 
> -- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.
> 
> Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.
> 
> -- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.
> 
> Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did *not* shut down the approach.
> 
> Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.
> 
> So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support.
> 
> And why were the militarists able to shut down this peace feeler? And why were they able to repeatedly block the moderates' efforts to bring about a surrender? Because they were able to stress that there was no guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. This was militarists' trump card, and they were able to play it over and over again against the moderates, thanks to Truman's foolish, disastrous refusal to simply give a private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed if Japan surrendered.
> 
> We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.
> 
> On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”
> 
> So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.
> 
> -- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.
> 
> This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.
> 
> When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.
> 
> We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”
> 
> William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.
> 
> -- Furthermore, Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.
> 
> These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender, _and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb._
> 
> Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:
> 
> The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., _The Forrestal Diaries_ (New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​
> Are you ever going to start telling the truth about this stuff?


^^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is clown material. We've had this same discussion at least twice, and you just keep repeating your drivel. Now, there are very good, scholarly books that provide detailed discussions on the Japanese peace feelers, the fact that most of them were supported by senior Japanese leaders, and the moderates' efforts--supported by the emperor--to bring about an early surrender. Read Gar Alperovitz's still-unrefuted book _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_, or Washington State University professor Noriko Kawamura's book _Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War,_ or John Toland's book _The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire_, or Lester Brooks' book _Behind Japan's Surrender_.
> 
> Let's review, yet again, the evidence regarding Japan's peace feelers:
> 
> -- In April 1945, none other than Mamoru Shigemitsu, Japan’s Foreign Minister at the time, approached the Swedish minister to Japan and asked if Sweden would be willing to mediate a surrender agreement with the U.S. Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.
> 
> Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached. Togo did not object to the approach on principle, but only to the proposed intermediary. Togo suggested that the Soviets be approached to mediate a surrender with the U.S.
> 
> -- Another peace feeler was carried out in Berne, Switzerland, by Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese naval attache in Berne, and had the backing of Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy Minister; General Shuichi Miyazaki, the Chief of Operations; and Admiral Sokichi Takagi, who even offered to fly to Switzerland to open formal negotiations. On May 3, three months before Hiroshima, Dr. Heck, the German intermediary in the approach, was informed by the office of Allen Dulles that the U.S. State Department had authorized direct negotiations with the Fujimura group. Allen Dulles was the head of the OSS office in Switzerland and had numerous high connections, including in the White House.
> 
> Fujimura contacted the Navy Ministry and made them aware of his negotiations with the Dulles people. On May 23, the Navy Ministry sent Fujimura a reply, signed by the Navy Minister: the ministry advised him to be cautious but did *not* shut down the approach.
> 
> Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.
> 
> So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect. The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles, but it was not a meaningless effort with no high-level support.
> 
> And why were the militarists able to shut down this peace feeler? And why were they able to repeatedly block the moderates' efforts to bring about a surrender? Because they were able to stress that there was no guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed in a surrender. This was militarists' trump card, and they were able to play it over and over again against the moderates, thanks to Truman's foolish, disastrous refusal to simply give a private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed if Japan surrendered.
> 
> We know that on June 4, two months before Hiroshima, Truman received a report on this peace feeler. The report stated that the Fujimura people “particularly stress” the need to maintain the emperor in any surrender in order “to avoid Communism and chaos.” The report added that Fujimura had emphasized the fact that Japan could no longer supply herself with “essential foodstuffs,” i.e., the people were beginning to starve.
> 
> On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”
> 
> So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.
> 
> -- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff. This feeler also involved Per Jacobsson, a Swiss bank director. This was not Jacobsson’s first involvement with back-door peace negotiations: he had persuaded De Valera to negotiate with the British in 1935.
> 
> This approach was made to Gero Gaevernitz, Dulles’s second-in-command, and to Dulles himself. Gaevernitz was no stranger to back-door negotiations either: he had recently masterminded the surrender of all German forces in Italy.
> 
> When Jacobsson met with Dulles and Gaevernitz, he told them that the Japanese moderates were doing their best to bring about a surrender but that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender was greatly helping the hardliners. Jacobsson further told Dulles that the only real Japanese condition for surrender was that the emperor not be deposed. Following this meeting, Dulles placed a call to Potsdam.
> 
> We also know that on July 13, nearly a month before Hiroshima, Dulles sent a message about his contact with Jacobsson to Potsdam in which he advised that it had been indicated to him that “the only condition on which Japan would insist with respect to surrender would be some consideration for the Japanese Imperial family.”
> 
> William Donovan, the head of the OSS, sent a follow-up message to Truman on July 16 about the Dulles-Jacobsson meeting and stated that Jacobsson advised that Japanese officials had stressed only two conditions for surrender, namely, that the emperor be retained and that there be the “possibility” of retaining the Meiji Constitution.
> 
> -- Furthermore, Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.
> 
> These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender, _and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb._
> 
> Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:
> 
> The contents of certain of these papers [Japanese messages and memos about the peace feelers] were known to United States officials in Washington, however, as early as July 13 (see Walter Millis, ed., _The Forrestal Diaries_ (New York, 1951), page 74; cf. pages 75–76) and information on Japanese peace maneuvers was received by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson at Babelsberg on July 16 (see volume II, document No. 1236, footnote 4). It has also been determined that a series of messages of Japanese origin on this subject was received by the United States Delegation during the course of the Berlin Conference and that these messages were circulated at Babelsberg to some members of the President’s party. Furthermore, in a conference on January 24, 1956, between Truman and members of his staff and Department of State historians, Truman supplied the information that he was familiar with the contents of the first Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the proposal contained in document No. 582) before Stalin mentioned it to him at Babelsberg (see volume II, page 87) and that he was familiar with the contents of the second Japanese peace feeler (i. e., the approach reported in document No. 1234) before Stalin brought it to the attention of Truman and Attlee at the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Berlin Conference on July 28 (see volume II, page 460).​
> Are you ever going to start telling the truth about this stuff?


^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> ....
> 
> Unkotare, all you have are WHAT IFs.  ....


No, I have facts and a real understanding of history.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> ....Don't even consider the fact that to the Japanese he was a God.  The FACTS are that the Japanese would commit suicide rather than surrender even with hopeless odds.  ....


Here again we see your understanding of history and culture from comic books and cartoons.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> In my humble opinion, after decades, if everyone agrees on an idea or plan, there is something wrong, something they are missing.  ...


You might want to think about that.


----------



## Markle

Mushroom said:


> Actually, we knew they would work.  Especially the Fat Man implosion bomb, as it was the exact same weapon that was code named "Gadget" that was tested at White Sands in July.  That was the only one that was questionable and it worked perfectly when it was tested.


...ACTUALLY...    Yes, it was tested under laboratory conditions.  They knew it would work, but not under battle conditions.  The difference was huge.  For instance, the stability of the bomb was unknown.  The bomb had to be armed in flight close to ground zero.  The bomb was so large that the person arming the bomb had to be small and wedge himself in between the body of the aircraft and bomb.  Anything could have gone wrong including the bomb detonating prematurely.

BUT, as we all know, it worked perfectly and help shorten the war by years and millions of casualties.  YEA TEAM!


----------



## Markle

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." Moreover, Leahy continued, "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."
> 
> President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
> 
> Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "


Yes, it was good to have an unrestricted discussion of the pros and cons.  What is your point?  It was successful.  No longer is that debatable.

You mention Dwight Eisenhower being opposed to using the bomb.  Was he never wrong?  Well, yes he was wrong and in some major decisions.  British General Montgomery proposed a daring move in September of 1945.  General Patton, among others, opposed the plan saying it was not possible.  Montgomery convinced Eisenhower that he could make it succeed.  The attack resulted in a devastating defeat and even a movie.  "A Bridge Too Far". 

Once again, the bombing was SUCCESSFUL, shortened the war by at least a year, and saved millions of additional casualties.

Why do advocate so many more deaths?


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> .... They knew it would work, but not under battle conditions.  The difference was huge.  ...


And so fdr would never consider ending the war before he got a chance to 'test' his new toy against a large number of human targets, no matter the cost. He had a population that he hated on racial terms anyway, so he wouldn't let the war end until he used it. He even made arrangements to have his lackey carry out his bloodthirsty wishes after he had gone to hell.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> Yes, it was good to have an unrestricted discussion of the pros and cons.  What is your point?  It was successful.  No longer is that debatable.
> .....


"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."


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> ....
> 
> You mention Dwight Eisenhower being opposed to using the bomb.  Was he never wrong?....


You cry and cry for "facts," then deny and dismiss at every turn.


----------



## Unkotare

Markle said:


> .....
> 
> Why do advocate so many more deaths?


I have been very clearly advocating all along for many _fewer_ deaths.


----------



## Mushroom

Markle said:


> ...ACTUALLY...  Yes, it was tested under laboratory conditions. They knew it would work, but not under battle conditions. The difference was huge. For instance, the stability of the bomb was unknown. The bomb had to be armed in flight close to ground zero. The bomb was so large that the person arming the bomb had to be small and wedge himself in between the body of the aircraft and bomb. Anything could have gone wrong including the bomb detonating prematurely.



Not a single one of those was a single factor in it it would work or not.

"Stability of the bomb"?  Are you freaking serious?  You are aware are you not, that is a completely nonsensical and irrelevant thing to say, right?  Stability of the bomb indeed.

And William "Deak" Parsons was a hair under 6 feet tall, he was hardly a "small man".  And not armed close to ground zero, it was armed shortly after takeoff.

And test detonating a device in the open is hardly "laboratory conditions".


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Speculation


No historic fact baby, but you don't like the facts.


----------



## Mushroom

Turtlesoup said:


> No historic fact baby, but you don't like the facts.


Hence, he quotes almost everybody on the planet it seems, except for the actual six people who actually had the power to end the war.

Point out that the day before the bombs and they agreed unanimously to continue the war no matter what.

And the day after Hiroshima, they could they agreed on terms, but could not agree to send them or not.  And the terms were no occupation (which meant all Allied forces left land under control of Japan before the war), no disarmament, no war crime trials.

We know this for a fact, because it is recorded by the Japanese themselves.  If the Big Six could not even agree on those conditions, there is no way in hell they ever would have authorized all of the fantasy negotiations that must have been happening all over the world except with the political leadership of the US and UK itself.

And no matter what, the US could not accept a surrender anyways.  All of the Allied Powers had to agree.  Does anybody think that the UK would have agreed to those conditions?  France?  the Netherlands?

This is the lunacy of Poopy's argument.  It completely ignores history.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> No historic fact .......


No, speculation.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> ...
> 
> And no matter what, the US could not accept a surrender anyways.  All of the Allied Powers had to agree.  Does anybody think that the UK would have agreed to those conditions?  France?  the Netherlands?
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> No, speculation.


you make shit up constantly. You lie about what people said and what they meant. You don't source or link to anything to back up your ignorant claims.


----------



## DudleySmith

Mushroom said:


> Actually, they did not get beat.  Not a single foreign soldier had stepped their foot inside of Germany.  The entire "Western Front" was well inside of France when the war ended.  What happened was that the German Government collapsed, and the new interim one requested an armistice that was granted.
> 
> They were not beat, their front did not collapse.  In fact, they were already sending even more soldiers to the West after the end of the fighting with the Russians when their government collapsed.  And would likely have rebuilt over the winter, and started an even stronger offensive when the snows melted.
> 
> Sorry, you have been listening to some really bad propaganda.  There is a reason why WWI ended with an armistice.



First of all, I already pointed out why they didn't set foot in Germany after the allies had them in full rout. The French and British did not want the Americans to end up running the peace after the end. sorry , but you need to find some more detailed histories than hagiographies from Reader's Digest and Time/Life Book collections. Wilson kept trying to screw over our allies, secretly approaching the Germans three times looking for unilateral negoiations. The Allies did not want the U.S. dominating the aftermath of the war, which would have been the case if American troops had been allowed to occupy Germany; American were thought to be too friendly with them, and that did indeed turn out to be the case. The Germans were forced to pay reparations, severely limit their armed forces, and several other clauses that onlly losers would have to accept.


----------



## DudleySmith

Mushroom said:


> What a load of crock.
> 
> I am a pacifist, and have spent well over 20 years in uniform.
> 
> So pardon me, but blow it out your ass.



Those pacifist CO's who served as medics certainly proved themselves under heavy fire countless times in all wars in this century.


----------



## DudleySmith

Markle said:


> You're being facetious, right?  You really cannot be serious.



He's just trolling trying for a semantics farce of some kind. They were thoroughly defeated in both wars, resoundingly so.


----------



## Mushroom

DudleySmith said:


> First of all, I already pointed out why they didn't set foot in Germany after the allies had them in full rout.


They were not in full rout.  When your very first statement is an obvious blunder, the other nonsense is even more suspect.

I am not trolling.  I am simply amazed at how little most seem to know about WWI.  Just take a poll and ask how many Americans believe the US got involved because of the Lusitania.  That alone screams of the ignorance of most about that war.

There was still fierce fighting on the trenchline in the moments before the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.  That is not a route.

The left the war the same reason the Russians did.  Their government collapsed, neither one was "beat".


----------



## Markle

Mushroom said:


> I am completely serious.  Hell, just look at a map.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, the actual battle lines hardly changed during the entire war once Germany bogged down in their initial push way back in 1918.  From then on, it barely moved more than a mile or so before the other side counter attacked and pushed it back to where it was before.  In November 1918, Germany still occupied most of Belgium, and large areas of France.  And showed absolutely no sign of breaking or retreating.
> 
> What ended the war was the German Revolution of 1918, which broke out on 29 October 1918, and by 9 October forced the Kaiser to abdicate.  The new government immediately offered an armistice, and the UK-France-US alliance agreed.  But do not think it was a surrender, there is a damned good reason it was an Armistice.  And it was celebrated as "Armistice Day".
> 
> A huge difference between VE and VJ days.  It ended the same way the Korean War stopped.  With an armistice, not a surrender.
> 
> But I am also aware that a lot of people are amazingly ignorant of WWI.  Every time I hear that the US joined because of the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, I just want to shake my head at the incredible ignorance.  I have absolutely no idea why people do not even bother to do basic research before spouting off their nonsense.


The subject is WW II and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan.


----------



## Mushroom

DudleySmith said:


> Those pacifist CO's who served as medics certainly proved themselves under heavy fire countless times in all wars in this century.








And not only as medics and corpsmen, but also a lot of the logistics that the war required.  Quakers in particular were often placed in quartermaster and logistical fields.  They could still serve, but not required to fight.


----------



## Mushroom

Markle said:


> The subject is WW II and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan



Of this I am well aware.

But the reason that the Allied Powers refused to consider an end to the war without a surrender, disarmament, and occupation goes all the way back to World War I.  They learned the hard way that leaving an enemy bitter after a war and retaining the ability to rearm themselves and trying again only guarantees that they will do exactly that.  And make no mistakes, Japan if their ideal terms had been met would have done exactly that.  And within 10-20 years there would have been yet another war with them.

Which they all knew.  Japan wanted time to rebuild and rearm itself, so they could try again.  The Allies knew this, and refused to consider any kind of terms that would give them that chance.  Because otherwise, it would have been exactly as Germany in WWI.  Ending the war without any foreign troops actually on their land, saying they were beat for other reasons and itching for another fight.  The entire time they were preparing, saying "next time, it will be different!".

And trust me, the Japanese had a long bitterness towards the European Powers.  Going all the way back to 1899.  I actually trace the actual beginnings of WWII all the way back to a conflict in 1899, because most of the alliances and grudges that ultimately culminated in WWII actually started in a "war" all the way back then and are almost entirely forgotten.


----------



## Markle

Mushroom said:


> Of this I am well aware.
> 
> But the reason that the Allied Powers refused to consider an end to the war without a surrender, disarmament, and occupation goes all the way back to World War I.  They learned the hard way that leaving an enemy bitter after a war and retaining the ability to rearm themselves and trying again only guarantees that they will do exactly that.  And make no mistakes, Japan if their ideal terms had been met would have done exactly that.  And within 10-20 years there would have been yet another war with them.
> 
> Which they all knew.  Japan wanted time to rebuild and rearm itself, so they could try again.  The Allies knew this, and refused to consider any kind of terms that would give them that chance.  Because otherwise, it would have been exactly as Germany in WWI.  Ending the war without any foreign troops actually on their land, saying they were beat for other reasons and itching for another fight.  The entire time they were preparing, saying "next time, it will be different!".
> 
> And trust me, the Japanese had a long bitterness towards the European Powers.  Going all the way back to 1899.  I actually trace the actual beginnings of WWII all the way back to a conflict in 1899, because most of the alliances and grudges that ultimately culminated in WWII actually started in a "war" all the way back then and are almost entirely forgotten.


The subject is WW II and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan.


----------



## DudleySmith

Mushroom said:


> Of this I am well aware.
> 
> But the reason that the Allied Powers refused to consider an end to the war without a surrender, disarmament, and occupation goes all the way back to World War I.  They learned the hard way that leaving an enemy bitter after a war and retaining the ability to rearm themselves and trying again only guarantees that they will do exactly that.  And make no mistakes, Japan if their ideal terms had been met would have done exactly that.  And within 10-20 years there would have been yet another war with them.
> 
> Which they all knew.  Japan wanted time to rebuild and rearm itself, so they could try again.  The Allies knew this, and refused to consider any kind of terms that would give them that chance.  Because otherwise, it would have been exactly as Germany in WWI.  Ending the war without any foreign troops actually on their land, saying they were beat for other reasons and itching for another fight.  The entire time they were preparing, saying "next time, it will be different!".
> 
> And trust me, the Japanese had a long bitterness towards the European Powers.  Going all the way back to 1899.  I actually trace the actual beginnings of WWII all the way back to a conflict in 1899, because most of the alliances and grudges that ultimately culminated in WWII actually started in a "war" all the way back then and are almost entirely forgotten.



The rise of Wilhelm II and the sacking of Bismarck were key turning points. His rise and fall, and the fall of the Czars, could be seen as the last gasp of Feudalism in Europe. The same could be said of Japan and the end of the Samurai cult and the Emperor's reduction to a figurehead is in the same pattern.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> No, speculation.


You hide your head in the sand and ignore all facts....


----------



## Mushroom

DudleySmith said:


> The same could be said of Japan and the end of the Samurai cult and the Emperor's reduction to a figurehead is in the same pattern.



You think the Emperor actually had power before the Meiji Restoration?

You know, that is the name of the Reign that saw the end of the Samurai, and the rise of the modern nation of Japan.  And it was not called the "Restoration" for nothing.

During the Shogunate, the Emperor had even less power than he did after the Restoration.  Then they had absolutely no power, until after Showa's grandfather destroyed their power and a government formed where at least he had powers close to that of the US Vice President.

Which is still damned near none.  He was at least present then when his Council convened, and had limited input through proxies.  And in the event of a tie, he was the tiebreaker.  But prior to that, they literally had no power.

From 758 when Minamoto no Yoritomo became Shogun until 1868 when the Tokagawa Shogunate was overthrown, the Emperor was almost entirely ceremonial.  And during the seven years of the reign of Taisho, the powers of the Emperor held by Meiji were largely turned back over to the military leadership, and remained that way until 1926 when he died (Taisho was in poor health and was almost totally unable to perform any of the duties of Emperor).  And remained that way largely ever since.

I suggest you actually learn some Japanese history.  Even under the Taisei Yokusankai (Imperial Rule Assistance Association), the Emperor had more power than they ever did under the Shoguns.


----------



## DudleySmith

Mushroom said:


> You think the Emperor actually had power before the Meiji Restoration?
> 
> You know, that is the name of the Reign that saw the end of the Samurai, and the rise of the modern nation of Japan.  And it was not called the "Restoration" for nothing.
> 
> During the Shogunate, the Emperor had even less power than he did after the Restoration.  Then they had absolutely no power, until after Showa's grandfather destroyed their power and a government formed where at least he had powers close to that of the US Vice President.
> 
> Which is still damned near none.  He was at least present then when his Council convened, and had limited input through proxies.  And in the event of a tie, he was the tiebreaker.  But prior to that, they literally had no power.
> 
> From 758 when Minamoto no Yoritomo became Shogun until 1868 when the Tokagawa Shogunate was overthrown, the Emperor was almost entirely ceremonial.  And during the seven years of the reign of Taisho, the powers of the Emperor held by Meiji were largely turned back over to the military leadership, and remained that way until 1926 when he died (Taisho was in poor health and was almost totally unable to perform any of the duties of Emperor).  And remained that way largely ever since.
> 
> I suggest you actually learn some Japanese history.  Even under the Taisei Yokusankai (Imperial Rule Assistance Association), the Emperor had more power than they ever did under the Shoguns.



The Emperor still had a lot of power with the public, as many of the posts here, including your own, demonstrate. I suggest you grow up, and then go read some real history books. Those Time/Life collections don't really cut it. The cult tradition was alive and well in the Imperial military, as demonstrating by its spinoff in the Kamakazi pilots, and of course those swords they carried around.


----------



## Mushroom

DudleySmith said:


> The Emperor still had a lot of power with the public



And how much power exactly did the public in Japan have?  Even the Diet at that time was controlled by the military.

Even before the war, every single Prime Minister was either an Admiral, or General.  And the Prime Minister ran the country.  They controlled the Diet and Emperor both.  Nothing came to a vote in the Riet without the approval of the Prime Minister, and the Emperor had no power.

And trust me, I lived in Japan.  I am not talking about what you are calling "Time/Life", I have been studying the Showa era and before for well over 40 years now.  Good luck even finding many books that even talk about the Taisei Yokusankai, let alone most of the other things I commonly discuss in regards to that era.

And "cult tradition", I assume you are trying to talk about Shinto?  Yes, the Emperor was a "Living God".  He was arahitogami, the living descendent of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu.  And as such, he lived on a higher plane than "mere mortals", and it was his job not to run the country, but to be the intermediary between the people and their deity.

Until 1 January 1946, when he gave the Ningen-sengen, or "Humanity Declaration".  Where Emperor Showa formally renounced his divinity.

And notice throughout this debate over 170 pages long, and every other the things I say.  For example, how I never call the former Emperor "Hirohito".  I always address him in the Japanese tradition, after his reign name of Showa, or "Enlightened Peace".  This is the Japanese custom, former Emperors are never addressed by their name after death, but their reign name.  And how I almost constantly drop very specific references of Japanese culture and organizations.

Ningen-sengen, Taisei Yokusankai, the Japanese response of Mokusatsu to the Potsdam Declaration.  Tell me, exactly what "Time'/Life" books actually discuss things like that?  You are simply trying to be dismissive because you do not like the message.  But trying to insult me does not make what I am saying any less accurate.

Hell, how was the Emperor even going to get the people on his side?  All communication out from the Palace was only by messages to the media through the Prime Minister.  Hell, until the 15 August 1945 broadcast of the Gyokuon-hōsō or "Jewel Voice Broadcast", the Emperor never even spoke on the radio!  Nobody in Japan actually knew what he sounded like.  And he was so far removed from the population of his own country that the language he spoke in was archaic, and they actually had to have a translator come on immediately to repeat it into "Common Japanese".

Yet, you think he had "a lot of power with the public"?  That is a complete joke, he could barely speak with the "public", he spoke a form of "Court Japanese" that was hundreds of years old, because of the isolation of the Emperors for hundreds of years.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> You hide your head in the sand and ignore all facts....


I have provided facts. You have provided YOUR emotions.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> The Emperor still had a lot of power with the public, as many of the posts here, including your own, demonstrate. I suggest you grow up, and then go read some real history books. Those Time/Life collections don't really cut it. The cult tradition was alive and well in the Imperial military, as demonstrating by its spinoff in the Kamakazi pilots, and of course those swords they carried around.


Your ignorance is stunning. Take your own advice and learn some actual history, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> Of this I am well aware.
> 
> But the reason that the Allied Powers refused to consider an end to the war without a surrender, disarmament, and occupation goes all the way back to World War I.  ....


Somewhat off topic, but it can be said that the mishandling of the end of WWI led to the communists taking power in China. How many of our present political and economic complications are directly related to that?


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> I have provided facts.


No, you have provided opinions of dubious value


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> ...you have provided opinions of dubious value


Demonstrably untrue.


----------



## Mac-7

Unkotare said:


> Demonstrably untrue.


We are just repeating ourselves now


----------



## Unkotare

Mac-7 said:


> We are just repeating ourselves now


That's all you've been doing since page 1.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Demonstrably untrue.


YOU have NEVER once linked to a verifiable source, EVER.


----------



## DudleySmith

Mushroom said:


> And how much power exactly did the public in Japan have?  Even the Diet at that time was controlled by the military.
> 
> Even before the war, every single Prime Minister was either an Admiral, or General.  And the Prime Minister ran the country.  They controlled the Diet and Emperor both.  Nothing came to a vote in the Riet without the approval of the Prime Minister, and the Emperor had no power.
> 
> And trust me, I lived in Japan.  I am not talking about what you are calling "Time/Life", I have been studying the Showa era and before for well over 40 years now.  Good luck even finding many books that even talk about the Taisei Yokusankai, let alone most of the other things I commonly discuss in regards to that era.
> 
> And "cult tradition", I assume you are trying to talk about Shinto?  Yes, the Emperor was a "Living God".  He was arahitogami, the living descendent of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu.  And as such, he lived on a higher plane than "mere mortals", and it was his job not to run the country, but to be the intermediary between the people and their deity.
> 
> Until 1 January 1946, when he gave the Ningen-sengen, or "Humanity Declaration".  Where Emperor Showa formally renounced his divinity.
> 
> And notice throughout this debate over 170 pages long, and every other the things I say.  For example, how I never call the former Emperor "Hirohito".  I always address him in the Japanese tradition, after his reign name of Showa, or "Enlightened Peace".  This is the Japanese custom, former Emperors are never addressed by their name after death, but their reign name.  And how I almost constantly drop very specific references of Japanese culture and organizations.
> 
> Ningen-sengen, Taisei Yokusankai, the Japanese response of Mokusatsu to the Potsdam Declaration.  Tell me, exactly what "Time'/Life" books actually discuss things like that?  You are simply trying to be dismissive because you do not like the message.  But trying to insult me does not make what I am saying any less accurate.
> 
> Hell, how was the Emperor even going to get the people on his side?  All communication out from the Palace was only by messages to the media through the Prime Minister.  Hell, until the 15 August 1945 broadcast of the Gyokuon-hōsō or "Jewel Voice Broadcast", the Emperor never even spoke on the radio!  Nobody in Japan actually knew what he sounded like.  And he was so far removed from the population of his own country that the language he spoke in was archaic, and they actually had to have a translator come on immediately to repeat it into "Common Japanese".
> 
> Yet, you think he had "a lot of power with the public"?  That is a complete joke, he could barely speak with the "public", he spoke a form of "Court Japanese" that was hundreds of years old, because of the isolation of the Emperors for hundreds of years.



Can you some more long self-contradicting posts? If the Emperor had no power, why was he even included in either the Japanese politics or the American efforts ??? 

Whatever you've reading I think you were also smoking the pages.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Can you some more long self-contradicting posts? If the Emperor had no power, why was he even included in either the Japanese politics or the American efforts ???
> 
> Whatever you've reading I think you were also smoking the pages.


Your half-assed understanding of culture and history is just ridiculous.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> Your ignorance is stunning. Take your own advice and learn some actual history, stupid.



 You can't find any unflushed toilets to play in this morning? Slow day , eh?


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> You can't find any unflushed toilets to play in this morning? Slow day , eh?


Get back to your comic books.


----------



## Mushroom

Unkotare said:


> Somewhat off topic, but it can be said that the mishandling of the end of WWI led to the communists taking power in China. How many of our present political and economic complications are directly related to that?



Actually, China was already in the hand of Socialists.

It must be remembered, that by 1912, China had fallen to a Socialist government, and one that was largely a proto-type to what Mussolini was creating at the exact same time.  A National Socialist government.

One that recognizes Dr. Sun as their founder.  However, soon there was a split in that party, and a Civil War broke out between the National Socialists and the Marxists, who also considered Dr. Sun to be their founder.


----------



## Mushroom

DudleySmith said:


> Can you some more long self-contradicting posts? If the Emperor had no power, why was he even included in either the Japanese politics or the American efforts ???
> 
> Whatever you've reading I think you were also smoking the pages.



Really?  When did we ever make any addresses to the Emperor himself?  Hmmm?


----------



## DudleySmith

Mushroom said:


> Really?  When did we ever make any addresses to the Emperor himself?  Hmmm?



The Peanut GAllery can amuse themselves with this for a while, for starters:















						How a single photograph allowed the Japanese emperor to stay in power
					

On September 2nd, 1945, the foreign affairs delegation of the Japanese Empire boarded the USS Missouri and signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender under the guidance of Emperor Hirohito, finally putting an end to bloodiest war mankind h…




					www.wearethemighty.com
				




*Gen. MacArthur knew that Japanese culture was very intertwined with the throne. Since the Japanese throne was willing to cooperate fully, America was able to turn its eyes to the burgeoning communist threat lurking in Asia. This plan could only work, however, if the people of Japan believed the Emperor when he said that peace between the two nations had been achieved.*


Anybody who doesn't think  the Emperor was an important factor before, during, and after the war is simply just nuts.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Mushroom said:


> What a load of crock.
> 
> I am a pacifist, and have spent well over 20 years in uniform.
> 
> So pardon me, but blow it out your ass.


*Weakling Ethics*

The clique you're trying to impress with your dog-whistling virtue signal is dragging America down.


----------



## Mushroom

DudleySmith said:


> Gen. MacArthur knew that Japanese culture was very intertwined with the throne



Notice, "Culture" and "Throne".  Not "people" and "Emperor".

Please tell me exactly how many times the Emperor talked to "The People" until August 1945.  Exactly how many times he addressed them in any form, that was not carefully censored and controlled by the Prime Minister and the rest of the Big Six?

This is not Queen Elizabeth II, or Queen Vicky, or even Il Lamp Ornament or any other leader.  And you seem to have absolutely no grasp of that.  Almost his only public appearances were graduation from the military academies, and the official opening of the Diet.  He did not even go around making speeches to the public as even such leaders might have done in the era before Radio or Movie Cameras.  He never even had his voice recorded prior to August 1945, they felt it was impossible to record as he was a deity, and doing so would have been insulting.

You keep confusing him with a Western Monarch.  Where appearing in public was part of the job.  The Japanese Emperor was tightly sequestered, almost never leaving the Imperial Palace.  Heck, he barely even spoke "Real Japanese", but instead a dialect hundreds of years old, that is how isolated he was from the people.

He was their intermediary between them and the Gods.  A God on Earth, and was not expected to interact with them.  To the Japanese people, he was himself a minor deity, and they never heard him talk, ever.

You can say the same things over and over again, but you seem to fail to grasp this very critical aspect.  To be honest, for over a thousand years the exact butt that rested on that throne was of no real importance to them.  Just that a member of the kōshitsu (Imperial House), that is descended from Emperor Jimmu, descendent of the Goddess Amaterasu has their ass sitting on the chrysanthemum throne.

You keep making the huge mistake that Emperor Showa was seen as a European Emperor was.  He was not, not even close.  You apparently completely lack the frame of reference to grasp this, and are not even willing to understand it.


----------



## Mushroom

The Sage of Main Street said:


> The clique you're trying to impress with your dog-whistling virtue signal is dragging America down.



Sorry, I do not even understand what that means.  But obviously you know nothing of me, and most likely the military either.  Therefore, easily dismissed.


----------



## Plow Boy

Race Burley said:


> Right, like you know anything you haven't been fed. If anything we should have then nuked China and the USSR.


We should have been ready to bomb Japan a third time; and to send a signal to China and Russia, that they were next, if need be.


----------



## Plow Boy

Mushroom said:


> Notice, "Culture" and "Throne".  Not "people" and "Emperor".
> 
> Please tell me exactly how many times the Emperor talked to "The People" until August 1945.  Exactly how many times he addressed them in any form, that was not carefully censored and controlled by the Prime Minister and the rest of the Big Six?
> 
> This is not Queen Elizabeth II, or Queen Vicky, or even Il Lamp Ornament or any other leader.  And you seem to have absolutely no grasp of that.  Almost his only public appearances were graduation from the military academies, and the official opening of the Diet.  He did not even go around making speeches to the public as even such leaders might have done in the era before Radio or Movie Cameras.  He never even had his voice recorded prior to August 1945, they felt it was impossible to record as he was a deity, and doing so would have been insulting.
> 
> You keep confusing him with a Western Monarch.  Where appearing in public was part of the job.  The Japanese Emperor was tightly sequestered, almost never leaving the Imperial Palace.  Heck, he barely even spoke "Real Japanese", but instead a dialect hundreds of years old, that is how isolated he was from the people.
> 
> He was their intermediary between them and the Gods.  A God on Earth, and was not expected to interact with them.  To the Japanese people, he was himself a minor deity, and they never heard him talk, ever.
> 
> You can say the same things over and over again, but you seem to fail to grasp this very critical aspect.  To be honest, for over a thousand years the exact butt that rested on that throne was of no real importance to them.  Just that a member of the kōshitsu (Imperial House), that is descended from Emperor Jimmu, descendent of the Goddess Amaterasu has their ass sitting on the chrysanthemum throne.
> 
> You keep making the huge mistake that Emperor Showa was seen as a European Emperor was.  He was not, not even close.  You apparently completely lack the frame of reference to grasp this, and are not even willing to understand it.


Shinto seems to be a death cult, with weirdo gods, and that was Japans faith. And you seem to know too much about way to little.
We bombed them into submission, instead of invading and losing 100,000 men. Who care about some minutia of Shinto.


----------



## Unkotare

Plow Boy said:


> Shinto seems to be a death cult, with weirdo gods, and that was Japans faith. And you seem to know too much about way to little.
> We bombed them into submission, instead of invading and losing 100,000 men. Who care about some minutia of Shinto.


It would be to your benefit to stop talking so much until you are not so ignorant, kid.


----------



## Mushroom

Plow Boy said:


> We should have been ready to bomb Japan a third time; and to send a signal to China and Russia, that they were next, if need be.


China?  Really, China?

You are aware are you not, that in 1945 China was our ally.  So why in the hell would we be using such to "send a message" to our ally?  Were we also sending one to the UK as well, to not think about trying to regain their colonies?


----------



## Mushroom

Plow Boy said:


> Shinto seems to be a death cult, with weirdo gods, and that was Japans faith. And you seem to know too much about way to little.
> We bombed them into submission, instead of invading and losing 100,000 men. Who care about some minutia of Shinto.


Actually, Shinto is anything but a "death cult".  However, to most it remains a mystery.

However, it must be recognized that unlike most other cultures on the planet, Japan still does not have a strong cultural prohibition on suicide.  In times of bad economy, it is still not unusual to see the owners of businesses that fail kill themselves from a sense of shame because they failed.  And it is still common when adults get fired.  Or even among teens who fail entry into a university they wanted to go to.

Where acceptance and conformity are the norm, and failing to live up to that can lose face.  And in the culture, suicide is an accepted way to regain your honor.  But that is not just Shinto, that is simply their cultural viewpoint.  Not unlike a rabid Islamic suicide bomber would see nothing wrong with killing themselves to take out some they see as the enemy.

In that, culturally the Japanese people are not much different, but they generally do not rush out to embrace death as a rule.  There are always some fanatics, which is how the Kamikaze started in the first place.  But if a battle is lost, they still believe it is better to die fighting than to surrender.

It must be remembered, this was a unique culture, that while not looking for death, also did not fear it.  Where before entering battle a Samurai would take care to make sure their make-up and hair were perfect.  So if they fell in battle, their head their head would look it's best when presented to the commanding general.  Something continued even as the Meiji Restoration stomped out the last of the Samurai.






And even into the Showa era, the Japanese thought nothing of beheading, even though it horrified most of the rest of the world.  However, I will admit that I often chuckle when I see some hipster with a douche knot, and wonder if they wear it for the same reason the Samurai wore theirs.

So the victor could easily hold their head after it was cut off for presentation.  And they would be sure the person presenting it was not soiled by their blood.


----------



## Plow Boy

Mushroom said:


> Actually, Shinto is anything but a "death cult".  However, to most it remains a mystery.
> 
> However, it must be recognized that unlike most other cultures on the planet, Japan still does not have a strong cultural prohibition on suicide.  In times of bad economy, it is still not unusual to see the owners of businesses that fail kill themselves from a sense of shame because they failed.  And it is still common when adults get fired.  Or even among teens who fail entry into a university they wanted to go to.
> 
> Where acceptance and conformity are the norm, and failing to live up to that can lose face.  And in the culture, suicide is an accepted way to regain your honor.  But that is not just Shinto, that is simply their cultural viewpoint.  Not unlike a rabid Islamic suicide bomber would see nothing wrong with killing themselves to take out some they see as the enemy.
> 
> In that, culturally the Japanese people are not much different, but they generally do not rush out to embrace death as a rule.  There are always some fanatics, which is how the Kamikaze started in the first place.  But if a battle is lost, they still believe it is better to die fighting than to surrender.
> 
> It must be remembered, this was a unique culture, that while not looking for death, also did not fear it.  Where before entering battle a Samurai would take care to make sure their make-up and hair were perfect.  So if they fell in battle, their head their head would look it's best when presented to the commanding general.  Something continued even as the Meiji Restoration stomped out the last of the Samurai.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even into the Showa era, the Japanese thought nothing of beheading, even though it horrified most of the rest of the world.  However, I will admit that I often chuckle when I see some hipster with a douche knot, and wonder if they wear it for the same reason the Samurai wore theirs.
> 
> So the victor could easily hold their head after it was cut off for presentation.  And they would be sure the person presenting it was not soiled by their blood.


Garbage.Shinto is an Earth religion that does not value life, and you seem like another know it all.


----------



## Unkotare

Plow Boy said:


> Garbage.Shinto is an Earth religion that does not value life, and you seem like another know it all.


YOU seem like you DON'T know what you're talking about.


----------



## Plow Boy

Mushroom said:


> China?  Really, China?
> 
> You are aware are you not, that in 1945 China was our ally.  So why in the hell would we be using such to "send a message" to our ally?  Were we also sending one to the UK as well, to not think about trying to regain their colonies?


In 1945 China was under invasion by Japan, with an insurrection by Mao Tse Tung going on. Maybe I should have said send a message to Mao, who was 4 years away from becoming a dictator. You are well aware of that aren’t you?


----------



## Plow Boy

Unkotare said:


> YOU seem like you DON'T know what you're talking about.


You don’t like what I am saying, and you are hardly anyone to criticize me. You seem nuts or something.


----------



## Plow Boy

Mushroom said:


> Actually, Shinto is anything but a "death cult".  However, to most it remains a mystery.
> 
> However, it must be recognized that unlike most other cultures on the planet, Japan still does not have a strong cultural prohibition on suicide.  In times of bad economy, it is still not unusual to see the owners of businesses that fail kill themselves from a sense of shame because they failed.  And it is still common when adults get fired.  Or even among teens who fail entry into a university they wanted to go to.
> 
> Where acceptance and conformity are the norm, and failing to live up to that can lose face.  And in the culture, suicide is an accepted way to regain your honor.  But that is not just Shinto, that is simply their cultural viewpoint.  Not unlike a rabid Islamic suicide bomber would see nothing wrong with killing themselves to take out some they see as the enemy.
> 
> In that, culturally the Japanese people are not much different, but they generally do not rush out to embrace death as a rule.  There are always some fanatics, which is how the Kamikaze started in the first place.  But if a battle is lost, they still believe it is better to die fighting than to surrender.
> 
> It must be remembered, this was a unique culture, that while not looking for death, also did not fear it.  Where before entering battle a Samurai would take care to make sure their make-up and hair were perfect.  So if they fell in battle, their head their head would look it's best when presented to the commanding general.  Something continued even as the Meiji Restoration stomped out the last of the Samurai.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even into the Showa era, the Japanese thought nothing of beheading, even though it horrified most of the rest of the world.  However, I will admit that I often chuckle when I see some hipster with a douche knot, and wonder if they wear it for the same reason the Samurai wore theirs.
> 
> So the victor could easily hold their head after it was cut off for presentation.  And they would be sure the person presenting it was not soiled by their blood.


Japan attacked America, and that was one of the dumbest stunts in history. They worshiped the empower, who was a Shinto god, and he could do no wrong. He was a god to them, but he did not stop the attack upon America. He was as dumb as stump.


----------



## Unkotare

Plow Boy said:


> You don’t like what I am saying, ....


Not a matter of "like." You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.


----------



## Unkotare

Plow Boy said:


> Japan attacked America, and that was one of the dumbest stunts in history. They worshiped the empower, who was a Shinto god, and he could do no wrong. He was a god to them, but he did not stop the attack upon America. He was as dumb as stump.


Read more than the back cover of a history book, Junior.


----------



## Plow Boy

Unkotare said:


> Read more than the back cover of a history book, Junior.


You’re right, Mao came after WWII.


----------



## Mushroom

Plow Boy said:


> In 1945 China was under invasion by Japan, with an insurrection by Mao Tse Tung going on. Maybe I should have said send a message to Mao, who was 4 years away from becoming a dictator. You are well aware of that aren’t you?



I am well aware of that.  And the fact that along the coast and major cities, Japan did not really occupy that much of China.  And we were supporting the Nationalist Chinese, and even the Marxists put things at rest until the Japanese were taken care of.

In fact, we also helped a great many Marxists during that war.  Seeing Japan as the larger threat.  Even giving supplies and advisors to both Mao and Uncle Ho.

Yes, I am very much aware of China at the time, and in the over four decades before as well.  But all you seem to be able to do is try to throw darts over and over, but none of them seem to stick.


----------



## Mushroom

Plow Boy said:


> Japan attacked America, and that was one of the dumbest stunts in history. They worshiped the empower, who was a Shinto god, and he could do no wrong. He was a god to them, but he did not stop the attack upon America. He was as dumb as stump.



He could not stop it.  The Emperor was literally a figurehead, and had been for almost a thousand years at least.  The power was entirely in the hands of the Taisei Yokusankai.  At most, the Emperor could listen in on the meetings of his own Imperial Council, but could say nothing.  In fact, in his own government he had even less power and vote than the Vice President does in the senate.  The only time he was ever allowed to speak or make a decision in his own council, is in the event they were ever deadlocked and he became the tie breaker vote.

Which happened exactly one time, ever.

In this, I do agree with Poopy.  He and I often disagree on a great many things in particular, but I think we both recognize that the other is very aware and knowledgeable of Showa era Japanese culture.  In this long returning 2 year long thread we often but heads over some things, but we actually both recognize that the other is knowledgeable on the subject.  Meanwhile you jump right in knowing almost nothing, and it shows in almost every point you try to make.

Like the claim that he should have stopped the war.  He was powerless to do so.

And Japan did not just "attack America".  They also attacked the UK.



> We hereby declare War on the United States of America and the British Empire. The men and officers of Our Army and Navy shall do their utmost in prosecuting the war. Our public servants of various departments shall perform faithfully and diligently their respective duties; the entire nation with a united will shall mobilize their total strength so that nothing will miscarry in the attainment of Our war aims.



After invading China, French Indochina, and the Dutch East Indies.  They literally bit off far more than they could ever hope to chew.  And ultimately, they choked on it.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Look, even McGeorge Bundy, who ghost-wrote Stimson's obscene apology for nuking Japan, admitted that we should have waited more than three days before nuking Nagasaki. So if you can't even admit that Nagasaki was unjustified, you're as bad as the worst Nazis and the worst Japanese militarists. It brings your basic humanity into question. 

How many of you gung-ho American militarists realize that Nagasaki was the center of Christianity in Japan?


----------



## P@triot

Plow Boy said:


> You don’t like what I am saying, and you are hardly anyone to criticize me. You seem nuts or something.


Oh Unkotare is nuts. Every post is some idiotic one-sentence fortune cookie sentiment (almost always in the form of a question). He’s also a pussy who melts when people just _discuss_ conflict.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> How many of you gung-ho American militarists realize that Nagasaki was the center of Christianity in Japan?


How many of you pacifist pussies realize that we don’t care?

1. It was 80 fucking years ago. Get over it already, weeping snowflake (ffs you weren’t even alive when it happened)

2. Japan attacked us first during a time when Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were taking over the world. It wasn’t a time for failed left-wing ideology of kumbaya

3. Dropping that nuke resulted in never seeing a World War III (even if you’re too stupid to know it). It showed the world two things:
      A. The awesome power of the nuclear bomb
      B. The United States wasn’t afraid to use it

Shut…the…fuck…up…already. You’re wrong. Get over it.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Oh Unkotare is nuts. Every post is some idiotic one-sentence fortune cookie sentiment (almost always in the form of a question). He’s also a pussy who melts when people just _discuss_ conflict.


Oh, did you actually want to discuss some thing, big mouth? Or were you planning to make one post and then copy and paste your own post over and over 10,000 times again?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> How many of you pacifist pussies realize that we don’t care?
> ...


Who is "we," Frenchie?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> ...
> 
> 1. It was 80 fucking years ago. .....


That's why this discussion is in the "History" forum, genius.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> .....
> 
> 2. Japan attacked us first ...


Yes, the Japanese military attacked our military base.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> ......
> 
> Shut…the…fuck…up…already. You’re wrong. Get over it.


That is NOT an argument, fool. It is mere insistence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

P@triot said:


> 1. It was 80 fucking years ago. Get over it already, weeping snowflake (ffs you weren’t even alive when it happened)


Then get the fuck out. Most intelligent adults realize it is still a discussion worth having, given the proliferation of nuclear weapons.


----------



## DudleySmith

Many of us had fathers and uncles in the Pacific; we don't give a rat's ass who apologized for what or said what, we wouldn't have cared if they wiped out the entire Japanese population, especially those of us who knew a Bataan survivor and know what the vermin did in China and elsewhere. Fuck Japs and their self-inflicted suffering; nearly all of them cheered and held parades after every victory, including so-called 'American' Japs, who also held drives raising money for their own version of the Red Cross sending care packages for the Japanese troops invading Asian countries. They also couldn't be bothered to report Japanese intelligence officers recruiting in Japanese neighborhoods in the U.S. right up to Pearl. If they were all gone nobody these days would even notice.

And, fun fact: It was American Chinese and Filipinos who benefited most from Japs having to sell their businesses to go internment camps; they took over a lot of Japanese industries and businesses, their neighborhoods being right next to them on the west coast.


----------



## DudleySmith

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then get the fuck out. Most intelligent adults realize it is still a discussion worth having, given the proliferation of nuclear weapons.



lol pipe down, dumbass.


----------



## DudleySmith

Plow Boy said:


> Japan attacked America, and that was one of the dumbest stunts in history. They worshiped the empower, who was a Shinto god, and he could do no wrong. He was a god to them, but he did not stop the attack upon America. He was as dumb as stump.



they made a point of white-washing his role, since he sold out his own military to save his own ass after the defeat, and helped a little with stabilizing the local politics.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> ...... Fuck ********* and their self-inflicted suffering; nearly all of them cheered and held parades after every victory, including so-called 'American' ********, who also held drives raising money for their own version of the Red Cross sending care packages for the Japanese troops invading Asian countries. They also couldn't be bothered to report Japanese intelligence officers recruiting in Japanese neighborhoods in the U.S. right up to Pearl. If they were all gone nobody these days would even notice.
> 
> .....


Not one Japanese American was ever convicted of espionage or sabotage during WWII. The same cannot be said for German and Italian Americans.


----------



## P@triot

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Most intelligent adults realize it is *still a discussion worth having*, *given the proliferation of nuclear weapons*.


Holy. Fucking. Shit. Where to start with this clown?

What “proliferation”, chief? You use words you don’t even understand in hopes of gaining some form of credibility when all of us can see you’re clueless
Nobody is selling nukes, asshat. And the only one’s actively trying to develop them is Iran - who the Dumbocrats refuse to stop
Furthermore, your ignorant little play conversation is *not* “worth having” as you’re irrelevant. You don’t set US policy and nobody consults you about US policy

So to repeat…get over it already. It was the right thing to do and nobody has questioned that for 80 years (not even our enemies) until anti-American Dumbocrats went looking for something to complain about America.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Not one Japanese American was ever convicted of espionage or sabotage during WWII.


Adolf Hitler was never “convicted” either. Do you think _he_ was innocent?


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Not one Japanese American was ever convicted of espionage or sabotage during WWII.


Who’s going to tell Sensei Snowflake here that OJ Simpson was never convicted for the murders of Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Holy. Fucking. Shit. Where to start with this clown?
> 
> What “proliferation”, chief? ....


Are you kidding? Do you know how many nations had atomic weapons in 1945? Is it the same number as today, Captain Math?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> ... nobody has questioned that for 80 years .....


That is not true.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Who’s going to tell Sensei Snowflake here that OJ Simpson was never convicted for the murders of Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman?


It's a little late for you to be eating so much red herring.


----------



## Plow Boy

Unkotare said:


> Read more than the back cover of a history book, Junior.


I read some more history, and I refreshed my memory.
China was engaged in a civil war during WWII, between the Communists and the Nationalists: Mao was leading the Communists, and Chiang Hai Shek leading the Nationalists, and there was Japan occupying a big part of the country.

So it seems to me that China was so divided that it was of little use in the end. So if you call that an ally, you are ignorant China, and it’s dilemma.

America should have been prepared to nuke Mao before he took over China. Can you comprehend that? When he began to defeat the Nationalists, we should have intervened.

You are woefully under read.


----------



## Unkotare

Plow Boy said:


> I read some more history, and I refreshed my memory.
> China was engaged in a civil war during WWII, between the Communists and the Nationalists: Mao was leading the Communists, and Chiang Hai Shek leading the Nationalists, and there was Japan occupying a big part of the country.
> 
> ......
> 
> You are woefully under read.


Because you posted a few things that any C level school boy knows about history? Go back and study some more, Junior.


----------



## Plow Boy

Unkotare said:


> Read more than the back cover of a history book, Junior.


I read some more history you venomous lout, and I refreshed my memory.
China was engaged in a civil war during WWII, between the Communists and the Nationalists: Mao was leading the Communists, and Chiang Hai Shek leading the Nationalists, 


Mushroom said:


> I am well aware of that.  And the fact that along the coast and major cities, Japan did not really occupy that much of China.  And we were supporting the Nationalist Chinese, and even the Marxists put things at rest until the Japanese were taken care of.
> 
> In fact, we also helped a great many Marxists during that war.  Seeing Japan as the larger threat.  Even giving supplies and advisors to both Mao and Uncle Ho.
> 
> Yes, I am very much aware of China at the time, and in the over four decades before as well.  But all you seem to be able to do is try to throw darts over and over, but none of them seem to stick.


How am I throwing darts? And what was it that compelled you to reply to a post that was not directed to you?


----------



## Plow Boy

Unkotare said:


> Because you posted a few things that any C level school boy knows about history? Go back and study some more, Junior.


You know, I do remember what I said at the beginning, and I haven’t heard too many boys say that we should have nuked Mao and his band of punks.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Are you kidding? Do you know how many nations had atomic weapons in 1945? Is it the same number as today, Captain Math?


Do you know how many nations had “atomic” laugh weapons in 1980? About the same as now (Russia, China, England, etc.). Wasn’t an issue 41 fucking years ago but suddenly it is today? Ok chief.

By the way, they are no longer “atomic”. Nuclear weapons are now hydrogen. More proof you shouldn’t be having this discussion as you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Do you know how many nations had “atomic” laugh weapons in 1980?.....


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed in 1980, professor.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> .....
> 
> By the way, they are no longer “atomic”. .....


They were in 1945, professor.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> .....Wasn’t an issue 41 fucking years ago.....


Yes it was, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed 80 years ago, professor.


----------



## Unkotare

Plow Boy said:


> You know, I do remember what I said at the beginning, and I haven’t heard too many boys say that we should have nuked Mao and his band of punks.


I wasn't talking about your ridiculous musings on military strategy, boy.


----------



## Mushroom

Plow Boy said:


> And what was it that compelled you to reply to a post that was not directed to you?



The fact that you were so obviously wrong, and foolishly wanting to nuke an ally.

And if you did not know, the Chinese Civil War was put on hold by both sides during the Second Sino-Japanese War.  Both sides agreed that they needed to work together to fight a threat that was going after each of them equally.  And even in 1945, nobody knew how or if the war between them would resume after Japan was dealt with.  There were even hopes among some that some kind of accommodation could be reached between the two sides when the war ended to stop it from flaring up again.  But ultimately that was dashed as the ink was barely dry on the "Double Tenth Agreement" between the CCP and KMT when the KMT went on the offensive again.

And that was an agreement hammered out between both sides by both the US and USSR.  The CCP recognized the KMT as the "Official Government of China", and the KMT recognized the CCP as the "Official Opposition Party".  But only a month later the KMT again went on the offensive, and the agreement was over.

I suggest you spend some more time and learn some actual history.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Meanwhile the Soviets violated the agreement immediately by providing the communist Chinese all the captured equipment from 700 thousand Japanese. And the IDIOT Truman cut of supplies to the Nationalists


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed in 1980, professor.


Yeah...and "atomic" weapons have *not* been "proliferated" over the past 40 years, imbecile. There isn't a facepalm big enough for the dumb shit you post.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> They were in 1945, professor.


And we weren't discussing 1945, dumb shit. We were discussing "proliferation". I now understand why you resort to cookie-fortune posts. You're trying to limit exposing just how dumb you are.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Yes it was, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed 80 years ago, professor.


Again...dumb shit...we weren't discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We were discussing _proliferation_.

You're so damn dumb, you can't even follow the conversation.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed in 1980, professor.


Just for context folks, as you can see in post #3,532 here, we were discussing "proliferation". I mentioned that since 1980, there really hasn't been much change in nations with nuclear weapons (just a couple here and there - such as North Korea recently).

Of course, 1980 was 41 years ago. But dumb shit here can't even follow the conversation. He thinks the discussion was still about the bombing when it had morphed into "proliferation"


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Yeah...and "atomic" weapons have *not* been "proliferated" over the past 40 years, ......


Do you realize that 1945 was NOT 40 years ago, professor?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Again...dumb shit...we weren't discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ....


Yes, we were. Look at the topic of the thread, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> ......We were discussing _proliferation_.
> ....


Do you know what that word means, stupid?


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Yes, we were. Look at the topic of the thread, stupid.


Bwahahaha!! Because nobody mentions _anything_ outside of the thread topic? You dumb-shits brought up “nuclear proliferation”.

You’re literally too stupid to even follow the conversation


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Do you know what that word means, stupid?


Yes, dumb fuck. And it doesn’t mean “Hiroshima” _or_ “Nagasaki”.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Do you realize that 1945 was NOT 40 years ago, professor?


Yeeaahh…I’m just gonna go ahead and direct you back to post #3542 where this was already explained to you once (when it shouldn’t have been as you should just follow the fucking conversation but lack the IQ to do so).

Please ask a trusted adult to read it to you. Then ask them to explain it to you.

I completely understand now why 99.8% of your posts are five word fortune cookie nonsense. Your IQ limits you to that.


----------



## Plow Boy

Unkotare said:


> Yes, we were. Look at the topic of the thread, stupid.


The topic was should the US have nuked Nagasaki only three days after Hiroshima, and you already know my answer was yes. And I am OK with your stance.

I may need to start a new topic and ask if Japan will go nuclear, in the light of a super aggressive China.

Do you think that will happen yourself?


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Bwahahaha!! Because nobody mentions _anything_ outside of the thread topic? You dumb-shits brought up “nuclear proliferation”.
> 
> You’re literally too stupid to even follow the conversation


Stay on topic, troll.


----------



## Unkotare

Plow Boy said:


> The topic was should the US have nuked Nagasaki only three days after Hiroshima, and you already know my answer was yes. And I am OK with your stance.
> 
> I may need to start a new topic and ask if Japan will go nuclear, in the light of a super aggressive China.
> 
> Do you think that will happen yourself?


No.


----------



## Plow Boy

Unkotare said:


> No.


OK.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Stay on topic, troll.


Your dumb-ass brought up “nuclear proliferation” 

You’re literally too dumb to follow your own conversation


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Your dumb-ass brought up “nuclear proliferation”


No I did not, genius.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later.


Sure they can.  And the arguments are hardly labored or embarrassing.

Japan had not surrendered yet.  Therefore we had every right to keep attacking them.  And Nagasaki was a military target just like Hiroshima.




mikegriffith1 said:


> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us.


Japan shouldn't have provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman knew weeks before Hiroshima that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese would surrender on terms that were acceptable to us. He knew this because we were reading the Japanese diplomatic cables--all of them.


He knew no such thing.  The Japanese diplomatic cables provided no such assurances.




mikegriffith1 said:


> He knew that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only snag was the demand for "unconditional surrender."


The fact that Japan could not even come to agreement on how many terms to ask of us was rather a snag.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Many Japan experts, including former Ambassador Grew, told Truman that guaranteeing the emperor's status would lead to an acceptable Japanese surrender.


Mr. Truman got lots of conflicting advice on that matter.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman and his inner circle, along with most of the War Department, also knew that Japan was prostrate and beaten, that Japan was virtually defenseless again our air raids, that our naval blockade had cut off most shipping, that Japan's merchant fleet was almost non-existent, that its Navy had been reduced by about 90%, and that for months the Japanese people had been surviving on greatly reduced food rations.


Mr. Truman also knew about Japan's massive buildup of troops to repel our coming invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * By April 1945, if not earlier, Japan posed no threat to us. By that time, Japan had no ability to carry out offensive operations against us.


Japan still had the ability to mount a withering defense when we invaded.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * WEEKS before Hiroshima, we knew--we absolutely knew--from numerous Japanese intercepts and human sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, and even many senior military leaders, were willing to surrender if we would just clarify the "unconditional surrender" terms to stipulate that the emperor would not be deposed in such a surrender.


Not terribly relevant considering that these people did not control the government of Japan.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * The events surrounding Japan's surrender offer prove that if we had stipulated weeks earlier that the emperor would not be deposed, the Japanese moderates could have overcome the hardliners and enabled the emperor to order a surrender weeks earlier.


Not really.  Japan had no intention of pursuing any alternatives so long as they had hopes of Soviet mediation.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * Truth be told, we ignored the clear evidence that Japan was willing to surrender weeks earlier on acceptable terms because many folks in our government were determined to test the atomic bomb on live targets in Japan. That is the shameful truth.


No, there is nothing true about that.  There was no such evidence.


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next


We chose to destroy targets with military value.




rightwinger said:


> We had other options than giving Japan two days to decide and killing 150,000 civilians


Sure.  We could have nuked three Japanese targets in one single day.




rightwinger said:


> Once we had the bomb, we did not need to sacrifice any more lives. We drop a bomb and then step back and pressure Japan to surrender or face an escalation
> Our ground troops were no longer involved


If Japan had kept refusing to surrender despite the atomic bombs, our troops would have gone ahead with the invasion.




rightwinger said:


> I have already said a mainland invasion was unnecessary once we had the bomb.


It would have been necessary had Japan still kept refusing to surrender despite us nuking them.




rightwinger said:


> Why would we endure an invasion if we already had the a bomb


Because if Japan had kept refusing to surrender despite us nuking them, invasion was the way to force their surrender.




rightwinger said:


> What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?


It could have turned out many different ways.  One possible alternative is ten million Japanese civilians starving to death followed by the horrific slaughter of American soldiers on Japanese beaches.  Another possible alternative is Japan surrendering anyway on the same schedule even without the atomic bombs.

It's impossible to know how an alternative history will turn out.  The people in charge did the best they could with what they had at the time.




rightwinger said:


> Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?


Hardly civilian cities.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.




rightwinger said:


> There were plenty of targets
> We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results.


We chose targets that would do military damage.




rightwinger said:


> Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.


If we did that, today you'd be complaining that we didn't give them thirty one days.

If we gave them thirty one days, today you'd be complaining that we didn't give them thirty two.




rightwinger said:


> Terms are....next one hits Tokyo


Killing the Emperor would not have been conducive to achieving surrender.


----------



## Open Bolt

sparky said:


> Actually Truman's own cabinet publicly stated the bomb would put us on par with the German genocide at the time,


No they didn't.




sparky said:


> and the dept of defense stifled all Truman's top generals , insisting all comments be vetted first


That sounds reasonable considering the war.




sparky said:


> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals


No canard and no revision.  Those figures came from actual casualty estimates.




sparky said:


> nope
> they knew they were done, and were negotiating


That would have been a neat trick considering that there were no negotiations.


----------



## Zincwarrior

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


In the words of the immortal bard: go fuck yourself.  Japan literally had a failed coup to stop the surrender. It took multiple bombs and the obliteration of japanese forces in Manchuria, to get them to surrender. Hirohito even said it in his speech to the people.


----------



## Open Bolt

JoeB131 said:


> The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.


Well, through the Soviets at least.




JoeB131 said:


> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.


There were no negotiations.  Therefore there was no sticking point in the negotiations.




JoeB131 said:


> The fact that 100 new battled hardened divisions of Rape-y Soviets just showed up on their western flank did.


It was more that the Soviet declaration of war meant that Japan's "mediation gambit" was not going to work.

Japan had already decided to try to escape the war when we overran Iwo Jima and Okinawa.




JoeB131 said:


> Most of the hard-core divisions were deployed in China or had been lost in the Pacific.  What they had left in Japan were the reserves, not well armed, not well trained.


True, but given the scale of the invasion and the scale of the defense, there was still potential for a lot of damage to be done in an invasion.


----------



## Open Bolt

CrusaderFrank said:


> Truman wanted to test to see which was more lethal: uranium bomb at ground level  (Hiroshima) or plutonium bomb as an air burst (Nagasaki)


Nonsense.


----------



## Open Bolt

whitehall said:


> The victors write the history books.


Who wrote "Japan's Longest Day"?




whitehall said:


> It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin.


Japan already had reasonable surrender terms.  That's what the Potsdam Proclamation was.




whitehall said:


> "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy.


There was nothing for him to send an envoy to,




whitehall said:


> The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it.


That is incorrect.  Mr. Truman did consider it.




whitehall said:


> Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians.


That's not really irony.  Japan was free to surrender on the same terms before the atomic bombs were dropped.




whitehall said:


> God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.


That's something for America to be proud of.




whitehall said:


> Wouldn't a "cease fire" be good enough to prevent the innocent citizens of two cities from becoming the victims of the horrors of the worst nightmare in the 20th century and beyond?


No.  Japan had only two options: surrender or extermination.  We'd have been okay with whichever of those two options they chose.




whitehall said:


> The dirty little secret is that the egg heads who developed the monstrosity were desperate to see how effective it would be on humans and the Japanese were the likely targets and little timid dumb Harry Truman was the ideal guy to sign the order.


Completely untrue.  The scientists opposed using the nukes against Japan, and they were not given any opportunity to express their views to the President.


----------



## rightwinger

Open Bolt said:


> It would have been necessary had Japan still kept refusing to surrender despite us nuking them.


But in retrospect, we know they didn’t keep refusing after we nuked them

We only gave them three days before we dropped the second bomb.

What if after Hiroshima we told them they had ten days to surrender or we would drop a bomb a week?


----------



## elektra

rightwinger said:


> We only gave them three days before we dropped the second bomb.
> 
> What if after Hiroshima we told them they had ten days to surrender or we would drop a bomb a week?


Hundreds of prisoners held by the Japanese would of died each additional day. A japanese submarine would of sunk another Indianapolis killing another 900 sailors. In Burma and across French IndoChina the Japanese would of destroyed more towns.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Sure they can.  And the arguments are hardly labored or embarrassing.
> 
> Japan had not surrendered yet.  Therefore we had every right to keep attacking them.  And Nagasaki was a military target just like Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan shouldn't have provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> 
> 
> He knew no such thing.  The Japanese diplomatic cables provided no such assurances.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Japan could not even come to agreement on how many terms to ask of us was rather a snag.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Truman got lots of conflicting advice on that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Truman also knew about Japan's massive buildup of troops to repel our coming invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan still had the ability to mount a withering defense when we invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> Not terribly relevant considering that these people did not control the government of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  Japan had no intention of pursuing any alternatives so long as they had hopes of Soviet mediation.
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing true about that.  There was no such evidence.





Open Bolt said:


> Who wrote "Japan's Longest Day"?
> 
> 
> 
> Japan already had reasonable surrender terms.  That's what the Potsdam Proclamation was.
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing for him to send an envoy to,
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Mr. Truman did consider it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not really irony.  Japan was free to surrender on the same terms before the atomic bombs were dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> That's something for America to be proud of.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Japan had only two options: surrender or extermination.  We'd have been okay with whichever of those two options they chose.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely untrue.  The scientists opposed using the nukes against Japan, and they were not given any opportunity to express their views to the President.



Wrong,
Japan HAD been trying to surrender for over 6 months, but Truman deliberately pretended to not understand them.
They thought they had made it clear they HAD surrendered.
Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were valid military targets.
There was minimal weapons production, and that was in deep tunnels, so unaffected by the nuclear attacks.
Japan did nothing to provoke anything.
Pearl Harbor was provoked by the illegal economic embargoes by the US.
There were no direct diplomatic cables possible, and the desire to surrender was sent through Russia.
Japan never asked for anything except the security of the Emperor.
A build up of Jap troops was impossible, since there was no new sources, and most troops were stuck on various islands.
Japan had zero defense left because they had no oil, planes, or pilots.
The Japanese feared Soviet invasion, not hope of mediation.

Oppenheimer was against using the nukes but Teller was in favor of testing them on the Japanese.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong,
> Japan HAD been trying to surrender for over 6 months, but Truman deliberately pretended to not understand them.
> They thought they had made it clear they HAD surrendered.
> Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were valid military targets.
> There was minimal weapons production, and that was in deep tunnels, so unaffected by the nuclear attacks.
> Japan did nothing to provoke anything.
> Pearl Harbor was provoked by the illegal economic embargoes by the US.
> There were no direct diplomatic cables possible, and the desire to surrender was sent through Russia.
> Japan never asked for anything except the security of the Emperor.
> A build up of Jap troops was impossible, since there was no new sources, and most troops were stuck on various islands.
> Japan had zero defense left because they had no oil, planes, or pilots.
> The Japanese feared Soviet invasion, not hope of mediation.
> 
> Oppenheimer was against using the nukes but Teller was in favor of testing them on the Japanese.


Why do you hate America?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Open Bolt said:


> Nonsense.


Look it up. 2 differnt bombs detonated on ground and in the air


----------



## Rigby5

elektra said:


> Hundreds of prisoners held by the Japanese would of died each additional day. A japanese submarine would of sunk another Indianapolis killing another 900 sailors. In Burma and across French IndoChina the Japanese would of destroyed more towns.



Wrong.
Prisoners were not being abused.
The Indianapolis was a fluke, and only caused deaths because of secrecy.
Aggression had ended in Burma/IndoChina, over a year before.


----------



## Rigby5

Zincwarrior said:


> Why do you hate America?



Because the US murders more people than anyone.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Prisoners were not being abused.
> The Indianapolis was a fluke, and only caused deaths because of secrecy.
> Aggression had ended in Burma/IndoChina, over a year before.


Your relationship with facts appears to be only tangential.


----------



## Mushroom

P@triot said:


> Of course, 1980 was 41 years ago. But dumb shit here can't even follow the conversation. He thinks the discussion was still about the bombing when it had morphed into "proliferation"



Actually, it was a big freaking deal 40 years ago.

India had nukes, and Pakistan was trying hard to make their own.  There had been almost constant fighting between the two since the two nations were founded, and it was a major concern at the time.

And exactly 40 years ago (1982) the world was watching Brazil closely.  They had bought enriched uranium from China, and had both a nuclear weapon and a missile program in progress.

Egypt was also being watched closely, as they had a nuclear reactor capable of enriching uranium, that was built by the Soviet Union.  And they refused to sign the NPT until 1981.

Then there is Iraq, which in 1981 had their breeder reactor destroyed by Israel.  That actually caused Saddam to scale back their nuclear weapon program.

And in 1980-1981 there was rampant speculation that South Africa was making nukes (which they were).

And since the end of the "Two China Policy", Taiwan was trying to develop them for years.  This was actually part of talks often in the 1980s, as restoring that policy would ease Taiwan's fears so they would not need nukes.

I can only assume you were not alive then, as I am more than aware of all of these cases.  Proliferation was a huge deal in the late 1970's and early 1980s.  As a lot of the techniques by then had been leaked, and equipment was now available on the open market that could be used to refine uranium into weapons grade material.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Rigby5 said:


> Because the US murders more people than anyone.


That's a false statement. Fail harder.


----------



## elektra

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Prisoners were not being abused.
> The Indianapolis was a fluke, and only caused deaths because of secrecy.
> Aggression had ended in Burma/IndoChina, over a year before.


prisoners were murdered, tortured, and starved, well documented

The indianapolis was targeted and sunk, which had nothing to do with the secrecy. Everything else is speculation in the face of history. 

Aggression? The japanese were at war, actively attacking towns, terrorizing the people, to include raping women and children. Thank you for allowing me to clarify that. 

All documented.


----------



## Mushroom

CrusaderFrank said:


> Truman wanted to test to see which was more lethal: uranium bomb at ground level (Hiroshima) or plutonium bomb as an air burst (Nagasaki)



Nonsense.  We already knew that, the only question was if an implosion plutonium bomb would even work.  That was the very reason for the Trinity test.

A uranium gun device was known to work, the science behind that was simple and easily tested.  But plutonium was a bit of a wild card, as theoretically it should work but there was no way to be positive until it was actually tested.

Oh, and Hiroshima was also an air burst.  It was supposed to go off between 1,800 and 2,000 feet.  But we now know from blast data the actual altitude was 600 feet.  But it was not, and was never intended to be a "ground level" detonation.


----------



## Mushroom

Maxdeath said:


> You don't think anyone noticed the largest bomb test to have ever taken place?



No, they did not.  For several reasons.

First, it was in the middle of the New Mexico desert.  At a military test range, where large explosions were conducted all the time.  Hell, just two months before they conducted the 100 ton test.  A detonation of 100 tons of TNT to calibrate their equipment.  And not a thing was noticed.



> Alamogordo, N.M., July 16 The commanding officer of the Alamogordo Army Air Base made the following statement today: "Several inquiries have been received concerning a heavy explosion which occurred on the Alamogordo Air base reservation this morning. A remotely located ammunition magazine containing a considerable amount of high explosives and pyrotechnics exploded. There was no loss of life or injury to anyone, and the property damage outside of the explosives magazine was negligible. Weather conditions affecting the content of gas shells exploded by the blast may make it desirable for the Army to evacuate temporarily a few civilians from their homes."











						Clipping from Clovis News-Journal - Newspapers.com
					

Clipping found in Clovis News-Journal in Clovis, New Mexico on Jul 16, 1945.




					www.newspapers.com
				




And in the year or so prior there had been many munitions explosions.  One near the Benicia Naval Weapon Station involved over 4,000 tons of high explosives.  And also in 1944 was the detonation during resupply mission at New Guinea of the USS Mount Hood, where almost 4,000 tons of high explosives detonated.  Where over 50 ships and boats were destroyed or damaged, and almost 500 killed.

Sadly, such accidents were all too common during the war.  SO the military saying that they had a bunker explosion, the people would have just shrugged, as that was not all that uncommon.


----------



## Mushroom

rightwinger said:


> But in retrospect, we know they didn’t keep refusing after we nuked them



Actually, they did.  Look into the discussion of the War Council.  The final decision was not made until the early morning of 14 August, 8 days after the first bomb was dropped.


----------



## Mushroom

CrusaderFrank said:


> Look it up. 2 differnt bombs detonated on ground and in the air



No, two airbursts.



> The locations of the canisters relative to data. The historical records 26 of the mission by the Army Air Corps, the operational group formed both incomplete and inconsistent. For example, the burst have been elusive the 509th Composite Group of to deliver the weapons, are the crew members” logs, in particular included. mission in those of the bombardiers, and the debriefing notes are not A crucial fact, the aircraft altitude, is given for the Hiroshima the strike report26 as 30 200 ft, in the historical narrative 26 as 31 600 ft, and in Parsons- loglo as 32 700 ft. Upon discovery of the navigator-s log on the inside covers of Marx-s book,16 many of the inconsistencies were resolved: the true altitude is given there as 31 060 ft, possibly a transposition. Correction of the indicated pressure altitude gives a value of 32 200 ft, in reasonable agreement with Parsons” log or the 31 600 ft. An interview by J. A. Auxier and L. J. Deal with General Sweeney (then Major), who piloted the instrumentation aircraft from which the canisters were dropped, resolved the problem of the aircraft spacing in the formation.* Uncertainties which still remain include the time from “bomb away” or release tone to parachute deployment, the true altitude, and the gage calibrations. A summary of the missions is given in Tables I and II.





			https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> Sure they can.  And the arguments are hardly labored or embarrassing.
> 
> Japan had not surrendered yet.  Therefore we had every right to keep attacking them.  And Nagasaki was a military target just like Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan shouldn't have provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> 
> 
> He knew no such thing.  The Japanese diplomatic cables provided no such assurances.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Japan could not even come to agreement on how many terms to ask of us was rather a snag.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Truman got lots of conflicting advice on that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Truman also knew about Japan's massive buildup of troops to repel our coming invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan still had the ability to mount a withering defense when we invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> Not terribly relevant considering that these people did not control the government of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  Japan had no intention of pursuing any alternatives so long as they had hopes of Soviet mediation.
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing true about that.  There was no such evidence.


Hilarious.


----------



## elektra

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong,
> Japan HAD been trying to surrender for over 6 months, but Truman deliberately pretended to not understand them.
> They thought they had made it clear they HAD surrendered.
> Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were valid military targets.
> There was minimal weapons production, and that was in deep tunnels, so unaffected by the nuclear attacks.
> Japan did nothing to provoke anything.
> Pearl Harbor was provoked by the illegal economic embargoes by the US.
> There were no direct diplomatic cables possible, and the desire to surrender was sent through Russia.
> Japan never asked for anything except the security of the Emperor.
> A build up of Jap troops was impossible, since there was no new sources, and most troops were stuck on various islands.
> Japan had zero defense left because they had no oil, planes, or pilots.
> The Japanese feared Soviet invasion, not hope of mediation.
> 
> Oppenheimer was against using the nukes but Teller was in favor of testing them on the Japanese.


yet, here we are, with facts









						WW2's Last Dogfight – Meet the Pilots Who Fought a Deadly Air Duel Over Tokyo the Day Japan Surrendered - MilitaryHistoryNow.com
					

Four Grumman Hellcats from the USS Yorktown were in the air near Tokyo when word of Japan's surrender was announced on Aug. 15, 1945. Moments later, the flight would find itself in a furious dogfight against 20 enemy warplanes.




					militaryhistorynow.com
				



*FEW HISTORY BOOKS* mention the names Billy Hobbs, Eugene Mandeberg, Howard “Howdy” Harrison and Joseph Sahloff. Yet, these four American naval pilots earned themselves a grim place in the annals of the Second World War: All were shot down in a fierce dogfight that raged over the Japan on Aug. 15, 1945 – mere hours _after_ Emperor Hirohito had announced his country’s unconditional surrender.


My most recent book, _Dogfight over Tokyo_, tells the story of these four men, the last Americans to die in combat in World War Two.


----------



## gipper

Zincwarrior said:


> Why do you hate America?


The truth is not hate dumb ass.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mushroom said:


> No, two airbursts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf


When I visited West Point decades ago, they had a display case about the atomic bombings and they were uranium and plutonium; the first on the ground, the second in the air. I never forget that BECAUSE it sure looked like we were conducting experiments in lethality.

Maybe the story's changed since then, but what can you trust from a government of lies, Lies and LIES?


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> yet, here we are, with facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WW2's Last Dogfight – Meet the Pilots Who Fought a Deadly Air Duel Over Tokyo the Day Japan Surrendered - MilitaryHistoryNow.com
> 
> 
> Four Grumman Hellcats from the USS Yorktown were in the air near Tokyo when word of Japan's surrender was announced on Aug. 15, 1945. Moments later, the flight would find itself in a furious dogfight against 20 enemy warplanes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> militaryhistorynow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FEW HISTORY BOOKS* mention the names Billy Hobbs, Eugene Mandeberg, Howard “Howdy” Harrison and Joseph Sahloff. Yet, these four American naval pilots earned themselves a grim place in the annals of the Second World War: All were shot down in a fierce dogfight that raged over the Japan on Aug. 15, 1945 – mere hours _after_ Emperor Hirohito had announced his country’s unconditional surrender.
> 
> 
> My most recent book, _Dogfight over Tokyo_, tells the story of these four men, the last Americans to die in combat in World War Two.


We need to incinerate 200,000 defenseless Japanese women an children because of one dogfight.

Jesus that’s dumb.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


That was our fault?

We begged them to surrender.Blame the Japs Skippy


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

CrusaderFrank said:


> When I visited West Point decades ago, they had a display case about the atomic bombings and they were uranium and plutonium; the first on the ground, the second in the air. I never forget that BECAUSE it sure looked like we were conducting experiments in lethality.
> 
> Maybe the story's changed since then, but what can you trust from a government of lies, Lies and LIES?


In the air would spread the main destruction over a longer area no?


----------



## gipper

Hang on Sloopy said:


> That was our fault?
> 
> We begged them to surrender.Blame the Japs Skippy


Dumb. Really dumb.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

gipper said:


> Dumb. Really dumb.


What that you slaved to a boss and an alarm clock your whole life???

That is really really dumb. How can you justify being a dumb god damned slave you dumb bastard you?

Be honest with your self once


----------



## gipper

Hang on Sloopy said:


> What that you slaved to a boss and an alarm clock your whole life???
> 
> That is really really dumb. How can you justify being a dumb god damned slave you dumb bastard you?
> 
> Be honest with your self once


Lol. CRAZY!


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> We need to incinerate 200,000 defenseless Japanese women an children because of one dogfight.
> 
> Jesus that’s dumb.


It sure is dumb, to call the 3 and half years of war with japan, the tens of thousands dead, the hundreds of thousands of causalities, it is dumb to call that one dogfight.


----------



## Dayton3

I can't believe that the atomic bombings are being discussed SEVENTY FIVE years later!!!.

Japan started the war with the U.S.    I'm sure they felt justified (due to U.S.  economic pressure) but the bottom line is that they chose war as a resolution to that.    So all that follows was their fault.    

Tough.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

gipper said:


> Lol. CRAZY!


When you've read Truman's autobio come talk to me and shut your GD pie hole

Crazy???......NO. Slaving to a miserable job???...now that's crazy

Read a GD book from someone there like the president


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hang on Sloopy said:


> In the air would spread the main destruction over a longer area no?


That's why they were experimenting


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

CrusaderFrank said:


> That's why they were experimenting


Thanky for that tid bit.  thought both were over the air. Does it really make a difference in whole?...lol


----------



## Dayton3

Hang on Sloopy said:


> Thanky for that tid bit.  thought both were over the air. Does it really make a difference in whole?...lol



Air bursts ultimately produce far less fallout (though that wasn't an issue in 1945)


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong,
> Japan HAD been trying to surrender for over 6 months, but Truman deliberately pretended to not understand them.
> They thought they had made it clear they HAD surrendered.
> Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were valid military targets.
> There was minimal weapons production, and that was in deep tunnels, so unaffected by the nuclear attacks.
> Japan did nothing to provoke anything.
> Pearl Harbor was provoked by the illegal economic embargoes by the US.
> There were no direct diplomatic cables possible, and the desire to surrender was sent through Russia.
> Japan never asked for anything except the security of the Emperor.
> A build up of Jap troops was impossible, since there was no new sources, and most troops were stuck on various islands.
> Japan had zero defense left because they had no oil, planes, or pilots.
> The Japanese feared Soviet invasion, not hope of mediation.
> 
> Oppenheimer was against using the nukes but Teller was in favor of testing them on the Japanese.


LOL ALL of that is a straight up LIE.


----------



## Mushroom

CrusaderFrank said:


> When I visited West Point decades ago, they had a display case about the atomic bombings and they were uranium and plutonium; the first on the ground, the second in the air. I never forget that BECAUSE it sure looked like we were conducting experiments in lethality.



Maybe you are confused because of the Trinity Test.  That was on a 100 foot tower.  And the first detonation of a plutonium bomb was from that tower.

But please, try doing research instead of relying on decades old memories.


----------



## Mushroom

Hang on Sloopy said:


> In the air would spread the main destruction over a longer area no?



Exactly.  That is why artillery is normally fused to detonate in the air and not on the ground.

One of the greatest inventions of WWII that many overlook.  The proximity fuse.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL ALL of that is a straight up LIE.


All facts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> All facts.


Not one of those is a fact you lying shitstain,


----------



## gipper

Hang on Sloopy said:


> When you've read Truman's autobio come talk to me and shut your GD pie hole
> 
> Crazy???......NO. Slaving to a miserable job???...now that's crazy
> 
> Read a GD book from someone there like the president


Lol. All you’ve ever read is a government text book. Lol.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Lol. All you’ve ever read is a government text book. Lol.


Says the small man


----------



## Rigby5

Mushroom said:


> Then there is Iraq, which in 1981 had their breeder reactor destroyed by Israel. That actually caused Saddam to scale back their nuclear weapon program.



Totally false.
Orisaq was NOT a breeder reactor, and it was owned and to be run by the French.
Saddam never had any nuclear weapons program, at all, in any way.
The claims to the contrary were totally proven to be false propaganda.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mushroom said:


> Maybe you are confused because of the Trinity Test.  That was on a 100 foot tower.  And the first detonation of a plutonium bomb was from that tower.
> 
> But please, try doing research instead of relying on decades old memories.


Please STFU.

Thank you


----------



## Rigby5

elektra said:


> yet, here we are, with facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WW2's Last Dogfight – Meet the Pilots Who Fought a Deadly Air Duel Over Tokyo the Day Japan Surrendered - MilitaryHistoryNow.com
> 
> 
> Four Grumman Hellcats from the USS Yorktown were in the air near Tokyo when word of Japan's surrender was announced on Aug. 15, 1945. Moments later, the flight would find itself in a furious dogfight against 20 enemy warplanes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> militaryhistorynow.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FEW HISTORY BOOKS* mention the names Billy Hobbs, Eugene Mandeberg, Howard “Howdy” Harrison and Joseph Sahloff. Yet, these four American naval pilots earned themselves a grim place in the annals of the Second World War: All were shot down in a fierce dogfight that raged over the Japan on Aug. 15, 1945 – mere hours _after_ Emperor Hirohito had announced his country’s unconditional surrender.
> 
> 
> My most recent book, _Dogfight over Tokyo_, tells the story of these four men, the last Americans to die in combat in World War Two.



Wrong.
If you read it, these US planes were shot down by antiaircraft fire, NOT a dogfight.
{...
More losses would follow that month when the Air Group challenged Kure Naval Base, an enemy outpost protected by guns placed on nearby hills and more batteries anchored on warships. In fact, veteran fighter pilots cautioned the Air Group 88 aviators to “stay away from Kure.”

During the July 24, 1945 attack, multi-coloured antiaircraft bursts greeted the Air Group while it was still five miles from its target.

“They shot coloured tracers and everything they had,” said torpedo gunner Ralph Morlan. “[It was] the heaviest barrage I have ever seen yet.”

Seven Americans died in the attack on Kure, bringing the unit’s total battle casualties in only three weeks of action to 12.
...}

And obviously even that was desperation, where they had to resort to firing tracers, which are only useful at night.


----------



## Rigby5

If the Japanese had any significant aircraft left by then, then the long bombers that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have easily been shot down.
They were alone, slow, and an easy target.
The fact they were not attacked, shows that Japan was essentially defenseless, and no longer had any airplanes they could put up.


----------



## Rigby5

The Hiroshima bomb was air burst.

{...
At 08:09, Tibbets started his bomb run and handed control over to his bombardier, Major Thomas Ferebee.[138] The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the Little Boy containing about 64 kg (141 lb) of uranium-235 took 44.4 seconds to fall from the aircraft flying at about 31,000 feet (9,400 m) to a detonation height of about 1,900 feet (580 m) above the city.[139][140] _Enola Gay_ traveled 11.5 mi (18.5 km) before it felt the shock waves from the blast.[141]
...}

Apparently so was the Nagasaki bomb.
{...
At 11:01 Japanese Time, a last-minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed _Bockscar_'s bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 5 kg (11 lb) of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. It exploded 47 seconds later at 11:02 Japanese Time[195] at 1,650 ± 33 ft (503 ± 10 m), above a tennis court,[209] halfway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the south and the Nagasaki Arsenal in the north. This was nearly 3 km (1.9 mi) northwest of the planned hypocenter; the blast was confined to the Urakami Valley and a major portion of the city was protected by the intervening hills.[210] The resulting explosion released the equivalent energy of 21 ± 2 kt (87.9 ± 8.4 TJ).[139] _Big Stink_ spotted the explosion from a hundred miles away, and flew over to observe.[211]
...}








						Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Rigby5

Hang on Sloopy said:


> That was our fault?
> 
> We begged them to surrender.Blame the Japs Skippy



No, we would not LET them surrender.
The Japanese had been begging to surrender for over 6 months, and we would not let them.


----------



## Rigby5

We knew the Japanese were trying to surrender, but we would not let them.

{...
However, the overwhelming historical evidence from U.S. and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered in August even if the atomic bombs had not been used, and the documents show that President Truman and his closest advisors knew this.

The Allied demand for unconditional surrender caused the Japanese to fear that the emperor, whom many considered a deity, would be tried as a war criminal and executed. A study by General Douglas MacArthur’s Southwest Pacific Command compared the emperor’s execution to “the crucifixion of Christ for us.”

“Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace,” sent Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo to Ambassador Naotake Sato, who was in Moscow on July 12, 1945, trying to convince the Soviet Union to negotiate acceptable surrender terms on behalf of Japan.

But the Soviet Union’s entry into the war on August 8 changed everything for the Japanese leadership, which privately acknowledged the need to surrender quickly.

Allied intelligence services had been warning for months that the Soviet Union’s entry into the war would force the Japanese to surrender. As early as April 11, 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Intelligence had predicted, “If at any time the USSR enters the war, all Japanese will understand that absolute defeat is inevitable.”

Truman knew that the Japanese were looking for a way to end the war; he had described the cable intercepted from Togo on July 12 as “a telegram from the Emperor of Japan asking for peace.”

Truman also knew that the Soviet invasion would put Japan out of the war. At the Potsdam summit in Germany on July 17, after Stalin assured him that the Soviets were arriving on time, Truman wrote in his diary, “Will be at war with Japan on August 15. There will be no more Japanese when that happens.” The next day he assured his wife, “Now we’ll end the war a year early, and think of the children who won’t die!”

The Soviets invaded Japanese-controlled Manchuria at midnight on August 8 and quickly destroyed the venerable Kwantung Army. Predictably, the attack traumatized the Japanese leadership. They could not fight a war on two fronts, and the threat of a communist takeover of Japanese territory was their worst nightmare.

On August 13, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki explained that Japan must surrender quickly because “the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Karafuto, but also Hokkaido.” This would destroy the foundations of Japan. We must end the war when we can deal with the United States.”
...}








						Truman knew that in 1945 Japan would have surrendered without dropping atomic bombs.
					

For 75 years in the United States it has been accepted that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and on Nagasaki three days later was the only way to end World War II without an invasi…




					elcolectivodeuno.wordpress.com


----------



## Rigby5

Read the "Potsdam Diaries", by Truman.
He discussed with Stalin, how to pretend to not understand attempts at surrender, so we could test both nuclear devices.


----------



## Zincwarrior

gipper said:


> The truth is not hate dumb ass.


Russobot.


----------



## Dayton3

Rigby5 said:


> If the Japanese had any significant aircraft left by then, then the long bombers that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have easily been shot down.
> They were alone, slow, and an easy target.
> The fact they were not attacked, shows that Japan was essentially defenseless, and no longer had any airplanes they could put up.



Single bombers (or three in the case of Hiroshima) were not considered a significant threat which is why the Japanese didn't bother sounding the air raid sirens when Enola Gay,  the instrument carrying bomber and the camera carrying bomber were sited.


----------



## Rigby5

Dayton3 said:


> Single bombers (or three in the case of Hiroshima) were not considered a significant threat which is why the Japanese didn't bother sounding the air raid sirens when Enola Gay,  the instrument carrying bomber and the camera carrying bomber were sited.



Sure, but if they had any planes, they still would have launched them, to try to knock out such an easy target.


----------



## Dayton3

Rigby5 said:


> Sure, but if they had any planes, they still would have launched them, to try to knock out such an easy target.


Would they given how terribly low on usable fuel the Japanese were by then?

I mean come on.   They were so bereft of fuel that they sent the battleship Yamato on a one way suicide mission.


----------



## Rigby5

Dayton3 said:


> Would they given how terribly low on usable fuel the Japanese were by then?
> 
> I mean come on.   They were so bereft of fuel that they sent the battleship Yamato on a one way suicide mission.


Well that is the point, that they no longer had any significant defensive capability.
Conducting nuclear experiments on them then was pretty gross.


----------



## Dayton3

Rigby5 said:


> Well that is the point, that they no longer had any significant defensive capability.
> Conducting nuclear experiments on them then was pretty gross.



What was wrong with that?


----------



## AZrailwhale

JoeB131 said:


> You should really read up on their invasion of Manchuria. They rolled the place up so quickly the puppet government didn't even have a chance to escape.
> 
> They had over 100 Division lined up... By October, they'd have been in Japan proper while we were still slogging on the beaches.  Hokkaido was completely undefended.


The only problem with that fiction is that the Soviets had no way to get to Japan.  The Soviet Pacific "Fleet" amounted to a tiny task force smaller than the DEI Navy was in 1941.  The US had lent the Soviets enough landing craft to land a single infantry division without artillery or tank support.  Operational losses would deplete the landing craft at at least a rate of twenty percent per wave, probably higher since the Soviet coxswains would be untrained, or at best badly trained green amateurs who would damage their own boats through bad boat handling.  
The Japanese had at least two infantry divisions plus tens of thousands of militia on Hokkaido.  Based upon the fighting on Okinawa  the Japanese would have slaughtered the poorly armed and supplied Soviets.  The Japanese were particularly tenacious when defending their own territory.


----------



## Rigby5

Dayton3 said:


> What was wrong with that?



Because nuclear weapons are illegal.
They are not a clean kill like a bullet.
They burn, poison, and kill slowly and painfully.


----------



## Rigby5

AZrailwhale said:


> The only problem with that fiction is that the Soviets had no way to get to Japan.  The Soviet Pacific "Fleet" amounted to a tiny task force smaller than the DEI Navy was in 1941.  The US had lent the Soviets enough landing craft to land a single infantry division without artillery or tank support.  Operational losses would deplete the landing craft at at least a rate of twenty percent per wave, probably higher since the Soviet coxswains would be untrained, or at best badly trained green amateurs who would damage their own boats through bad boat handling.
> The Japanese had at least two infantry divisions plus tens of thousands of militia on Hokkaido.  Based upon the fighting on Okinawa  the Japanese would have slaughtered the poorly armed and supplied Soviets.  The Japanese were particularly tenacious when defending their own territory.



Russia did attack Japan in WWII.

{...
At the February 1945 Yalta Conference, Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan three months after Germany’s surrender. The Yalta declaration gave Moscow back southern Sakhalin, which Japan had seized during the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05, as well as the Kurile Island chain to which Russia had renounced its claim in 1875. Mongolia was also to be recognized as an independent state (it was already a Soviet client), and Soviet interests in the naval base at the Chinese port of Port Arthur (Dalian) and the Manchurian railway that it had controlled before 1905 were to be respected.

A massive invasion of Manchuria began the day after the Soviet declaration of war. Soviet forces also conducted amphibious landings along Japan’s colonial periphery: Japan’s Northern Territories, on Sakhalin Island, and in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria created a haven for Chinese communist forces, who had been fighting both the Japanese and Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists, aiding the communists’ eventual triumph in 1948.
...}


----------



## AZrailwhale

Rigby5 said:


> Because nuclear weapons are illegal.
> They are not a clean kill like a bullet.
> They burn, poison, and kill slowly and painfully.


Nukes weren’t illegal then and aren’t today.  Bullets don’t kill cleanly in most cases, unless you are “lucky” enough to be hit in the brain or heart, you die slowly and in great pain.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Rigby5 said:


> Russia did attack Japan in WWII.
> 
> {...
> At the February 1945 Yalta Conference, Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan three months after Germany’s surrender. The Yalta declaration gave Moscow back southern Sakhalin, which Japan had seized during the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05, as well as the Kurile Island chain to which Russia had renounced its claim in 1875. Mongolia was also to be recognized as an independent state (it was already a Soviet client), and Soviet interests in the naval base at the Chinese port of Port Arthur (Dalian) and the Manchurian railway that it had controlled before 1905 were to be respected.
> 
> A massive invasion of Manchuria began the day after the Soviet declaration of war. Soviet forces also conducted amphibious landings along Japan’s colonial periphery: Japan’s Northern Territories, on Sakhalin Island, and in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria created a haven for Chinese communist forces, who had been fighting both the Japanese and Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists, aiding the communists’ eventual triumph in 1948.
> ...}


Those were small unit actions taken AFTER the Japanese surrender.  Usually done by troops embarked on cargo ships sailing up to undefended docks.  Manchuria was another thing entirely, the Soviets took months to pre-position a huge armored army and plenty of lend-lease supplies and overran the remaining poorly armed and equipped IJA troops that hadn’t been worth pulling back to defend the home islands.  The Soviets already occupied half of Sakhalin island, so they massed troops on the side they controlled.  None of what the Soviets did were amphibious landings as the WAllies and Japanese understood the term.


----------



## Dayton3

Rigby5 said:


> Because nuclear weapons are illegal.
> They are not a clean kill like a bullet.
> They burn, poison, and kill slowly and painfully.



None of that makes nuclear weapons "illegal". 

And although the information is limited thus far (thankfully) evidence suggests that most people killed by nuclear weapons die very quickly.


----------



## Mushroom

CrusaderFrank said:


> Please STFU.
> 
> Thank you



Typical of liars that can not refute facts and truth.  Sorry if I burst your little nonsense bubble.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Months before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already prostrate, starving, and virtually powerless. The home islands were cut off from China. The Japanese people were approaching the point of starvation. Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attacks.


Yet they kept refusing to surrender, and they had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes ready to defend against our invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> -- 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. Many of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.


They all had enough fuel for one kamikaze flight.




mikegriffith1 said:


> -- By June 1945, the Japanese Navy’s 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 air force and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​


Yes.  Except for all those thousands of kamikazes and suicide boats waiting to pounce on our invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> So this nonsense that we had to use nukes to "save hundreds of thousands of lives" is gross revisionism of the basest kind.


It is true that saving lives was not the issue.

The reason why we used the nukes was to try to make Japan surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Again, weeks before Hiroshima, we knew from multiple sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that their only condition was that the emperor not be deposed, which was exactly the arrangement that we later accepted--after we had nuked two cities.


It is a shame those civilian leaders were not in control of the Japanese government.  Their lack of actual power made their willingness to surrender rather pointless.




mikegriffith1 said:


> I see some people are doing everything but addressing the point that three days was far too soon to be dropping another atomic bomb on Japan,


I disagree with said point.  We should have introduced the atomic bombs by nuking three Japanese targets all in one day.




mikegriffith1 said:


> not to mention the fact that the bomb should not have been dropped on a civilian target,


It wasn't.  Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki were both military targets.




mikegriffith1 said:


> We rightly said that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC was barbaric,


The World Trade Center attack deliberately targeted civilians.  That makes it quite different from military targets like Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You don't kill another batch of tens of thousands of civilians of an enemy who you know wants to surrender and who is virtually defenseless and starving.


We do however nuke military targets in an enemy nation that is refusing to surrender and has millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes ready to pounce on our invading forces.




mikegriffith1 said:


> It is surprising to see conservatives defending FDR's provocation of Japan and Truman's nuking of Japan.


Conservatives like facts.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman, in refusing to give the Japanese any assurance about the emperor's status, even though he knew from intercepts that this was the only real sticking point for surrender, carried out Soviet policy and enabled the Soviets to invade Manchuria.


Truman knew from intercepts that the Emperor's status was not the only sticking point for surrender.  He knew that the military faction (the faction with the actual power) wanted more than one condition.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * Japan's leaders offered very reasonable concessions to try to get FDR to lift his draconian sanctions, which were crippling Japan's economy.


Did they offer to stop their genocide against the Chinese people?




mikegriffith1 said:


> * The Soviets were able to gather sufficient forces and equipment to invade Japan's northern and central Kuril Islands, in addition to invading Manchuria, thanks to Truman's stalling on the Japanese surrender. If the Soviets had not met such fierce resistance in their assaults on the Kuriles, such as at the Battle of Shumshu, they might have followed through with their plans to invade Hokkaido, one of Japan's four main home islands. According to some sources, the Soviets were about to carry out their planned invasion of Hokkaido when Truman suddenly awoke from his stupor and realized what a blunder it had been to stall the Japanese surrender so the Soviets could join the war against Japan.


There was no such stalling of the surrender.  Not by Mr. Truman.  And not by anyone in the Truman Administration.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * Truman and his inner circle knew from Japanese intercepts that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that the only real sticking point was the emperor's status in a surrender.


They also knew that Japan's civilian leaders had no power and their willingness to surrender was irrelevant.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Numerous military and civilian officials told Truman that if he would just assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, they would surrender on acceptable terms.


Mr. Truman received all sorts of contradictory advice regarding the Emperor.


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> But in retrospect, we know they didn’t keep refusing after we nuked them


Yes.  In retrospect.

People who are fighting a war do not have the advantage of retrospect.  They have to do their best with the information that they have in real time.




rightwinger said:


> What if after Hiroshima we told them they had ten days to surrender or we would drop a bomb a week?


Then right now I'd be addressing questions about why didn't we wait 15 days.




rightwinger said:


> Choose a military target with military infrastructure and a port. The Japanese were capable of assessing the magnitude of the destruction.


That's exactly what we did do.  Hiroshima was Japan's primary military port.




rightwinger said:


> Again, give them a reasonable amount of time to assess their situation. Three days is not enough.


Japan already knew what an atomic bomb was because of their own atomic program.  Japan knew that we claimed to have dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima because we announced that claim to the world.  And by August 7 Japan knew that we were telling the truth.  That gave them two more days to surrender if they wanted to.

I am not aware of any requirement that we stop and give the enemy an opportunity to assess the damage after every blow that we land on them.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong,


Not wrong.  Japan refused to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> Japan HAD been trying to surrender for over 6 months, but Truman deliberately pretended to not understand them.


Japan's first surrender offer came on August 10, which was after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> They thought they had made it clear they HAD surrendered.


Japan knew very well that they were refusing to surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were valid military targets.


Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, and was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.

Nagasaki was a industrial center with large weapons factories.




Rigby5 said:


> There was minimal weapons production, and that was in deep tunnels, so unaffected by the nuclear attacks.


The second atomic bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, a massive (4100' x 2000') factory complex that was Japan's primary sours of light machine guns, heavy machine guns, and 20mm anti-aircraft guns, as well as the ammo for all of said guns.

The plane unfortunately had to divert to the secondary target of Nagasaki where it exploded between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works (which made steel for Japanese warships and also built naval torpedoes) and the Mitsubishi Ordnance Works (which built aerial torpedoes, and had built special torpedoes just to overcome Pearl Harbor's defenses).

The destruction of both factories was quite satisfactory.




Rigby5 said:


> Japan did nothing to provoke anything.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki show that you are wrong.  Japan provoked us into nuking both targets.




Rigby5 said:


> Pearl Harbor was provoked by the illegal economic embargoes by the US.


There is nothing even remotely illegal about us refusing to sell our stuff to regimes that are using that stuff to commit genocide.




Rigby5 said:


> There were no direct diplomatic cables possible, and the desire to surrender was sent through Russia.


No such message was sent.  All Japan did was ask Russia to let Prince Konoye come and talk to them.




Rigby5 said:


> Japan never asked for anything except the security of the Emperor.


Not quite.  They asked that he retain unlimited dictatorial power.  Needless to say we refused.




Rigby5 said:


> A build up of Jap troops was impossible, since there was no new sources, and most troops were stuck on various islands.


Japan had millions of troops already in their home islands.




Rigby5 said:


> Japan had zero defense left because they had no oil, planes, or pilots.


Japan had a couple million troops, ten thousand kamikazes, and thousands of suicide boats all ready to pounce on our invasion when it came ashore.




Rigby5 said:


> The Japanese feared Soviet invasion, not hope of mediation.


History says otherwise.  They were trying to escape the war through Soviet mediation.  The declaration of war eliminated the possibility of that mediation.




Rigby5 said:


> the US murders more people than anyone.


Nonsense.


----------



## Open Bolt

CrusaderFrank said:


> Look it up. 2 differnt bombs detonated on ground and in the air


No.  Two airbursts.




CrusaderFrank said:


> I never forget that BECAUSE it sure looked like we were conducting experiments in lethality.


No experiments.  The reason why we bomb countries that we are at war with is to try to force them to surrender.


----------



## Open Bolt

JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, they were already willing to surrender.


Strange how Japan didn't actually ask to surrender then.




JoeB131 said:


> We just refused to let them do it on their terms until Russia entered the war and we realized we might have to share the spoils of war.


We did not have the ability to prevent Japan from presenting surrender offers.

Japan was free to present any surrender offers that they wanted at any time that they wanted.


----------



## Open Bolt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Be very specific and link to a document FROM Japan to the US BEFORE August 9 1945 that offered to surrender with only one demand that the Emperor be maintained.


You're right.

But note also that Japan presented no surrender offers *of any sort whatsoever, regardless of the terms*, before that date.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> No, we would not LET them surrender.


That's silly.  We had no ability to prevent Japan from making surrender offers.




Rigby5 said:


> The Japanese had been begging to surrender for over 6 months, and we would not let them.


Japan did no such thing.  They only tried to surrender *after both* atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> We knew the Japanese were trying to surrender,


We knew no such falsehood.  If Japan had been trying to surrender, we would have been receiving surrender offers from them.




Rigby5 said:


> However, the overwhelming historical evidence from U.S. and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered in August even if the atomic bombs had not been used, and the documents show that President Truman and his closest advisors knew this.


Not true.  Mr. Truman and his advisers had no knowledge of what it would take to finally make Japan surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Prisoners were not being abused.


Denial of atrocities is ugly.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his radio address to announce the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Harry Truman claimed that Hiroshima was "a military base," and that it was chosen as the first target in order to minimize "the killing of civilians." Either Truman did not want the American people to know the truth about Hiroshima or he was ignorantly repeating what others had told him.


Well, Truman was ignorantly repeating what others had told him, but what he said is true.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Ralph Raico, a professor of history at Buffalo State College, had this to say about Truman's claim:
> 
> Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."​
> 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 U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.​


The military elements were substantial.  Hiroshima was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.




mikegriffith1 said:


> On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage." 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." Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids. . . .​


He got his wires crossed.  Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki were the industrial centers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Many books incorrectly claim there were 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers stationed in Hiroshima, but there were actually only about 10,000, and they were reservists and supply troops (Paul Ham, _Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, _p. 410).
> 
> The British scientific mission to Japan, aka the British Mission, concluded that at the time of the attack there were 10,000 soldiers in Hiroshima and that the city’s population might have been as high as 320,000:
> 
> The census figures quoted are probably what Japanese call the “registered” population, used for such purposes as rationing. This is usually thought to be about 80 per cent, of the actual population which, with about 10,000 troops, and perhaps 5,000 workers brought in to cut fire breaks, may therefore have been as high as 320,000 at the time of the attack. (_The Effects of the Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Report of the British Mission to Japan, _London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1946, p. 1)​


If such early counts debunk latter estimates, then the estimates of 140,000 dead at Hiroshima and 70,000 at Nagasaki are likewise null and void.

The atomic bombs therefore only killed 70,000 at Hiroshima and 40,000 at Nagasaki.




mikegriffith1 said:


> I might add that Hiroshima had no fortifications and that its troops were garrison troops.


10,000 soldiers is quite a garrison.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Why do we suppose that the _Enola Gay_ flew with no fighter escorts? There was a weather plane and another plane to take photos and footage of the blast. But there were no fighters. Why? Because we knew that Hiroshima was not a military target, certainly not a “military base,” and because we also knew that Japan was virtually defenseless against air attack.


We did not know any such falsehood.  Hiroshima was very much a military target.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> I agree with what former MacArthur aide and Far East expert Lester Brooks said about what Truman should have done when he learned that Emperor Hirohito wanted to end the war as soon as possible, namely, that he should have opened up a diplomatic channel with the Japanese to end the war:


And how would you have managed to open this diplomatic channel?




mikegriffith1 said:


> The Soviet move, less than 72 hours after the Hiroshima bombing, was staggering. None knew this better than [Foreign Minister] Togo, who, through the Japanese ambassador in Moscow [Ambassador Naotake Sato], had been trying since Germany’s surrender in May to get the Soviets to act as peace mediator with the Allies.​


This timeline is inaccurate.  After Germany's surrender, Japan tried to convince the Soviets to enter the Pacific war on Japan's side.

It was only after our capture of Okinawa that Japan stopped trying to win the war and started trying to escape the war.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The Americans knew this also, because the U.S. had cracked the Japanese code and was diligently monitoring and reading Japanese communications. One of the most important messages of the war was Togo’s cable of July 12 to Sato in Moscow: “. . . it is His Majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war. In the Greater East Asia War, however, as long as America and England insist on unconditional surrender our country has no alternative but to see it through in an all-out effort for the sake of survival and the honor of the homeland.” Though this flat statement should have caused the U.S. to make quick and direct diplomatic efforts to end the war at that point, no action was taken to capitalize on this golden opportunity. (_Behind Japan’s Surrender: The Secret Struggle that Ended an Empire_, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968, pp. 15-16)​So Truman knew from Togo’s July 12 cable, at least three weeks before Hiroshima, that the emperor himself wanted to end the war swiftly, and that the only obstacle was the demand for unconditional surrender. From other sources—such as Grew, McCloy, Forrestal, and Leahy—Truman knew that Japan’s main concern about unconditional surrender was the status of the emperor in such a surrender.


Mr. Truman didn't have a magical "diplomatic channel generating" wand available to him at the time.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman ended up agreeing to allow the emperor and the imperial court to remain in place anyway, but he did not give the Japanese any indication that he would do so until after he had nuked Hiroshima and after the Soviets had invaded.


The Potsdam Proclamation did tell Japan that they would be allowed to choose their own form of government.  That was a pretty clear indication that we would let them keep a constitutional monarchy.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If he had done this immediately after learning of Togo’s July 12 cable, as so many of his advisers urged him to do, Japan might well have surrendered in late July, and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives would have been saved.


There is little chance of that.  Japan was dead set on ending the war only through Soviet mediation.




mikegriffith1 said:


> _Keep in mind that even after the Japanese had been nuked twice and the Soviets had attacked them, they named retention of the emperor as their one condition for accepting the Potsdam Declaration's surrender terms._


Actually Japan requested that Hirohito be allowed to retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Debate raged in the White House over this condition, but, finally, finally, finally, Truman listened to all the advisers who had long been telling him that the Japanese would fight to the death if we did not agree to retain the emperor.


Funny.  I've never heard anything about this raging debate.  How come there are no records of it?




mikegriffith1 said:


> However, Truman almost undid his good decision by entrusting his Japan-hating Secretary of States, James Byrnes, with crafting the language of our reply to the Japanese surrender offer. In his reply, Byrnes implied that we would not depose the emperor, but he did not expressly state this, and his verbiage left room for an alternative interpretation.


There was no ambiguity.  Truman and Byrnes outright rejected Japan's request that the Emperor retain unlimited dictatorial power.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Fortunately, however, the Japanese Foreign Ministry was getting indications through back channels that Truman was not going to depose the emperor, and all of this created a situation that enabled the emperor to intervene and order the military to surrender.


What back channel indications are these?  And why are there no records of them?


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> First off, he has presented you with documented statements by senior American military leaders that using the atomic bomb was unnecessary and wrong.


Irrelevant.  Those expressions of opinion do nothing to back up the untrue claims about imaginary surrender offers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Second, **so what** if you have "official government documents"??? Government documents are often inaccurate and incomplete, and sometimes they're misleading and even fraudulent.


In this case, it is the untrue claims about imaginary surrender offers that are fraudulent.

Japan made no attempt to surrender until *after both* atomic bombs had already been dropped.




mikegriffith1 said:


> How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.


While I am sympathetic to the argument that the elimination of the Soviets as potential mediators did push Japan to surrender to us directly, there is little hard documentation that can indisputably prove this.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman never should have let the Soviets enter the Pacific War.


It's not like Mr. Truman had any power over whether the Soviets entered the war or not.

But even if he actually had such power, the possibility that we would invade Japan meant that it might be a good thing to have the Soviets help us with the invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> This is just obscene, inhumane nonsense. The ease with which the Soviets plowed through Japanese forces in Manchuria shows the depleted, pitiful state of the once powerful Japanese Kwantung Army.
> 
> Yes, the Japanese had just over 2 million men on the home islands. Yeah, and they had no air cover--none, zilch, zippo. The U.S. Navy was bombarding Japan's coastal cities at will, because the Japanese navy had ceased to function as any kind of a credible fighting force. The U.S. Air Force was bombing Japanese cities at will. The Japanese people were not getting enough food to maintain basic health. Most of those 2 million Japanese troops had no combat experience and were surviving on meager rations.


That didn't mean that those defenses couldn't have done some damage to our invading forces.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Weeks before Truman decided to vaporize a defenseless city with an atomic bomb, the Japanese had been putting out peace feelers, and we knew all about those feelers and knew that Japan's only ironclad condition was the retention of the emperor.


We knew the exact opposite.  The military faction was clearly demanding more than one condition.


----------



## there4eyeM

We can see the rationale behind the use of the bombs on Japan, but in the historical perspective it was a huge mistake, especially in humanitarian terms, and will always be regarded as such. Jingoistic pseudo-patriotism won't change that.


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> We can see the rationale behind the use of the bombs on Japan, but in the historical perspective it was a huge mistake, especially in humanitarian terms, and will always be regarded as such. Jingoistic pseudo-patriotism won't change that.


I don't perceive any mistake.  Things turned out pretty well actually.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Troops and an HQ? Yeah, they were garrison troops.


10,000 troops is quite a garrison.  And the headquarters was in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.




mikegriffith1 said:


> It is sad and obscene to see an alleged former Marine trying to justify the murder of over 100,000 people, at least half of them women and children, by making the ludicrous claim that Hiroshima was a valid military target.


No more than 70,000 people.  If early figures are what you use to measure soldiers killed in Japan, then early figures are what should measure civilians killed in Japan.

There is nothing ludicrous about pointing out the fact that Hiroshima was a military target.




mikegriffith1 said:


> We don't bomb civilian centers.


Indeed.  But we do bomb military targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Over 200,000 died from those two nuke attacks,


No they didn't.

If you are going to use early figures for soldiers killed at Hiroshima, then the two atomic bombs only killed 110,000 people.

70,000 dead at Hiroshima and 40,000 dead at Nagasaki.




mikegriffith1 said:


> First of all, you realize that Eisenhower and Leahy stated in their own memoirs that they had opposed nuking Japan and that they still thought it was wrong and unnecessary, right?


Wrong.  Leahy never claimed to have voiced any opposition to using the atomic bombs.

Ike's opposition can be chalked up to the fact that he was a general all-around nutcase.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You realize that Admiral, the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, indicated in his memoir that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that Japan could have been defeated by naval blockade alone, right? We’re not talking about second-hand accounts in these cases.
> 
> Second, MacArthur’s opposition to nuking Japan was confirmed by his biographer, William Manchester, and by his former consultant during our occupation of Japan, Norman Cousins. What’s more, Richard Nixon said that MacArthur told him that he believed we should not have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Who cares?




mikegriffith1 said:


> You wanna see a link to a “Government document”? Okay, how about the report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), which concluded that Japan would have surrendered without nukes and without an invasion by no later than December 1945, even if the Soviets had not invaded? The USSBS spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan, interviewing former Japanese officials, and interviewing former Japanese generals and admirals, and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:
> 
> 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. (page 26, available at United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War))​


Nothing in that document confirms the untrue claims about imaginary surrender offers.


----------



## Open Bolt

Kilroy2 said:


> Yes they bombed Pearl Harbor first but it was a military target and yeah civilians probably died but it was a military target.


It was no such thing.  Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in peacetime.




Kilroy2 said:


> Dropping a bomb on cities which were primarily civilian targets can never be justified.


That's why we bombed military targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.




Kilroy2 said:


> The fact remains Japan was defeated, they had lost all territories gain, there military was defeated, Kamikaze is interesting but in the end you are destroying your military assets.  they could have blockade the island into submission but the president decided that its best to bring the boys home and they wanted that signed surrender


If Japan was defeated it is strange how they kept refusing to surrender.




Kilroy2 said:


> also it was a test and show for the destructive power of nuclear weapons


No.  It was an attempt to make Japan surrender.




Kilroy2 said:


> US had a strong case for a just war but they put a question mark on it by the last act of targeting a civilian city which had no defense


We did no such thing.  We dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Professor Sean Malloy has written a book on Henry Stimson’s role in the decision to nuke Japan. Therein he examines Truman’s failure to follow the advice of so many of his advisers who were telling him that clarifying the emperor’s status might very well induce Japan to surrender without an invasion. Malloy also notes Truman’s failure to include the Soviets in the Potsdam Declaration, even though he knew they were going to enter the war no later than mid-August. This is from Professor Malloy’s book _Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the Decision to Use the Bomb Against Japan _(Cornell University Press, 2008):
> 
> The Potsdam Declaration issued on July 26, 1945, contained no guarantee or reassurance on the postwar status of the emperor. Nor was the Soviet Union invited to sign the document, despite the fact that Stalin had formally agreed to enter the war in mid-August and was eager to join in a public ultimatum to Japan. While the declaration did contain a partial clarification of what unconditional surrender would entail—denying that the Allies intended to exterminate the Japanese people or permanently occupy that country—it had been stripped of the two important incentives to surrender that Stimson and others had recommended earlier in the month. Without the immediate threat of Soviet entry or the atomic bomb and a clear statement on the postwar status of the emperor, the Potsdam Declaration was publicly dismissed by the Japanese government as representing nothing more than “a rehash of the Cairo Declaration.” As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has observed, the decision to release the declaration in a public broadcast, rather than through formal or informal diplomatic channels, further encouraged the belief in Japan that it was intended primarily for propaganda purposes.​
> Why Truman failed at Potsdam to make use of the full arsenal of diplomatic threats and incentives is a matter of some mystery. . . .​
> The failure to offer any reassurance on the emperor is particularly troublesome. Nobody on the American side could guarantee that such reassurance would lead to a speedy Japanese surrender. Diplomatic cables intercepted and decrypted by the Americans in summer 1945 revealed that the Japanese government was badly divided on the issue of surrender terms. But amid this uncertainty, it was widely agreed by American military and diplomatic experts that _failure _to clarify the emperor’s postwar status would almost certainly delay surrender and prolong the war. According to a State Department analysis from mid-June, “every evidence, without exception, that we are able to obtain of the views of the Japanese with regard to the institution of the throne indicates that the non-molestation of the person of the present emperor and the preservation of the institution of the throne _comprise irreducible Japanese terms_.” It was this belief that had led Stimson to push for such a reassurance on the grounds that “the country will not be satisfied unless every effort is made to shorten the war.” Recognizing the “irreducible” importance of the emperor, Truman did eventually allow Hirohito to remain on the throne _after _two atomic bombs and Soviet entry into the war in early August. Why did he not follow Stimson’s advice and make such an offer at Potsdam? Even if it did not produce immediate capitulation, it would at the very least have presented a clear set of terms to Japanese leaders in late July rather than forcing them to guess or intuit the American position on this pivotal question. (pp. 128-129)​


The Potsdam Proclamation made it clear that Japan would be allowed to choose their form of government.  That made it pretty clear that we would allow them to continue to be a constitutional monarchy.

There were several reasons for not clarifying the Emperor's position even further than that.

Some advisors thought that if we appeared to be too soft on Japan, they would see that as flagging will on our part and be less likely to surrender.

Some advisors thought that a promise to continue Hirohito's dynasty as a constitutional monarchy would be mistaken as a declaration of intent to execute Hirohito and put his son on the throne.

Some advisors feared a backlash from the voters unless the reassurances for the Emperor came right at the moment of our victory.

Anyway, as for this silly game of what if....

If we had put further reassurances for the Emperor into the Potsdam Proclamation, it would not have made any difference.  Japan was dead set on only ending the war through Soviet mediation regardless or what terms we offered them.

If we had included the Soviets in the Potsdam Proclamation, that would have precluded including further reassurances for the Emperor, as the Soviets would have then had input into the text of the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Soviets would have made the terms as harsh as possible to make Japan put off surrender for as long as possible.

Possibly including the Soviets in the Potsdam Proclamation would have disabused Japan of their delusion that they could have gotten the Soviets to mediate.  That may have made Japan try to surrender directly to us sooner than they did.  But letting the Soviets make the surrender terms much harsher may have also locked us into unconditional surrender and made the war last even longer yet.  It's really hard to tell how it all would have turned out.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Japan’s militarists and their backers seek to minimize Japanese war crimes. America’s militarists and their backers seek to deny that nuking Japan was unnecessary and immoral.


Necessity is irrelevant.  Japan was refusing to surrender so we kept attacking them.

Morality is a matter of opinion.  Nuking military targets is perfectly moral in my view.




mikegriffith1 said:


> It is beyond obvious that, at the bare minimum, Truman blundered horrendously by allowing Byrnes to remove from the Potsdam Declaration the most powerful military threat (Soviet entry into the war) and the most powerful diplomatic incentive for surrender (an assurance about the emperor’s post-war status).


I see no obvious blunder.  Things turned out pretty well in the end.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Whether he did this because he was unable to withstand his own hardliners’ pressure or because he wanted to nuke Japan to exact revenge and to show the Soviets the bomb’s power,


It was neither one of those.




mikegriffith1 said:


> the fact remains that he tragically failed to use two powerful diplomatic tools that provided an excellent chance of ending the war early and without an invasion.


One had no chance of ending the war early.  The other did have a chance of ending the war early, but also had a chance of prolonging the war.


----------



## Open Bolt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientists would have gotten the picture.


We chose to attack military targets instead.


-----------------------------------------------------


sparky said:


> We shut the USSR out of surrender negotiations


What surrender negotiations were these?


-----------------------------------------------------


22lcidw said:


> Does anyone think that maybe the Japanese had an atomic weapon program and we did not know how close to having the bomb if they did?


Japan did have an atomic weapon program.  They were quite far from having a weapon though.  But they did know what an atomic bomb was when we hit them with one.


-----------------------------------------------------


martybegan said:


> And due to the fact that once a 2nd one detonated, they knew it wasn't a one-off weapon (although it would have been a while before the US had another one).


Actually the third atomic bomb was only a week away from being ready to use when Japan surrendered.


----------



## Open Bolt

anynameyouwish said:


> it seems (unsurprisingly) that conservatives miss the main point.
> it was  IMMORAL to nuke a city.
> period.
> you nuke a military target....like an army or a navy....
> NOT a city.
> If the point was to get japan to surrender then wouldn't  they surrender just as fast if they lost an army to a nuke?


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

Japan _did_ lose an army when Hiroshima was nuked.




anynameyouwish said:


> so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...


No.  We nuked their army.  Thousands of soldiers were killed at Hiroshima.




anynameyouwish said:


> I am certain that had the 2 nukes been dropped on MILITARY INSTALLATIONS then the emperor would have been just as willing to surrender.
> NOT cities full of old people
> MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.


Hiroshima was a military installation.  It was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.

The second atomic bomb was dropped on weapon factories.




anynameyouwish said:


> if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.


Japan had a couple million soldiers ready to fight to the death when we invaded.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.


Actually no.  Invasion was the way to force Japan to surrender if they had kept refusing to surrender.




Unkotare said:


> The conditions offered were the same ones we ultimately accepted after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.


Japan presented no conditions of any kind whatsoever before the atomic bombs were dropped.

When Japan did finally present conditions (which they did only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped) those conditions were not accepted.




Unkotare said:


> Another one hiding behind “no choice!” to avoid the central moral issue.


There is no central moral issue.  We bombed military targets in an enemy country that was refusing to surrender.




Unkotare said:


> The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States)


Irrelevant.  It was peacetime and the attack was a war crime.




Unkotare said:


> while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.


That is incorrect.  Both atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.




Unkotare said:


> If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.


The fact that these early Japanese overtures were imaginary made them pretty untenable.




Unkotare said:


> The conditions offered ended up being the same ones we accepted after fdr got his wish in hell.


The conditions were offered only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

We did not accept the conditions, and Japan surrendered without them.


----------



## elektra

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> If you read it, these US planes were shot down by antiaircraft fire, NOT a dogfight.
> {...
> More losses would follow that month when the Air Group challenged Kure Naval Base, an enemy outpost protected by guns placed on nearby hills and more batteries anchored on warships. In fact, veteran fighter pilots cautioned the Air Group 88 aviators to “stay away from Kure.”
> 
> During the July 24, 1945 attack, multi-coloured antiaircraft bursts greeted the Air Group while it was still five miles from its target.
> 
> “They shot coloured tracers and everything they had,” said torpedo gunner Ralph Morlan. “[It was] the heaviest barrage I have ever seen yet.”
> 
> Seven Americans died in the attack on Kure, bringing the unit’s total battle casualties in only three weeks of action to 12.
> ...}
> 
> And obviously even that was desperation, where they had to resort to firing tracers, which are only useful at night.


From my link, anti aircraft guns and aircraft, with bullets and fuel. Proves you can't even read let alone tell us history.

"An enemy fighter jumped onto Sahloff’s tail, pumping bullets into the Hellcat. With his plane streaming smoke, Sahloff made for the open sea. He ducked in and out of clouds and then bailed out before his plane rolled twice and then tumbled earthward. He did not survive."


----------



## there4eyeM

The grave error of how the weapons were used is glaringly obvious in retrospect. THEY WERE NOT USED STRATEGICALLY.
Their use was tactical. Bombing cities to kill civilians was a tactic used throughout the war by both sides. It was aimed at weakening capacity and will in the enemy. The program was perhaps strategic, but each strike merely tactical.
The atomic bombs dropped on Japan did not change the fact that the war was over and lost for that nation. Dropping them was a tactic for convincing Japan's government to stop. It was a tactic to announce to the world (read, Joe Stalin) we had the weapon and would use is. That did not stop Russia from occupying and dominating large swaths of the earth's surface. It did not have sufficient strategic effect. It was just inhumanity effected upon a helpless population for limited results.
Dropping such a bomb on a Moscow full of Soviet leadership would have had strategic effect. It would not have been more inhumane. In fact, it would have avoided enormous suffering. America was not thinking that way. America was, as now, caught up in old way thinking and protection of certain vested interests.


----------



## gipper

Rigby5 said:


> If the Japanese had any significant aircraft left by then, then the long bombers that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have easily been shot down.
> They were alone, slow, and an easy target.
> The fact they were not attacked, shows that Japan was essentially defenseless, and no longer had any airplanes they could put up.


Plus the US bombers including the nuke planes, bombed during daylight. The Japanese had been defenseless to aerial  bombing for some time. It was a war crime.


----------



## gipper

Dayton3 said:


> What was wrong with that?


Yeah all those Japanese women and children were subhumans.

Sick fuck!


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> Yet they kept refusing to surrender, and they had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes ready to defend against our invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> They all had enough fuel for one kamikaze flight.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Except for all those thousands of kamikazes and suicide boats waiting to pounce on our invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that saving lives was not the issue.
> 
> The reason why we used the nukes was to try to make Japan surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame those civilian leaders were not in control of the Japanese government.  Their lack of actual power made their willingness to surrender rather pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with said point.  We should have introduced the atomic bombs by nuking three Japanese targets all in one day.
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't.  Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki were both military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> The World Trade Center attack deliberately targeted civilians.  That makes it quite different from military targets like Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki.
> 
> 
> 
> We do however nuke military targets in an enemy nation that is refusing to surrender and has millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes ready to pounce on our invading forces.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives like facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Truman knew from intercepts that the Emperor's status was not the only sticking point for surrender.  He knew that the military faction (the faction with the actual power) wanted more than one condition.
> 
> 
> 
> Did they offer to stop their genocide against the Chinese people?
> 
> 
> 
> There was no such stalling of the surrender.  Not by Mr. Truman.  And not by anyone in the Truman Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> They also knew that Japan's civilian leaders had no power and their willingness to surrender was irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Truman received all sorts of contradictory advice regarding the Emperor.


All wrong.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Plus the US bombers including the nuke planes, bombed during daylight. The Japanese had been defenseless to aerial  bombing for some time. It was a war crime.


Bombing military targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a war crime.




gipper said:


> All wrong.


Nope.  Japan kept refusing to surrender, and had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to resist our invasion.

We nuked military targets in Japan for the purposes of making them surrender.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> Bombing military targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a war crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Japan kept refusing to surrender, and had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to resist our invasion.
> 
> We nuked military targets in Japan for the purposes of making them surrender.


Wrong and dumb.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Wrong and dumb.


Nope.  Not wrong.  Bombing military targets is not a war crime.

Japan kept refusing to surrender, and had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to resist our invasion.

We nuked military targets in Japan for the purposes of making them surrender.

I do not agree that facts are dumb.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> Nope.  Not wrong.  Bombing military targets is not a war crime.
> 
> Japan kept refusing to surrender, and had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to resist our invasion.
> 
> We nuked military targets in Japan for the purposes of making them surrender.
> 
> I do not agree that facts are dumb.


You know nothing. Stop posting.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> You know nothing.


Wrong again.  I know everything that there is to know on this topic.

That's why it is so easy for me to debunk all these anti-nuke falsehoods.




gipper said:


> Stop posting.


No.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

My God the historical bankruptcy of this thread is quite something........lololol

No wonder you people punched a GD time card your whole lives are are experts on this.........lolololol

Good thing you only punched a time card or you would be dangerous........................lolol

This was something else....lol


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong again.  I know everything that there is to know on this topic.
> 
> That's why it is so easy for me to debunk all these anti-nuke falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> No.


It is incredible what they taught these kids in public schools. My God how well they brainwashed them.

Actually it is frightening the ignorance of these widget makers


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

What the hell did they teach you mother fuckers about history................LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

But you recite all 57 genders backwards


----------



## Dayton3

gipper said:


> Yeah all those Japanese women and children were subhumans.
> 
> Sick fuck!



No they were valuable human beings worthy of life. 

But in wars those people also get killed.


----------



## Dayton3

gipper said:


> Plus the US bombers including the nuke planes, bombed during daylight. The Japanese had been defenseless to aerial  bombing for some time. It was a war crime.


How is that a "war crime"?   There is no guarantee in war that the side that starts it is entitled to a fair fight.


----------



## Open Bolt

Kilroy2 said:


> Even some generals thought that the bombing was unnecessary


Who cares?  Japan was still refusing to surrender, and we had every right to keep on attacking them.




Kilroy2 said:


> unfortunately it is illegal to bomb civilian targets and the US signed and congress ratified acceptance of the Geneva Conventions Protocols 1


That's not unfortunate.  That's a good thing.




Kilroy2 said:


> proportionality would be my concern as it appears to be excessive indiscriminate bombing
> which does create a moral dilemma when do civilian casualties become excessive


Fair enough.  But look at the people killed at Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March.  The atomic bombs were small potatoes compared to that.


----------



## Open Bolt

anynameyouwish said:


> "which military target would you have hit?"
> any army or navy or base or even the emperors castle


That's what they did do.  Hiroshima was a military base.




anynameyouwish said:


> This is not and has not been an attack on America or blaming America...
> this is a discussion about the morality of nuking 2 cities, at least one of which was NOT a military target.


Both atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.




anynameyouwish said:


> There were obviously still military targets....and THOSE are what should have been nuked....


Those *are* what was nuked.


----------



## Open Bolt

Pogo said:


> The whole (alleged) argument that "they only have one bomb" is inherently illogical.  If you can make one bomb, then you can make any number of the same thing, because you already did it.


Not if making a single bomb takes years of effort, with years more effort to make a second one.

Before Nagasaki, the Japanese government believed that this was the case.  Then they suddenly realized that they were wrong.




Pogo said:


> This idea just smacks of revisionist mythology


Not really.




Pogo said:


> and should be dismissed out of hand.


Facts should never be dismissed.




Pogo said:


> USSR wasn't "installing puppet states in Eastern Europe" until _after _that date, when they saw a mustering of force in _western _Europe, particularly Germany, by the same country that had pre-empted them out of Japan with the world's then-only Nuke,


I'm not sure what date you are referring to, but the Soviets were installing puppet states in Europe long before we nuked Japan.




Pogo said:


> This whole fantasy of USSR-as-invader bent on world domination is a sicko fantasy contrived in the warped minds of the Dulles Brothers and their ilk.  History tells us how far off the mark it is.


Russia's history of aggression says otherwise.




Pogo said:


> That's projecting far too much speculation.  The original statement was that "we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade".  That's simply not the case.  The goal at that time and place, of both the US and the USSR, was Japanese surrender.  Invasions by either country are not mutually exclusive.


Keeping the Soviets out of Japan was a desirable outcome for the US given the way Russia was stamping out freedom in the territory they captured.




Pogo said:


> Along the same lines:
> "Communism" was not a player in this war.


Sure it was.  Russia was imposing Communism wherever they captured territory.


----------



## Open Bolt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But also no longer a threat.


A couple million Japanese soldiers and thousands of kamikazes would have been able to do some damage to our invading forces.




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, given time. That's pretty much the topic of the entire thread.


Japan was out of time.  It was time for them to surrender.


----------



## Open Bolt

MoonPie said:


> They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima.


Japan didn't even start to ask for terms until *after both* atomic bombs had already been dropped.




MoonPie said:


> We wanted unconditional surrender.


We gave up unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which was a list of generous surrender terms.




MoonPie said:


> The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.


They surrendered because they knew they could not stop the US military from conquering Japan.  Their efforts to escape the war began when we captured Okinawa.




MoonPie said:


> They weren't still holding out for terms after Hiroshima??


They didn't even start asking for terms until after Nagasaki.


----------



## Open Bolt

ThirdTerm said:


> America needed to pretend that it had dozens of nukes available, which was what Hirohito and his advisers believed before making the surrender proclamation. But there were only few atomic bombs available at the time. The target for the third A-bomb was the emperor's palace in Tokyo.


We would have had plenty more atomic bombs come off the assembly line had the war continued.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> You have been provided with quote after quote after quote from US military leaders of the day.


None of those quotes are relevant to the untrue claim about imaginary surrender offers.




Unkotare said:


> General MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page letter informing him of Japanese overtures to surrender well before the Battle of Okinawa.


No he didn't.




Unkotare said:


> If American lives meant anything to that scumbag he might have followed up on those possibilities instead of dismissing them as politically inconvenient.


Imaginary overtures are difficult to follow up on.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> In 1995, under pressure from some members of Congress and the leaders of some veterans groups, the Smithsonian Institution canceled its planned exhibit on the _Enola Gay _and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki_. _When the first text of the exhibit was released, leaders of certain veterans groups and some members of Congress expressed outrage over many of its statements and claimed that the exhibit dishonored Pacific War veterans and whitewashed Japan’s role in the war. The text was actually very balanced, and in fact it pulled many valid punches that could have been thrown, but it was too much for the critics.


It was not even close to being balanced.  The original exhibit was filled with anti-American lies.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The open letter below was written to the Smithsonian’s secretary, Michael Heyman, to protest the revised version of the exhibit’s text. The letter was signed by scholars from leading universities, including Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Ohio State, and MIT:
> 
> 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]​


A little while ago I addressed one of your posts that used early surveys to minimize the number of soldiers in Hiroshima.

If it was reasonable for you to focus on the lower numbers from early surveys, surely it is reasonable for the Smithsonian to do the same.




mikegriffith1 said:


> 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.​


Oops.  That isn't even remotely a fact.

Japan asked that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

This request was flatly denied, and Japan surrendered anyway.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * 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.​


Another miss.  No one gave Mr. Truman any such advice.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * 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.​


That one is outright dishonest.

The atomic bombs were the most closely guarded secret in history before their actual use.  So of course the warning leaflets did not mention atomic bombs, and only said that the cities were going to be destroyed by a massive bombing raid.

To claim that there were no "leaflets mentioning the atomic bombs" in a context that challenges the existence of "leaflets warning of massive destruction" is so dishonest that this one has to have come from Gar Alperovitz.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was "that we could not give the Japanese any warning."[10]​


More deliberate deception.

A recommendation to not give any warning of the atomic bomb does not mean that no leaflets were dropped warning of massive destruction.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * 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.​


The assertion is true.  Nothing false about it.




mikegriffith1 said:


> 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]​


Now that's what a false assertion looks like.

Hiroshima was selected as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign when not many Japanese cities had been destroyed.  Thereafter it was off limits to conventional bombing.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio.​


More like calling Norfolk Virginia a military target.

Hiroshima was Japan's primary military port, and it held vital military headquarters.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If you want to read the list of scholars who signed the letter, here is a link to the full letter:


All we really need to know is that the people who signed the letter are all liars.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> If you want a very good all-in-one refutation of the major arguments used by nuke defenders, I recommend reading Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous essay "The Obliteration of Hiroshima." I've posted a condensed version of it on my website The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb:
> https://miketgriffith.com/files/obliteration.pdf


The article is filled with falsehoods about the invasion estimates.  That is likely due to its reliance on Gar Alperovitz, a known fraud.

There were invasion estimates of up to a million Americans killed, and millions more maimed and wounded.  There were also estimates of many millions of Japanese killed in the invasion.

The article's whining that we could have used a demonstration instead of hitting military targets, or that we could have let the war drag on without using the atomic bombs, certainly doesn't refute anything.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Is this some kind of joke?  The fact that Eisenhower and Grew, among many others, opposed nuking Japan has been documented in literally hundreds of scholarly studies.


Nonsense.  There is no evidence that Grew opposed using the atomic bombs.




mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, the "link to your [my] website" is a condensed version of Dr. Stephen Shalom's famous article "The Obliteration of Hiroshima," which answers every major excuse given for nuking Japan. Clearly, you have not yet bothered to read it.


It does no such thing.  It has no answer for the fact that Japan was still refusing to surrender.  It has no answer for the fact that the atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.  And its claims about invasion casualty estimates are completely false.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Dr. Ward Wilson has written extensively about Japan's surrender and, like so many other scholars, has debunked the traditional story that Japan surrendered because we nuked them. I quote from one of his articles on the surrender, "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan . . . Stalin Did":


Stalin didn't beat Japan, the US military did.

Stalin's declaration of war against Japan certainly undermined their efforts to exit the war with Soviet mediation.

But Japan's decision to exit the war came when the US military captured Okinawa.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is good article written in 2015 by Dr. Geoffrey Shepherd titled "It's Clear the US Should Not Have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Dr. Shepherd outlines one of the several alternative courses of action that we could have taken instead of nuking two cities:
> 
> This month marks the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And with each passing year the historical record is ever clearer that dropping the A-bombs was unnecessary, repugnant and very likely a war crime.​


Attacks on military targets are not a war crime.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more. Such destruction of life stirs me to sorrow and outrage. That’s even more true given that there was an alternative available: the US could have dropped an A-bomb in or near Tokyo Bay. Such a warning shot could have persuaded the Japanese to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.​


We chose to direct our attacks at actual military targets.




mikegriffith1 said:


> But American leaders had acquired the habit of bombing cities, having attacked Berlin, Hamburg and even the cultural jewel of Dresden.​


We did participate in the destruction of Berlin.  But it was the UK who destroyed Hamburg and Dresden.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The hellish firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 alone killed some 250,000 civilians and maimed huge numbers more.​


I do not accept your casualty figures.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And the planning of Truman’s advisors—including Groves, Doolittle, and Curtis LeMay—was full of mistakes. Hiroshima emerged as a candidate after having escaped attack thus far in the conflict. It was almost entirely civilian, and any attention to its few military targets soon disappeared.​


Hiroshima was selected as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign, and was thereafter off limits to conventional bombing.

Everyone was well aware that Hiroshima was a huge military center with thousands of soldiers and was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> On top of the Japanese deaths and casualties, the actual dropping of the A-bombs likely heightened the stakes at the advent of the Cold War. Had the US not dropped the A-bombs, the nuclear arms race might have proceeded more slowly and less wastefully, possibly without hydrogen bombs. The US and USSR might even have cultivated cooperation and prosperity, in place of mutual fears and military-industrial excesses.​


A more likely outcome is that without the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to restrain people, there would have been a large nuclear war and civilization would now be in a new dark age.


----------



## there4eyeM

What motive is there for trying so hard to make such a horrendous act appear less than it was?


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> What motive is there for trying so hard to make such a horrendous act appear less than it was?


Hardly horrendous.  And hardly less than what it was.

All I do is tell the truth.  My motive is that I dislike seeing the US be lied about.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> None of those quotes are relevant to the untrue claim about imaginary surrender offers.
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Imaginary overtures are difficult to follow up on.


You must be Bill Casey’s illegitimate son.


----------



## there4eyeM

Open Bolt said:


> Hardly horrendous.  And hardly less than what it was.
> 
> All I do is tell the truth.  My motive is that I dislike seeing the US be lied about.


What "lie" is that?


----------



## Dayton3

there4eyeM said:


> What motive is there for trying so hard to make such a horrendous act appear less than it was?



Because while "horrendous" it was also fully justified.    And attempts to slam the U.S. for using nuclear weapons are pure anti-Americanism at its worst.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> You must be Bill Casey’s illegitimate son.


I doubt that he said that.  But note that everything that I am saying is true.  You are the one who was making untrue statements.


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> What "lie" is that?


Claims that Japan offered to surrender before we dropped the atomic bombs are untrue.

Claims that there was no military value to the atomic bomb targets are also untrue.

Claims that there were no estimates of huge casualties if we had invaded are also untrue.

Claims that we did not drop warning leaflets before bombing are also untrue.

The term lie alleges deception.  I do not suggest that all untrue statements are lies.  Many posters here are merely mistaken.  But many of the supposed "historians" who push these falsehoods in public are lying.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Some people continue to claim that the Japanese peace feelers in the months leading up to Hiroshima were all meaningless low-level approaches with no high-level support. In fact, this is a standard talking point among authors who defend the nuking of Japan.


Those people are correct.  The only peace move that had high level support was the attempt to get the Soviets to mediate the end of the war.




mikegriffith1 said:


> However, there are government records and plenty of scholarly studies that refute this claim.


No there aren't.




mikegriffith1 said:


> These peace feelers, and others, are discussed in detail by John Toland in _The Rising Sun_, by Lester Brooks in _Behind Japan’s Surrender_, and by Gar Alperovitz in _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_.


Gar Alperovitz is a known fraud.  He may well produce something purporting to show high level support for the peace feelers, but whatever he produces will not be true.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman and his Japan-hating Secretary of State, James Byrnes,


Oh please.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Now, I would say that a peace feeler done by Japan’s Foreign Minister was both official and very high level.


I wouldn't.  Until such time as the Emperor overruled them, the Japanese Army was the real government of Japan.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Shigemitsu’s effort did not succeed, but that was only because his successor, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, believed that a more powerful intermediary should be approached.


Notice that it was Japan who killed this peace feeler, not the Americans.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Yonai then informed Foreign Minister Togo of the negotiations, and Togo authorized Yonai to have the Fujimura group explore the Dulles proposal more thoroughly.
> So the claim that the approach to Dulles was some meaningless low-level effort that had no backing in Tokyo is demonstrably incorrect.


No it isn't.  Where was the backing of the Japanese Army?




mikegriffith1 said:


> The hardliners eventually succeeded in killing the Fujimura approach to Dulles,


Notice that it was Japan, not the US, who killed off this peace feeler as well.




mikegriffith1 said:


> the hardliners would not have been able to kill it if Truman, or a high official at Truman’s direction, had simply advised the Japanese that we would not depose the emperor if they surrendered according to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.


Nonsense.  Truman was not responsible for the actions of Japanese hardliners.




mikegriffith1 said:


> On June 22, Truman received another memo on the Fujimura-Dulles peace talks. The memo advised him that “Fujimura insists that the Japanese, before surrendering, would require assurances that the Emperor would be retained.”
> So Truman knew, long before Hiroshima, that the only real obstacle to a surrender was his refusal to assure the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed if they surrendered.


Nonsense again.  The fact that the position of the Emperor was important does not mean that it was the "only" obstacle.




mikegriffith1 said:


> -- The second peace feeler in Switzerland involved General Seigo Okamoto, the Japanese military attache in Berne, and two Japanese officials at the International Bank of Settlements in Basel, in July 1945. Not only was Okamoto a general and the head of the Japanese attache office in Berne, he was a close friend of General Yoshijiru Omezu’s, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff.


Yet this peace feeler as well did not have the support of the Japanese Army.

I notice you didn't mention who was responsible for killing off this peace feeler.  Hint: it wasn't the US.




mikegriffith1 said:


> -- Furthermore, _Emperor Hirohito himself authorized the effort to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender with the U.S., and Truman was aware of this fact from Foreign Minister Togo’s July 12 cable_. Hirohito even wanted to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special envoy to get the Soviets to mediate a surrender deal with the U.S. I’d say that a peace feeler pushed by the Foreign Minister and strongly backed by Emperor Hirohito was about as substantial, official, and high ranking as you could get.


True.  The gambit with the Soviets did have the support of the Japanese government.

When people dismiss the peace feelers as not representing the Japanese government, they are not considering the Soviet gambit to be a peace feeler.  They are only referring to those other low-level attempts.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Incidentally, the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian website includes an article on the Japanese peace feelers, and it documents that American high officials were aware of these efforts:


Of course US officials were aware.

US officials pursued all of the peace feelers that they could, despite knowing that none of them had the support of the Japanese government, just in case one of the feelers evolved into an actual contact with the Japanese government.

Again note that it was Japan that killed off all these peace feelers.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> I did not attack any person; rather, I attacked the excuses that have been offered for nuking two defenseless cities of a country whose civilians leaders were already willing to surrender and that was on the verge of collapse. There is a difference.


If they were willing to surrender then they should have done so.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Again, you excoriate the Japanese for their sins but seem uninterested in the sins of the Soviets, the Nationalists, and the Communists, whose sins were clearly worse than those of the Japanese.


The focus on Japanese sins is probably related to the focus on the atomic bombs.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You excoriate the Japanese for Nanking but seem just fine with our conventional bombing of over 60 Japanese cities, which killed at least 500,000 people, most of them women and children, not to mention our nuking of two defenseless Japanese cities, which killed at least 200,000 more civilians, most of them, again, women and children,


I don't accept these casualty figures or claims about women and children.




mikegriffith1 said:


> even though Truman knew that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender and needed his help to overcome the hardliners.


There was little that he could do to help them.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Even the vaguely worded Byrnes Note provided enough leverage for the moderates to create a situation where the emperor was able to order the hardliners to agree to a surrender.


There was nothing vaguely worded about it.  It quite clearly rejected Japan's request that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power.


----------



## there4eyeM

Contentions and lies often cross boundaries. 
It was said that invading Japan would have cost the U.S. huge casualties. That was doubtlessly true. Invading Japan was not necessary. Saying it was is not true.
Saying that dropping the bombs changed the course of things is true. Saying it defeated Japan is not true; Japan was already defeated.
If, as is so often quoted, you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> Contentions and lies often cross boundaries.
> It was said that invading Japan would have cost the U.S. huge casualties. That was doubtlessly true. Invading Japan was not necessary. Saying it was is not true.


This term "necessary" doesn't have much meaning to me.  We would have invaded if Japan had continued to refuse to surrender even after Russia and the atomic bombs.

We also would have saved up atomic bombs and nuked the beaches just before sending troops ashore.  And we would also have used chemical weapons on the beaches.  Considering the number of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our troop transports, the entire battle would have been massive and ugly.




there4eyeM said:


> Saying that dropping the bombs changed the course of things is true. Saying it defeated Japan is not true; Japan was already defeated.


If they were already defeated, then they should have already surrendered.

It's their fault if they needlessly delayed their surrender and thereby suffered unnecessary attacks.  It's certainly not our fault.




there4eyeM said:


> If, as is so often quoted, you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?


I'm not sure I understand the question.


----------



## DudleySmith

Dayton3 said:


> Because while "horrendous" it was also fully justified.    And attempts to slam the U.S. for using nuclear weapons are pure anti-Americanism at its worst.



It's just about bashing FDR by neo-nazis pretending to be 'patriots' who hate the U.S. for winning the war.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> I doubt that he said that.  But note that everything that I am saying is true.  You are the one who was making untrue statements.


He said it and worse. Why would you object to his words?  Don’t you want Americans uninformed like yourself?


----------



## gipper

Dayton3 said:


> How is that a "war crime"?   There is no guarantee in war that the side that starts it is entitled to a fair fight.


Dumb. As usual.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> Truman knew from intercepts that the Emperor's status was not the only sticking point for surrender. He knew that the military faction (the faction with the actual power) wanted more than one condition.



Hell, most of the hardliners wanted to keep on fighting no matter what that they staged a coup the night before the surrender was to be announced.

The Kyujo Incident was when 18,000 IJA soldiers tried to take over the government to prevent the surrender from being announced.  They did take the palace, and executed two people in their attempt to secure the palace and uncover the location of the "Jewel Voice" recording. 


Hard to imagine, but if the coup plotters had been able to locate the recording and destroyed it the war would have continued.


----------



## DudleySmith

The IJA still had millions of troops under arms on the mainland as well. Nuking the homeland was the very best option, probably saved millions of lives, not only of U.S. troops but Japanese and Chinese as well, with the added bonus of the Soviets not being able to seize half the islands and then start seizing Chinese territory as well as tearing off another big chunk of Europe.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Open Bolt said:


> None of those quotes are relevant to the untrue claim about imaginary surrender offers.
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Imaginary overtures are difficult to follow up on.


I have repeatedly ask this poster for a LINK to any official document that verifies the claim that Mac sent any such list. He can not provide it yet keeps claiming it.


----------



## P@triot

Open Bolt said:


> Claims that Japan offered to surrender before we dropped the atomic bombs are untrue


That is one of my favorite lies from the gender-confused pussy-aching crowd. There is no "offer to surrender". Either you surrender or you don't. It like claiming you are sort of pregnant.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later.


Just a reminder:

You really are an asshole (like, for real)
Nuking Nagasaki was not only justified, it was _necessary _(even if you can't stomach that)
This thread is truly immoral
It's people like Mike Griffith who caused the Holocaust. The belief that when your pussy tingles and aches, you give in and hide. It's people like Mike Griffith who caused 9/11. Instead of dealing with Al Qaeda in the 1990's, you give in to your tingling and aching pussy. It's people like Mike Griffith who caused the mess in Ukraine.

Weakness *invites* aggression. Literally invites it. It's a clear and obvious phone call to evil stating "we're ripe for the taking - move now. Our pussy aches and tingles, it's time to rape us".

Only a fuck'n idiot makes that phone call


----------



## gipper

^^^^warmongering idiots.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> Just a reminder:
> 
> You really are an asshole (like, for real)
> Nuking Nagasaki was not only justified, it was _necessary _(even if you can't stomach that)
> This thread is truly immoral
> It's people like Mike Griffith who caused the Holocaust. The belief that when your pussy tingles and aches, you give in and hide. It's people like Mike Griffith who caused 9/11. Instead of dealing with Al Qaeda in the 1990's, you give in to your tingling and aching pussy. It's people like Mike Griffith who caused the mess in Ukraine.
> 
> Weakness *invites* aggression. Literally invites it. It's a clear and obvious phone call to evil stating "we're ripe for the taking - move now. Our pussy aches and tingles, it's time to rape us".
> 
> Only a fuck'n idiot makes that phone call


Pussy!


----------



## Rigby5

AZrailwhale said:


> Nukes weren’t illegal then and aren’t today.  Bullets don’t kill cleanly in most cases, unless you are “lucky” enough to be hit in the brain or heart, you die slowly and in great pain.



Wrong.
Nukes are and always were illegal chemical and thermal weapons that are banned.
Bullets do not have to "cleanly kill" in that they usually just go right through, with only a temporary wound.
That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.
Gun shots in war are almost never lethal anymore. 

But more to the point, NATO trying to put nukes on the Russian border is in violation of several treaties, and is as bad as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Are you suggesting that the US was criminal for forcing the nukes out of Cuba?


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> That is one of my favorite lies from the gender-confused pussy-aching crowd. There is no "offer to surrender". Either you surrender or you don't. It like claiming you are sort of pregnant.



That is a lie.
Japan DID offer to surrender.
The US just had broken off all negotiations, so would not accept it.
The Japanese then sent the messages for surrender though the Soviets, since they still had an embassy in Japan.
The US got the surrender messages, but told Stalin to stall them until after we could test out the new nuclear weapons.
We wanted to show them off for the benefit of the Soviets, and they also wanted to see them in action.


----------



## BackAgain

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Nukes are and always were illegal chemical and thermal weapons that are banned.
> Bullets do not have to "cleanly kill" in that they usually just go right through, with only a temporary wound.
> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.
> Gun shots in war are almost never lethal anymore.
> 
> But more to the point, NATO trying to put nukes on the Russian border is in violation of several treaties, and is as bad as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Are you suggesting that the US was criminal for forcing the nukes out of Cuba?


The US put up a naval blockade of Cuba in response to actual Soviet nuclear missiles being installed in Cuba. What nation did the US invade?  What cities did it attack with soldiers, tanks, aircraft, gunfire and bombings? What hospitals did it attack? What people did it slaughter?

Oh that’s right. None.

And, that was in response to nuclear missiles actually being *placed* there. BY STATK CONTRAST: There were no nukes placed by the US or by NATO in Ukraine. Ukraine has long sought NATO membership, but had been denied for about 20 years.  So, Putin’s invasion and criminal acts of war had no rational basis — as you falsely contend with your bullshit analogy.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Just a reminder:
> 
> You really are an asshole (like, for real)
> Nuking Nagasaki was not only justified, it was _necessary _(even if you can't stomach that)
> This thread is truly immoral
> It's people like Mike Griffith who caused the Holocaust. The belief that when your pussy tingles and aches, you give in and hide. It's people like Mike Griffith who caused 9/11. Instead of dealing with Al Qaeda in the 1990's, you give in to your tingling and aching pussy. It's people like Mike Griffith who caused the mess in Ukraine.
> 
> Weakness *invites* aggression. Literally invites it. It's a clear and obvious phone call to evil stating "we're ripe for the taking - move now. Our pussy aches and tingles, it's time to rape us".
> 
> Only a fuck'n idiot makes that phone call



Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no significant war impact, and what little munitions production was safely underground from any bombing, HOW could their bombing at all be "justified" or "necessary"?

If you are saying they ended the war as demonstration of our nuclear power, that could much better have been done on an isolated land or water location, with Japanese scientist observers.
But hitting cities, we made it impossible for the Japanese government to even know or evaluate what happened, because the bombs knocked out all communications.


----------



## Rigby5

BackAgain said:


> The US put up a naval blockade of Cuba in response to actual Soviet nuclear missiles being installed in Cuba. What nation did the US invade?  What cities did it attack with soldiers, tanks, aircraft, gunfire and bombings? What hospitals did it attack? What people did it slaughter?
> 
> Oh that’s right. None.
> 
> And, that was in response to nuclear missiles actually being *placed* there. BY STATK CONTRAST: There were no nukes placed by the US or by NATO in Ukraine. Ukraine has long sought NATO membership, but had been denied for about 20 years.  So, Putin’s invasion and criminal acts of war had no rational basis — as you falsely contend with your bullshit analogy.



Wrong.
The US invaded Cuba with the "Bay of Pigs".
The US invaded Vietnam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

And the point is the Ukraine had violated their treaty by TRYING to get NATO nukes.  The fact NATO refused doe not alter the crime by the Ukraine.

And the Russian invasion WAS warranted by the murder of ethnic Russians by the Ukraine, the oil thefts, the treaty violations, and finally, by the Ukraine cutting off negotiations.  That was essentially an act of war.


----------



## gipper

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The US invaded Cuba with the "Bay of Pigs".
> The US invaded Vietnam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.
> 
> And the point is the Ukraine had violated their treaty by TRYING to get NATO nukes.  The fact NATO refused doe not alter the crime by the Ukraine.
> 
> And the Russian invasion WAS warranted by the murder of ethnic Russians by the Ukraine, the oil thefts, the treaty violations, and finally, by the Ukraine cutting off negotiations.  That was essentially an act of war.


Sadly few Americans know anything about the history of relations between Russia and Ukraine. They know nothing about the heavy Nazi influence within the Ukraine government. They know nothing of the 14,000 ethnic Russians killed in the Donbas the last ten years.  

All they know is Putin BAD and Ukraine good. This is particularly true of the poster you just responded to.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us.


Mike is the asshole who says "that woman deserved to be raped for the short skirt she was wearing".

It is _literally_ impossible to "provoke" someone into attacking you. Nothing justifies the *offensive* act of dropping bombs on human beings.

Defensively? Absolutely. Bomb away. But no policy or sanction justifies dropping bombs on human beings. I'm about 99.8% Mike is a Russian or Chinese disinformation account.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> The US invaded Cuba with the "Bay of Pigs".


Psst...dumb ass...not only were there no US soldiers involved in the "Bay of Pigs", there weren't even US _citizens_. Those were all Cubans, dummy.

You're so uninformed, you're pinning a Cuban invasion of Cuba on the US  🤦‍♂️


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.


Hollow point bullets are *not* illegal       

I literally have 8 dozen boxes of them and not one was purchased on the black market. Furthermore, almost every law enforcement agency in the US issues hollow points because they don't pass through the target and injure someone else.

Every time you post, you make shit up. What is wrong with you?


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.


Hollow point bullets are not illegal      

Here you go, clown. Available for purchase:








						FEDERAL Premium HST LE 124 Grain +P Jacketed Hollow Point 50rd box of 9mm Luger Ammunition (P9HST3)
					

Buy FEDERAL Premium HST LE 124 Gr 50 Rd Box 9mm Luger Ammo, Shop Self-Defense and Personal Protection ammunition, Law Enforcement, DFW gun and accessory sale online




					shoptexasgunexperience.com


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.


Hollow point bullets are not illegal      

Here you go, clown. Available for purchase:




__





						Federal Premium Personal Defense 9mm Luger 124 Grain Hydra-Shok Jacketed Hollow Point
					

Federal's Hydra-Shok JHP ammo is an excellent ammunition trusted by law enforcement agencies and carry-permit holders alike. This round features Federal's Hydra-Shok jacketed hollow points which utilize a unique center-post design that delivers controlled expansion. The notched jacket provides...




					shiptonsbigr.com


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.


Hollow point bullets are not illegal      

Here you go, clown. Available for purchase:








						Buy Personal Defense Punch for USD 35.99 | Federal Ammunition
					

Shopping for the Personal Defense Punch - Learn more about the latest Personal Defense Punch and other hunting or shooting gear at Federal Ammunition.




					www.federalpremium.com


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> He said it and worse.


I doubt it.




gipper said:


> Why would you object to his words?


Those words are not true.




gipper said:


> Don’t you want Americans uninformed like yourself?


I am fully informed.  That is how I am able to keep pointing out all your untrue statements.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.


Hollow point bullets are not illegal      

Here you go, clown. Available for purchase:








						Federal Personal Defense 45 ACP 230 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point 20 Rounds
					

FED 45ACP 230GR PER DEF




					www.smkw.com


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> All they know is Putin BAD and Ukraine good. This is particularly true of the poster you just responded to.


No son. What we know is: Putin/Russia *INVADE* and Ukraine *INVADED*.

This isn't hard. Even for people like you!


----------



## Open Bolt

P@triot said:


> Hollow point bullets are not illegal
> Here you go, clown. Available for purchase:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy Personal Defense Punch for USD 35.99 | Federal Ammunition
> 
> 
> Shopping for the Personal Defense Punch - Learn more about the latest Personal Defense Punch and other hunting or shooting gear at Federal Ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.federalpremium.com


I suspect that he was referring to soldiers on the battlefield not using hollow points and wasn't even thinking of civilian use.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> Mike is the asshole who says "that woman deserved to be raped for the short skirt she was wearing".
> 
> It is _literally_ impossible to "provoke" someone into attacking you. Nothing justifies the *offensive* act of dropping bombs on human beings.
> 
> Defensively? Absolutely. Bomb away. But no policy or sanction justifies dropping bombs on human beings. I'm about 99.8% Mike is a Russian or Chinese disinformation account.


I’m glad we agree that Truman’s mass murdering war crime was entirely unjustified.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Nukes are and always were illegal chemical and thermal weapons that are banned.


Not wrong.  There is no law against the US, UK, France, Israel, or India having nuclear weapons.




Rigby5 said:


> Bullets do not have to "cleanly kill" in that they usually just go right through, with only a temporary wound.
> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.
> Gun shots in war are almost never lethal anymore.


I presume you mean illegal for soldiers.  They are perfectly legal for civilians.




Rigby5 said:


> But more to the point, NATO trying to put nukes on the Russian border is in violation of several treaties, and is as bad as the Cuban Missile Crisis.


NATO is doing no such thing.

There are also no treaties that would prevent it.  But NATO has no plans to do such a thing despite the lack of treaties against it.

There will eventually be long range _conventional_ missiles placed in former Warsaw Pact countries.  Russia will be free to whine about that if they like, but there are no treaties against it.  The missiles are still being developed though, so it will be a few years.




Rigby5 said:


> That is a lie.
> Japan DID offer to surrender.


Japan offered to surrender only *after both* atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> The US just had broken off all negotiations, so would not accept it.


There were no negotiations.




Rigby5 said:


> The Japanese then sent the messages for surrender though the Soviets, since they still had an embassy in Japan.


No such messages were sent.




Rigby5 said:


> The US got the surrender messages, but told Stalin to stall them until after we could test out the new nuclear weapons.


No such messages were received.




Rigby5 said:


> We wanted to show them off for the benefit of the Soviets, and they also wanted to see them in action.


We wanted Japan to surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no significant war impact,


Hiroshima was a huge military center that was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion.

Nagasaki built Japan's largest warships.




Rigby5 said:


> HOW could their bombing at all be "justified" or "necessary"?


Easy.  Japan was still refusing to surrender.  Therefore we had the right to keep attacking military targets.




Rigby5 said:


> If you are saying they ended the war as demonstration of our nuclear power, that could much better have been done on an isolated land or water location, with Japanese scientist observers.


We preferred to hit military targets.




Rigby5 said:


> hitting cities, we made it impossible for the Japanese government to even know or evaluate what happened, because the bombs knocked out all communications.


Japan knew exactly what happened.




Rigby5 said:


> And the point is the Ukraine had violated their treaty by TRYING to get NATO nukes.  The fact NATO refused does not alter the crime by the Ukraine.


No such treaty, no such attempt, and no such crime.




Rigby5 said:


> And the Russian invasion WAS warranted by the murder of ethnic Russians by the Ukraine, the oil thefts, the treaty violations, and finally, by the Ukraine cutting off negotiations.  That was essentially an act of war.


No such murders, no such thefts, no such treaty violations, and cutting off negotiations is not an act of war.

The only aggressors here are the Russians, who are militarily incompetent, but are pretty good at raping and murdering civilians.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> No son. What we know is: Putin/Russia *INVADE* and Ukraine *INVADED*.
> 
> This isn't hard. Even for people like you!


Right. That’s all you know. 

You don’t like Putin’s invasion, but the multiple invasions by the US are wonderful and fully justified.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Sadly few Americans know anything about the history of relations between Russia and Ukraine. They know nothing about the heavy Nazi influence within the Ukraine government. They know nothing of the 14,000 ethnic Russians killed in the Donbas the last ten years.


That's because none of that is true.




gipper said:


> All they know is Putin BAD and Ukraine good.


That's because all of that is true.




gipper said:


> I’m glad we agree that Truman’s mass murdering war crime was entirely unjustified.


No murder and no war crime.  Attacking military targets is entirely justified when you are at war.

The atomic bombings were defensive, not offensive.  We were defending ourselves from Japan's aggression.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Can you get any more barbaric and inhumane?


Melodrama is no substitute for facts and logic.




mikegriffith1 said:


> First of all, the number of Japanese civilians that we killed dwarfs the number of American citizens that the Japanese killed.


I doubt that.




mikegriffith1 said:


> we turned around and bombed over 60 Japanese cities and killed over 500,000 civilians in the process,


I don't accept these casualty figures.




mikegriffith1 said:


> most of them women and children.


There were no men in the cities?




mikegriffith1 said:


> It is sad that you can't even admit that nuking another Japanese city three days after Hiroshima was unbelievably cruel and barbaric.


Gosh.  Did you hear that they actually fire live ammo at enemy soldiers? </sarcasm>

If Japan did not want us to defend ourselves from their aggression, then Japan shouldn't have been attacking us.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Second, we murdered thousands of Japanese POWs and Japanese soldiers who were trying to surrender.


Nonsense.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> That's because none of that is true.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because all of that is true.
> 
> 
> 
> No murder and no war crime.  Attacking military targets is entirely justified when you are at war.
> 
> The atomic bombings were defensive, not offensive.  We were defending ourselves from Japan's aggression.


Truman should have been hung at Nuremberg.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.


Hollow point bullets are not illegal      

Here you go, clown. Available for purchase:








						Hornady Critical Defense Ammo 380 ACP 90 Grain FTX Box of 25
					

Hornady Critical Defense Ammunition was purpose built for concealed carry guns and designed to deliver reliable and controlled expansion regardless of...




					www.midwayusa.com


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> I’m glad we agree that Truman’s mass murdering war crime was entirely unjustified.


I'm glad we agree you resort to lying and propaganda. Now we need to determine why you feel the need to do that?


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> You don’t like Putin’s invasion, but the multiple invasions by the US are wonderful and fully justified.


The US has *never* "invaded" _anyone_


----------



## P@triot

Open Bolt said:


> I suspect that he was referring to soldiers on the battlefield not using hollow points and wasn't even thinking of civilian use.


They aren't "illegal" on the battlefield either!


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> ^^^^warmongering idiots.


^^^^ fear-filled pussies


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> ^^^^warmongering idiots.


^^^ Tell me you're a pussy of epic proportions without telling me you're a pussy of epic proportions


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Mike is the asshole who says "that woman deserved to be raped for the short skirt she was wearing".
> 
> It is _literally_ impossible to "provoke" someone into attacking you. Nothing justifies the *offensive* act of dropping bombs on human beings.
> 
> Defensively? Absolutely. Bomb away. But no policy or sanction justifies dropping bombs on human beings. I'm about 99.8% Mike is a Russian or Chinese disinformation account.



Wrong.
By invading and colonizing the Pacific, like the Philippines, Indonesia, Malasia, etc. the US, England, and France were depriving Japan of everything they needed to survive, like food.
Dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor was not offensive because the US should not have been in in the Pacific at all, much less Hawaii.
The Japanese were acting defensively, and the US was the imperialist aggressor.


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> I'm glad we agree you resort to lying and propaganda. Now we need to determine why you feel the need to do that?


Truman is not a war criminal. 

Putin is a war criminal.

You think!  

Hypocrite!


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Psst...dumb ass...not only were there no US soldiers involved in the "Bay of Pigs", there weren't even US _citizens_. Those were all Cubans, dummy.
> 
> You're so uninformed, you're pinning a Cuban invasion of Cuba on the US  🤦‍♂️



The US armed, trained, and financed the Bay of Pigs invasion.
We then also ransomed them.
But you are also forgetting the charge of Teddy Roosevelt up San Juan Hill.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Hollow point bullets are *not* illegal
> 
> I literally have 8 dozen boxes of them and not one was purchased on the black market. Furthermore, almost every law enforcement agency in the US issues hollow points because they don't pass through the target and injure someone else.
> 
> Every time you post, you make shit up. What is wrong with you?



In war they are.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Hollow point bullets are not illegal
> 
> Here you go, clown. Available for purchase:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FEDERAL Premium HST LE 124 Grain +P Jacketed Hollow Point 50rd box of 9mm Luger Ammunition (P9HST3)
> 
> 
> Buy FEDERAL Premium HST LE 124 Gr 50 Rd Box 9mm Luger Ammo, Shop Self-Defense and Personal Protection ammunition, Law Enforcement, DFW gun and accessory sale online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shoptexasgunexperience.com



In war they are, and we were discussing the Geneva Conventions.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Hollow point bullets are not illegal
> 
> Here you go, clown. Available for purchase:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy Personal Defense Punch for USD 35.99 | Federal Ammunition
> 
> 
> Shopping for the Personal Defense Punch - Learn more about the latest Personal Defense Punch and other hunting or shooting gear at Federal Ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.federalpremium.com



Read up, the first thing the Geneva Conventions did were to make hollow points illegal.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> No son. What we know is: Putin/Russia *INVADE* and Ukraine *INVADED*.
> 
> This isn't hard. Even for people like you!



Wrong.
FIRST we have the Ukraine committing war crimes like murdering 14,000 ethnic Russians, stealing oil, violating treaties, trying to put NATO nukes on the Russian border, etc.
THEN we have the legal invasion to correct those crimes.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> By invading and colonizing the Pacific, like the Philippines, Indonesia, Malasia, etc. the US, England, and France were depriving Japan of everything they needed to survive, like food.


Wrong (as _always_)


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> FIRST we have the Ukraine committing war crimes like murdering 14,000 ethnic Russians, stealing oil, violating treaties, trying to put NATO nukes on the Russian border, etc.


Not one of those things actually occurred. Nice Russian propaganda though!


Rigby5 said:


> THEN we have the legal invasion to correct those crimes.


There is no such thing as a "legal" invasion. Nice Russian propaganda!


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Not wrong. There is no law against the US, UK, France, Israel, or India having nuclear weapons.



There is no law against having any weapon, like nuclear weapons.
But there are international laws ratified by the US, against using them on people.
They fall under the International Humanitarian Laws the US agreed to in 1980.
The following discussion is why flame throwers are now considered illegal, as well as napalm and white phosphorus.
But they also fall under the chemical weapons laws.

{...
*IHL Treaty law on incendiary weapons*​The only international humanitarian law (IHL) treaty norms specifically regulating incendiary weapons are found in the 1980 Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (Protocol III).

However, one may first question the extent to which the flamethrower designed by Musk’s company qualifies as a proper incendiary weapon in the technical sense of the term. Indeed, as noted by a commentator, the flamethrower is ‘more reminiscent of an oversized butane-jet lighter than the fiery liquid mixture of nitrogen propellant and gasoline that defined the [US] Army’s M2 flamethrower during the Vietnam War’.

Article 1 of Protocol III, while referring to flamethrowers as an example, defines incendiary weapons for the purpose of that treaty as



> any weapon or munition _which is primarily designed_ to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, _produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target_ (emphasis added).


The mere use of butane or other gas would not therefore be sufficient to make a device an incendiary weapon for the purpose of applying that treaty. In any case they would remain weapons using fire and heat to cause harm.

Beyond this question, it is key to highlight that the norms contained in Protocol III only refer to _limitations in_ _use_ for incendiary weapons, and _not to a blanket prohibition_ in all circumstances. This is a transposition of the rules on the protection of civilians, such as the prohibition ‘in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons’ (Article 2). It is uncontroversial that any use of a flamethrower, be it a proper incendiary weapon or not, in breach of those rules on the protection of civilians would be unlawful. The same would hold true for any weapon.
...}


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> In war they are.


Wrong.

Every time you post, you embarrass yourself:








						U.S. Army Adopts Hollow Point Ammo With the M-17 and M-18
					

The U.S. Army's decision to to adopt hollow point ammo is one based off of facts and performance. Find out why it took so long and what to expect next.




					sofrep.com


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Not one of those things actually occurred. Nice Russian propaganda though!
> 
> There is no such thing as a "legal" invasion. Nice Russian propaganda!



Of course they occurred.
For example, the Ukraine stole $20 billion worth of Russian oil.

{...
On 8 June 2010, a Stockholm court of arbitration ruled Naftohaz of Ukraine must return 12.1 billion cubic metres (430 billion cubic feet) of gas to RosUkrEnergo, a Swiss-based company in which Gazprom controls a 50% stake. Russia accused Ukrainian side of diverting gas from pipelines passing through Ukraine in 2009.[11][12] Several high-ranking Ukrainian officials stated the return "would not be quick".[13]
...}








						Russia–Ukraine gas disputes - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




And if there is "no such thing as a 'legal' invasion", then what about when the US invaded Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.?


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Every time you post, you embarrass yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army Adopts Hollow Point Ammo With the M-17 and M-18
> 
> 
> The U.S. Army's decision to to adopt hollow point ammo is one based off of facts and performance. Find out why it took so long and what to expect next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sofrep.com



Wrong.
The article contradicts itself.

{...
The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use of bullets which readily expand or flatten in the human body by national armies engaged in international warfare.

The U.S. ratified the first three articles of the 1899 Hague Convention but never signed Article IV. Additionally, Article IV, Section 3 states that the prohibition on the use of hollow points applies only in a conflict between two signatories. Even if the U.S.A. signed Article IV, the provisions wouldn’t apply to the United States unless fighting another signatory state.

A grey area of international law has always been the treatment of irregular fighters. The Great Powers did not appreciate participation by non-nation state actors in their conflicts. At the 1899 Hague Conference, the Martens Clause determined that non-uniformed insurgents were unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture. This means that according to Hague, the laws of warfare do not apply to guerrillas. pirates and terrorists. SOCOM has used this to their advantage.

In the 90’s, U.S. Special Operations Command lawyers successfully argued that the Sierra 7.62 Matchking hollow point bullets and the Winchester .45 caliber 230 grain Jacked Hollow point were not designed to caused unnecessary suffering and these rounds were then fielded in combat.
...}

The US most certainly DID ratify the 1899 Hague Convention in 1906, and later conventions DO protect guerrillas as long as they carry weapons openly and are not trying to pretend to be civilians, and they are under a chain of command.

And hollow point is designed and intended to turn into a buzz saw on impact, obviously causing massive increase in damage to flesh, and pain.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> By invading and colonizing the Pacific, like the Philippines, Indonesia, Malasia, etc. the US, England, and France were depriving Japan of everything they needed to survive, like food.
> Dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor was not offensive because the US should not have been in in the Pacific at all, much less Hawaii.
> The Japanese were acting defensively, and the US was the imperialist aggressor.


I love moonbat logic. The US was wrong for expanding to Hawaii and the British were wrong for colonizing as well as the French and Netherlands BUT Japan would have been just fine taking those places.


----------



## Rigby5

RetiredGySgt said:


> I love moonbat logic. The US was wrong for expanding to Hawaii and the British were wrong for colonizing as well as the French and Netherlands BUT Japan would have been just fine taking those places.



Wrong.
Japan did not try to take over places like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, etc., but to force the western imperialists out.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Japan did not try to take over places like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, etc., but to force the western imperialists out.


LOL you are seriously deluded


----------



## Dayton3

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL you are seriously deluded


People here ignore the obvious:

1) If the U.S. had not dropped the atomic bombs on Japan,  the likeliest alternative was not the U.S. invading,  but a naval blockade.   Given that most food in Japan was transported by ship a naval blockade would've inevitably led to a nationwide famine which would've quickly starved millions of Japanese to death.

2) If the U.S. had invaded Japan,  Japan would still have gotten hit by nuclear weapons.    The U.S. invasion plans were still to attack key strongpoints in  Japan with the nuclear weapons we had available.   Three at the very beginning,  and as many as 8  within a few months. 

3) No matter what had the atomic bombs not been used,   millions of Japanese were going to be killed in any possible continuation of the war.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> Of course they occurred.


Wrong. Literally didn't. Literally cannot "steal" oil.  🤦‍♂️ 


Rigby5 said:


> And if there is "no such thing as a 'legal' invasion", then what about when the US invaded Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.?


The US didn't "invade" _any_ of them. Next?


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> And hollow point is designed and intended to turn into a buzz saw on impact, obviously causing massive increase in damage to flesh, and pain.


Bullets aren't designed to cause pain. You lack the humility not to speak on topics that you don't know anything about.

Bullets are designed to *stop* a threat. That means kinetic force and damage. And that is the point of the hollow point. More damage means each bullet is more likely to stop the threat by itself (ie not having to fire multiple bullets for the same affect).


----------



## AZrailwhale

there4eyeM said:


> We can see the rationale behind the use of the bombs on Japan, but in the historical perspective it was a huge mistake, especially in humanitarian terms, and will always be regarded as such. Jingoistic pseudo-patriotism won't change that.


I don’t agree.  The US was killing larger numbers of Japanese, mostly civilians, practically every week.  Curt Lemay was burning Japan to the ground, one city at a time.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Open Bolt said:


> It was not even close to being balanced.  The original exhibit was filled with anti-American lies.
> 
> 
> 
> A little while ago I addressed one of your posts that used early surveys to minimize the number of soldiers in Hiroshima.
> 
> If it was reasonable for you to focus on the lower numbers from early surveys, surely it is reasonable for the Smithsonian to do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops.  That isn't even remotely a fact.
> 
> Japan asked that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.
> 
> This request was flatly denied, and Japan surrendered anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Another miss.  No one gave Mr. Truman any such advice.
> 
> 
> 
> That one is outright dishonest.
> 
> The atomic bombs were the most closely guarded secret in history before their actual use.  So of course the warning leaflets did not mention atomic bombs, and only said that the cities were going to be destroyed by a massive bombing raid.
> 
> To claim that there were no "leaflets mentioning the atomic bombs" in a context that challenges the existence of "leaflets warning of massive destruction" is so dishonest that this one has to have come from Gar Alperovitz.
> 
> 
> 
> More deliberate deception.
> 
> A recommendation to not give any warning of the atomic bomb does not mean that no leaflets were dropped warning of massive destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> The assertion is true.  Nothing false about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's what a false assertion looks like.
> 
> Hiroshima was selected as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign when not many Japanese cities had been destroyed.  Thereafter it was off limits to conventional bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> More like calling Norfolk Virginia a military target.
> 
> Hiroshima was Japan's primary military port, and it held vital military headquarters.
> 
> 
> 
> All we really need to know is that the people who signed the letter are all liars.


San Francisco contained a lot more military installations than Presidio.  There were shipyards, air bases arsenals and ordnance depots.


----------



## Mushroom

P@triot said:


> They aren't "illegal" on the battlefield either!



Actually, yes they are.

The Hague Declaration of 1899.



> The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.



This was later stated again many times in both Hague and Geneva.  But they have indeed been illegal for well over 100 years.

I can only imagine you never really served in uniform, or you would know this.


----------



## Mushroom

AZrailwhale said:


> I don’t agree. The US was killing larger numbers of Japanese, mostly civilians, practically every week.



And the Japanese killed well in excess of 10 million civilian non-combatants in China.  Even publishing a contest in newspapers to see who could behead 100 people first with a sword.






So tell me, what is your issue with Chinese, that you would dismiss the slaughter of tens of millions, over the bombing of two military cities in Japan?

Note:  The above clipping is from a Japanese newspaper.  In the sports section, announcing that the contest had gone into "extra innings" as it was too close to decide a winner.


----------



## DudleySmith

P@triot said:


> Just a reminder:
> 
> You really are an asshole (like, for real)
> Nuking Nagasaki was not only justified, it was _necessary _(even if you can't stomach that)
> This thread is truly immoral
> It's people like Mike Griffith who caused the Holocaust. The belief that when your pussy tingles and aches, you give in and hide. It's people like Mike Griffith who caused 9/11. Instead of dealing with Al Qaeda in the 1990's, you give in to your tingling and aching pussy. It's people like Mike Griffith who caused the mess in Ukraine.
> 
> Weakness *invites* aggression. Literally invites it. It's a clear and obvious phone call to evil stating "we're ripe for the taking - move now. Our pussy aches and tingles, it's time to rape us".
> 
> Only a fuck'n idiot makes that phone call




Quoted for truth. We're seeing the results of pandering to gangsters and bullies in real time via the Ukraine now, and saw it during the Obama administration in both Ukraine and Iran.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> By invading and colonizing the Pacific, like the Philippines, Indonesia, Malasia, etc. the US, England, and France were depriving Japan of everything they needed to survive, like food.


Japan doesn't control those places today.  How do they eat?

How did Japan eat in the years before western colonization, when Japan also had no control over those areas?




Rigby5 said:


> Dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor was not offensive because the US should not have been in in the Pacific at all, much less Hawaii.


We have every right to be in the Pacific, and attacking us without justification is very much aggression.




Rigby5 said:


> The Japanese were acting defensively, and the US was the imperialist aggressor.


That is incorrect.  It is the exact opposite.




Rigby5 said:


> Beyond this question, it is key to highlight that the norms contained in Protocol III only refer to _limitations in_ _use_ for incendiary weapons, and _not to a blanket prohibition_ in all circumstances. This is a transposition of the rules on the protection of civilians, such as the prohibition ‘in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons’ (Article 2). It is uncontroversial that any use of a flamethrower, be it a proper incendiary weapon or not, in breach of those rules on the protection of civilians would be unlawful. The same would hold true for any weapon.


So it is legal to have nuclear weapons, but illegal to deliberately target civilians (regardless of what sort of weapons is used).




Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Japan did not try to take over places like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, etc., but to force the western imperialists out.


No.  Japan tried to take those places over.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Truman should have been hung at Nuremberg.


That would have been a horrible injustice, given that he was a hero who never did anything wrong.


----------



## Open Bolt

Dayton3 said:


> 1) If the U.S. had not dropped the atomic bombs on Japan,  the likeliest alternative was not the U.S. invading,  but a naval blockade.


The alternative would have been both.  We were not just selecting one single option and pursuing that alone.  We were pushing all options simultaneously.

So the blockade of Japan would have continued.  The conventional bombardment of Japan would have continued.  And the invasion would have happened as soon as we were ready to launch it, had the war still been going at that point.




Dayton3 said:


> Given that most food in Japan was transported by ship a naval blockade would've inevitably led to a nationwide famine which would've quickly starved millions of Japanese to death.


Correct.




Dayton3 said:


> 2) If the U.S. had invaded Japan,  Japan would still have gotten hit by nuclear weapons.    The U.S. invasion plans were still to attack key strongpoints in  Japan with the nuclear weapons we had available.


Correct.


----------



## gipper

So many hypocrites in this thread. Dummies too. 

_The rank hypocrisy is stunning. Some of the same officials that orchestrated the invasion of Iraq, who under international law are war criminals for carrying out a preemptive war, are now chastising Russia for its violation of international law. The US bombing campaign of Iraqi urban centers, called “Shock and Awe,” saw the dropping of 3,000 bombs on civilian areas that killed over 7,000 noncombatants in the first two months of the war. Russia has yet to go to this extreme.

“I have argued that when you invade a sovereign nation, that is a war crime,” a FOX News host said (with a straight face) recently to Condoleezza Rice, who served as Bush’s National Security adviser during the Iraq War._

Chris Hedges: Worthy and Unworthy Victims


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> So many hypocrites in this thread. Dummies too.
> 
> 
> Chris Hedges: Worthy and Unworthy Victims


Chris Hedges got fired for plagiarism.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> No, the atomic bomb did not have a major impact on the hardliners' decision to accept surrender, as Japanese records show. They were willing to sacrifice many more cities to being wiped by either conventional or nuclear bombs. But the Soviet invasion raised the unacceptable prospect of Soviet occupation.


What the Soviet invasion did was demolish the possibility of using the Soviets as mediators.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman and his inner circle ignorantly assumed, or perhaps knowingly adopted the lie, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused Japan to surrender.


It's an easy assumption to make.  They were hoping that the atomic bombs would make Japan surrender, and then Japan surrendered the day after Nagasaki.




mikegriffith1 said:


> They took this position to excuse their war crime of nuking Nagasaki just three days after Hiroshima.


It was not even remotely a war crime.  We are allowed to bomb military targets when we are at war.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Are you just pretending not to understand the plain import of Togo's statement?  Do you understand that Togo was Japan's Foreign Minister and one of the biggest peace advocates in the cabinet?


I see nothing particularly important about Togo's statement.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Togo was detailing the terms for a surrender that he hoped would be brokered by the Soviets.


No he wasn't.  He did not detail any surrender terms.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You are totally, totally confused. The Togo-Sato cables are not talking about what the Japanese were offering to the Nationalists; they're talking about what the Japanese would offer to the U.S. to achieve a negotiated peace.


Except, the cables don't talk about what Japan would offer to the US.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Japan was not a dictatorship.


Sure it was.  The Japanese Army wielded absolute power in Japan.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true.


Japan's atrocities were no myth.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too.


Eye for an eye.  We did what we had to to make Japan stop their reign of terror.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.


Hardly.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Yeah, of course we were still "at war" with Japan--because Truman refused to do what most of his advisers urged him to do and because he refused to act on the intelligence that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to end the war on acceptable terms.


No.  The war continued because Japan was still refusing to surrender.  Truman was not ignoring his advisors.

There were no actions to be taken on the intelligence in question.


----------



## Open Bolt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> A "negotiated peace" is conditional surrender.


Not necessarily.  It can also be ending the war in a draw, much like the Korean War later ended.




Kevin_Kennedy said:


> It's only vague to you, seemingly. Everyone else is capable of understanding the explicit content of the message.


The only content of the message was that Japan wanted the Soviets to let Prince Konoye come and talk to them about helping Japan to escape the war.




Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The Minister of Foreign Affairs was not a position of power?


Correct.




Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Most surrenders are conditional. A truce is not quite the same thing.


Indeed.  And the intercepts made it appear that Japan was seeking a truce, not a surrender.




Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Now you're simply redefining words.


No.  He is pointing out that those intercepts are not evidence of a desire to surrender.




Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Whether or not it says the actual word "surrender" is indeed a minor issue.


Not if it means that Japan wasn't trying to surrender.




Kevin_Kennedy said:


> A truce is where no side wins, see the Korean War. A negotiated peace, or conditional surrender, is where one side surrenders assuming certain conditions are met. They still lose, but on their own terms.


Yes.  And it looked like Japan was trying to achieve a truce, not a surrender.


----------



## Open Bolt

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It was motivated by revenge and probably racism


You left out the part where we wanted to force Japan to surrender.




TheProgressivePatriot said:


> with no regard for human life or human decency.


Weapons are designed to kill people and break things.  That's what they are there for.




TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And that changes what exactly? You know what they say about two wrongs.


Self defense is hardly a wrong.

If Japan didn't want us to nuke them in self defense, then they shouldn't have been attacking us.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> The US bombing campaign of Iraqi urban centers, called “Shock and Awe,” saw the dropping of 3,000 bombs on civilian areas that killed over 7,000 noncombatants in the first two months of the war.


Fake news.  Shock and Awe never happened.  It was advertised in a disinformation campaign to throw Saddam's defenses off from our true plan of attack.


----------



## Open Bolt

Frannie said:


> The first bomb confused the Japanese, nothing like this had ever happened before and they may have thought God was responsible because no weapon of war was anything like this previously


Japan knew what an atomic bomb was from their own atomic bomb program.

And Truman announced to the world almost immediately that the Hiroshima attack was an atomic bomb.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Many American military leaders _of that day_ recognized that the use of atomic bombs against civilians was unnecessary and immoral.


Those people were pretty goofy.  We didn't use atomic bombs against civilians.  We bombed military targets.




Unkotare said:


> The issue is that we used the most terrible weapon in the history of the world to deliberately slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.


No we didn't.  We bombed military targets.




Unkotare said:


> You've got a middle schooler's idea of the war (and war in general) at best.
> Atomic bomb or mass invasion were not the only two options.


Your references to "options" (as if we selected one option and went with that alone) is not even remotely how war is fought.

We were pursuing all options simultaneously.  And if, despite all the other options that we were pursuing simultaneously, Japan was still refusing to surrender when we were ready to invade, we were going to invade.




Unkotare said:


> In the end, we accepted the only condition emphasized in the overtures to surrender which were floated and about which fdr was informed long before the atomic bombs were dropped.


Except, the surrender overtures did not come until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

And we didn't accept that condition.  We flatly rejected it.




Unkotare said:


> fdr was informed about feelers for surrender and responded by deriding McArthur for being poor at politics, and he disregarded the notion entirely.


Fake news.  Never happened.




Unkotare said:


> So, you are claiming the the US decided to drop atomic bombs on civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of other nations?


The US did not drop atomic bombs on civilians.

We nuked military targets with the goal of trying to make Japan surrender.




Unkotare said:


> The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.


Funny how they refused to surrender on Iwo Jima and Okinawa.




Unkotare said:


> A war that might have been ended sooner with less loss of life on both sides. Or don’t you care about at least the American lives that might have been saved?


Japan was the one who refused to surrender any earlier than they did.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> _The rank hypocrisy is stunning. Some of the same officials that orchestrated the invasion of Iraq, who under international law are war criminals for carrying out a preemptive war, are now chastising Russia for its violation of international law. _


Russia isn't going into Ukraine to remove a tyrannical dictator with a history of invading other countries, and you know it. Stop with your disingenuous bullshit and faux outrage. You're a fucking clown when it comes to this topic.


----------



## P@triot

Open Bolt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> fdr was informed about feelers for surrender and responded by deriding McArthur for being poor at politics, and he disregarded the notion entirely. It is not an unreasonable conclusion that he was not interested in an earlier peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Never happened.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, fake news is Sensei Snowflakes specialty. He simps for Xi Jinping 24x7.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Nukes are and always were illegal chemical and thermal weapons that are banned.
> Bullets do not have to "cleanly kill" in that they usually just go right through, with only a temporary wound.
> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.
> Gun shots in war are almost never lethal anymore.
> 
> But more to the point, NATO trying to put nukes on the Russian border is in violation of several treaties, and is as bad as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Are you suggesting that the US was criminal for forcing the nukes out of Cuba?


You have no idea what you are talking about on any of those issues.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Mushroom said:


> And the Japanese killed well in excess of 10 million civilian non-combatants in China.  Even publishing a contest in newspapers to see who could behead 100 people first with a sword.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, what is your issue with Chinese, that you would dismiss the slaughter of tens of millions, over the bombing of two military cities in Japan?
> 
> Note:  The above clipping is from a Japanese newspaper.  In the sports section, announcing that the contest had gone into "extra innings" as it was too close to decide a winner.


I have no issue, I was just pointing out that the casualties from the nukes were nothing special; compared to the casualties from the conventional incendiary raids that were happening every night. In 1945, nukes were just considered a better bomb.  All the angst about them comes from the post-war period.


----------



## gipper

AZrailwhale said:


> I have no issue, I was just pointing out that the casualties from the nukes were nothing special; compared to the casualties from the conventional incendiary raids that were happening every night. In 1945, nukes were just considered a better bomb.  All the angst about them comes from the post-war period.


Yeah mass murdering large numbers of defenseless women and children is just so hoo-hum. Forget about it.


----------



## there4eyeM

gipper said:


> Yeah mass murdering large numbers of defenseless women and children is just so hoo-hum. Forget about it.


Reasoning and acting exactly like one's enemies tends to diminish the perception of difference.


----------



## Dayton3

gipper said:


> Yeah mass murdering large numbers of defenseless women and children is just so hoo-hum. Forget about it.


Most people killed in modern war can honestly be considered "defenseless". 

What difference do their defensive capabilities make?


----------



## gipper

Dayton3 said:


> Most people killed in modern war can honestly be considered "defenseless".
> 
> What difference do their defensive capabilities make?


LMFAO…you are actually fine with mass murdering defenseless women and children. You’re a sick fuck.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Yeah mass murdering large numbers of defenseless women and children is just so hoo-hum. Forget about it.


No such murders.  We dropped the justice bombs on military targets.




gipper said:


> LMFAO…you are actually fine with mass murdering defenseless women and children. You’re a sick fuck.


Attacks on military targets are not murder.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> No such murders.  We dropped the justice bombs on military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> Attacks on military targets are not murder.


Dumb


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Dumb


It was reasonable of me to correct your untrue claim.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is the kind of juvenile and absurd barbarism that comes from bigotry. It is also the kind of un-American cruelty that one must espouse to defend Truman's decision to use nukes.


It is actually justified anger at Japan's atrocities.  Nothing unamerican about it.




mikegriffith1 said:


> How many times are you going to ignore the fact that by no later than July we knew from intercepts and other sources that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, were ready and willing to surrender on acceptable terms and that the only issue was the emperor's status in an "unconditional surrender"? You guys just keep ignoring this fact.


That isn't a fact.  It is completely untrue.

The military faction opposed surrender until the Emperor ordered them to support surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The hardliners' trump card was the argument that the U.S. would depose the emperor if Japan surrendered, since this was implied in the Potsdam Declaration and in other U.S. statements.


No such thing was implied in the Potsdam Proclamation.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The first draft of the Potsdam Declaration contained a clarification that said the emperor would not be deposed, but Truman removed it.


Actually the first draft said that we would allow Hirohito's dynasty to continue.

That sounded like a statement of intent to execute Hirohito and place his son on the throne.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If Truman had given the Japanese any indication that the Soviet Union would attack them in the near future, this would have caused even most hardliners to support surrender. If the Soviets had signed the Potsdam Declaration, this likewise would have caused most hardliners to support surrender.


True, but so what?

And what if (if history had played out with Japan surrendering before the atomic bombs) humanity was extinct today because the US and USSR no longer had the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to restrain them from nuclear war?




mikegriffith1 said:


> Do you know why the Soviets did not sign the Potsdam Declaration? Because Truman would not let them. He wanted the Japanese to think that the Soviets were still neutral. Truman's deception greatly aided the hardliners and helped them to stall surrender.


That was hardly Truman's motivation.

If the Soviets had been given input into the text of the Potsdam Proclamation, they would have made the terms much harsher and made Japan less likely to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Is this nonsense how you justify Truman's barbarism in your own mind? Go read the USSBS's report on Japan's prostrate condition as of July 1944. As I've pointed out, by June 1945, the odds of an American bomber or fighter getting shot down over Japan were 3 in 1,000, or 0.003%.


Hardly prostrate.  Japan had millions of troops and thousands of kamikazes ready to fend off our invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers


They were not Japan's peace feelers.  They were unauthorized contacts by low-level officials.

And Truman did not ignore them.  It was Japan who killed off those peace feelers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> a man who not only nuked two cities when he knew Japan was willing to surrender on acceptable terms,


He did no such thing.  Japan was still refusing to surrender when the atomic bombs were dropped.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Good grief! I've already refuted this nonsense.


Those facts are not nonsense, and you have not refuted them.




mikegriffith1 said:


> I posted a detailed review of Japan's peace feelers and noted that the emperor, two foreign ministers, senior military officers, and others approved of peace feelers through third parties.


The only contact that had government backing was the request to the Soviets to let Prince Konoye come and talk to them.




mikegriffith1 said:


> This is a dishonest dodge.


Not at all.  It is perfectly appropriate to point out that the faction that had actual power did not agree on surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> In Japan, there were hardliners in the military who kept thwarting surrender efforts because they were able to argue that the emperor would be deposed in a surrender! That was why it was so critical for Truman to stipulate that this would not happen!


That was not how the hardliners opposed surrender.

They simply said no to surrender in any form.  They did not bother with arguments.

The hardliners only backed down on surrender when the Emperor ordered them to do so.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You've simply shifted the goalposts by dozens of yards to try to avoid dealing with facts that refute your position.


He shifted no goalposts, and no facts refute his position.




mikegriffith1 said:


> LOL!  You even twist well-known, undisputed history.


No he didn't.  His statement is true.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The Japanese surrender offer insisted on the condition that the emperor would not be deposed, even though the Soviets had invaded and we had nuked two cities.


Not even close.  The Japanese surrender offer requested the condition that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.




mikegriffith1 said:


> We did not reject that condition.


Oh yes we did.  We told them that Hirohito was going to be subordinate to MacArthur.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman wanted to convey our acceptance of that condition but to do so in language that would not seem to be a concession on our part.


Truman wanted to clearly convey that the Emperor would not be retaining any unlimited dictatorial power.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The Byrnes Note, which was our reply to the Japanese surrender offer, implied that the emperor would remain in place but that he would act under our authority.


It said that the Emperor would be subordinate to MacArthur.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Most of Japan's leaders read the note as indicating that the emperor would not be deposed, although most--not all, but most--of the hardliners took advantage of the lack of a clear statement to this effect and argued that the note gave no guarantee about the emperor.


The only guarantee the Emperor got was the guarantee that he would no longer have unlimited dictatorial power.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Plus, the Japanese were getting back-channel indications that we would not depose the emperor.


What back channel indications are these?




mikegriffith1 said:


> And, of course, there is also the fact that we did not depose the emperor when we occupied Japan. In fact, the emperor proved to be a great ally and help in getting the Japanese to accept occupation and the transition to democracy.


History turned out pretty good.  It is hard to see how the war could have ended any better.

We had the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to deter the US and USSR from nuking each other.

We kept the Soviets out of Japan and were able to use the Emperor to shape Japan into a responsible society.

Perfection.




mikegriffith1 said:


> No, what it proves is that your attitude toward the Japanese is not only hateful and bigoted but that it borders on being sadistic. Your barbaric and vicious posturing is thoroughly un-American.


This melodrama is silly.  Most people are angry about Japan's atrocities.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Americanism does not mean you butcher hundreds of thousands of women and children when you know you can achieve an acceptable surrender without killing any more people.


Truman's first hint of an acceptable surrender came only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Truman knew that Hiroshima was a military base.  He was under the erroneous impression that this meant there would be no collateral damage.

Truman did not know that the second atomic bomb was even being dropped until after the fact.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Americanism does not mean you side with a murderous tyranny that was twice as bad as Nazi Germany and then hand over Eastern Europe to that tyranny and hand over China to an even worse tyranny.


So now you want to blame Truman for not stopping the Soviets?

He did his best to stop them.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Americanism does not mean you spurn peace offers from an anti-communist, capitalist nation and deliberately provoke that nation to attack you so you can get your country to enter a war on the side of the Soviet Union.


So now you are upset that we didn't support Japan's genocide against their Asian neighbors?


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> You can deny the Earth is round all day, but it'll still be round. The fact that MacArthur, Clarke, Feller, Nimitz, Grew, Bard, Leahy, etc., etc., not to mention most of the dozens of scientists who worked on the bomb, opposed nuking Japan has been documented and discussed in hundreds of scholarly studies.


Not one of those people advised Mr. Truman not to use the atomic bombs against Japan.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> You again simply ignore the fact that most of Japan's leaders were trying to surrender.


That's not a fact.

The military faction (the faction that was actually in charge) was opposed to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You just keep ignoring this with this silly and grade-school simplistic line that "they did not surrender."


That they didn't surrender is a pretty important point.

Them not surrendering meant that the war was still on, and we had every right to keep attacking them.




mikegriffith1 said:


> They were trying to surrender.


If so, they weren't trying hard enough.  We were not hearing any surrender offers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And we knew they were trying to surrender.


No we didn't.




mikegriffith1 said:


> But they--the moderates--needed to overcome the hardliners, who, though a minority, could paralyze and even bring down the government if any one of their two cabinet members refused to vote for surrender or if they resigned and their service refused to appoint a successor.


So in other words, the government of Japan had not decided to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Most of their leaders were trying to surrender and had been trying for several weeks, but they could not overcome the hardliners because, thanks to Truman, the hardliners could put forward two powerful arguments that the moderates could not overcome, i.e., that the emperor would be deposed if Japan surrendered and that the Soviet Union would remain neutral until the neutrality pact ended in April 1946.


No.  It was because the hardliners flatly opposed surrender until the Emperor ordered them to support surrender.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> And here is part of Dr. Sherry’s eloquent condemnation of Truman’s decision to nuke without trying negotiation:
> 
> Since precisely this issue of the emperor’s fate held up surrender even after Hiroshima and Russia’s entry into the war, until Byrnes and Truman offered firmer assurances, their decision at Potsdam has been widely and rightly condemned as the most tragic blunder in American surrender policy, even by insiders who otherwise supported the bomb’s use. There can be no certainty would have accepted in July what it submitted to in August, but the chance was there, and as Ralph Bard had argued earlier, the risks of pursuing it were small. Moreover, the moral risks in the opposite direction, in pursuing an atomic solution before attempting to break the diplomatic impasse, were large. Michael Walzer has explained them persuasively:​
> “If killing millions (or many thousands) of men and women was militarily necessary for their conquest and overthrow, then it was morally necessary—in order not to kill those people—to settle for something less. . . .  If people have a right not to be forced to fight, they also have a right not to be forced to continue fighting beyond the point when the war might justly be concluded. Beyond that point, there can be no supreme emergencies, no arguments about military necessity, no cost-accounting in human lives. To press the war further than that is to re-commit the crime of aggression. In the summer of 1945, the victorious Americans owed the Japanese people an experiment in negotiation. To use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting such an experiment, was a double crime.”​


Given Japan's refusal to do anything other than pursue Soviet mediation, it can be safely assumed that they would never have listened to our terms no matter what they were.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Of course, the double crime extended beyond use of the atomic bomb. A larger failure in surrender policy had sanctioned the razing of Japan’s cities. (pp. 329, 334-335)​


No crime and no failure.  The bombing was a big success.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever lame, dishonest attempts some might make to paint the Japanese as a formidable foe in August 1945 because they managed to shoot down a plane and sink a ship that month,


Don't forget the thousands of kamikazes and millions of soldiers they had waiting to greet our invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> there can be no denying that Truman did not even try to explore the peace feelers that he knew Japan was putting out, even though he knew from Japanese intercepts that Emperor Hirohito himself wanted to surrender as soon as possible. Truman did not even try to negotiate privately, through third parties, to explore the peace opening that he knew from intercepts was there to be explored.


Wrong.

Besides the fact that the government of Japan was not putting out those feelers (and the US government knew this), Truman did pursue those feelers just in case they would lead to actual contact with the people in power in Japan.

It was Japan who killed off those peace feelers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman not only refused to hold any kind of negotiations with the Japanese, but he refused to advise them that he would not depose the emperor if they surrendered. He also refused to alert the Japanese that Russia would soon be entering the Pacific War against them. These two crucial pieces of information would have been of enormous value to the Japanese moderates and would have deprived the hardliners of their two main--and really their only--arguments against surrender.


The notion that the hardliners were relying on those arguments is ahistorical.  The hardliners simply opposed surrender and voted against it.

It is possible that "knowing that the Soviets were about to declare war" would have disabused the peace faction of any hope of Soviet mediation and thereby prompted the Emperor to order a surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

It is also possible that humanity would be extinct right now if the US and USSR did not have the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to deter them from nuclear war.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Okay, now let's deal with your claims about Eisenhower’s statements on nuking Japan. I suspect your claims are based on Robert Maddox’s book _Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism. _It is ironic that Maddox thinks of himself as battling “revisionism” when in fact the majority of scholars who have published on this subject disagree with him.


Most scholars do not disagree with Mr. Maddox.




mikegriffith1 said:


> To give you some idea of how extreme he is on the issue, Maddox stridently applauds the censoring and cancellation of the modestly objective and carefully worded text of the _Enola Gay _exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution in 1995, even though dozens of leading historians—including historians from Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Ohio State, Dartmouth, Georgetown, and Stanford—condemned the censoring and removal of the text.


The exhibit was filled with anti-American lies.  Opposing such lies is hardly evidence of extremism.




mikegriffith1 said:


> When dealing with the fact that General Omar Bradley confirmed in his memoir that Ike voiced objection to nuking Japan to Stimson and Truman, Maddox argues that that part of Bradley’s book was fabricated by Bradley’s co-author!


And indeed it was fabricated.

The account in Bradley's book is contrary to known facts.

It is also contrary to Ike's own account of his opposition to the bombs.

Ike clearly describes that the conversation about the atomic bombs happened in a private dinner with Stimson, not in a general meeting with lots of other people including Truman himself.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Perhaps sensing that his claim that Bradley’s confirming account was fabricated might seem doubtful,


No fears on that account.  The Bradley account is an obvious fabrication.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Maddox is forced to admit that one of Stimson’s aides recorded that Stimson and Eisenhower did in fact discuss the atomic bomb when the two had lunch at Ike’s HQ on July 27, even though Stimson’s diary for that day says nothing about it, which should warn us about making arguments from silence.


_Forced_ to admit??

Maddox has no trouble admitting to facts.

This data from Stimson's aid is more confirmation that the Bradley account is a fabrication.

Maddox also noted that July 27 was after the final orders to drop the atomic bombs had already been sent out to the military and Stimson had left Potsdam to fly home.

Stimson was not in the same room with Truman again until after Hiroshima had already been bombed.

Even if Ike had been convincing, he was too late to stop the atomic bombs from being dropped.

And Ike's own account makes it pretty clear that he failed to convince Stimson of anything at all.




mikegriffith1 said:


> In reply to Maddox and other Truman defenders, Professor Gar Alperovitz has said the following:


Alperovitz is a known fraud.




mikegriffith1 said:


> (B) It is sometimes urged that there is no record of any of the military men directly advising President Truman not to use the atomic bomb--and that this must mean that they felt its use was justified at the time. However, this is speculation. The fact is there is also no record of military leaders advising President Truman _to use the bomb_:
> We simply have little solid information one way or the other on what was said by top military leaders on the key question at the time: There are very few direct contemporaneous records on this subject. And there is certainly no formal recommendation that the atomic bomb be used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


Either way, there is no record of anyone ever advising Mr. Truman against using the atomic bombs.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Here, for instance, is how General George C. Marshall put it in a discussion more than two months before Hiroshima was destroyed (McCloy memo, May 29, 1945):
> 
> ... he thought these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave--telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers.... Every effort should be made to keep our record of warning clear. We must offset by such warning methods the opprobrium which might follow from an ill-considered employment of such force. [THE DECISION, p. 53.]​


That is exactly what we did do.

Hiroshima was Japan's primary military port.

Subsequent atomic bombs were aimed at enemy war industry.

Leaflets were dropped warning people to flee before we bombed.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The President's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy--the man who presided over meetings of the Joint Chiefs--noted in his diary of June 18, 1945 (seven weeks _prior to_ the bombing of Hiroshima):
> It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. [THE DECISION, p. 324.]​(Leahy also stated subsequently something which should be obvious--namely that the Chief of Staff regularly made his views known to the President. His well-documented comments in a meeting with the President urging assurances for the Emperor this same day--June 18--are only one indication of this. Although we have no records of their private conversations, we know that the two men met to discuss matters of state every morning at 9:45 a.m. [THE DECISION, pp. 324-6.])


He was right.  We got Japan to surrender on satisfactory terms.




mikegriffith1 said:


> There is also substantial, but less direct evidence (including some which seems to have come from President Truman himself) that General Arnold argued explicitly that the atomic bomb was not needed [THE DECISION, pp. 322-4; 335-7]--and as noted above, that Arnold instructed his deputy Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker that although he did not wish to press the point, he did not believe the bomb was needed. As also noted above, in his memoirs Arnold stated that "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." [THE DECISION, p. 334.] (In this connection, as we shall discuss in Part III, it is commonly forgotten that by the time Hiroshima was bombed orders had already been given to alter targeting priorities so as to down-play city bombing. Although there were some difficulties in the field, the new priorities were on the verge of being moved into implementation as the war ended. [THE DECISION, p. 342-3.]) (Decision: Part I)[/INDENT]


Did I mention that Alperovitz is a known fraud?

Alperovitz is maliciously misrepresenting what General Arnold said.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> Those facts are not nonsense, and you have not refuted them.



I find those that try to scream otherwise know nothing of early Showa era Japan, or who actually made the decisions.

I bet none have ever heard of the Supreme War Council (also known as the "Big Six"), who was on it, and how they voted each time both before and after the bombs were dropped.  They seem to think that they were sitting around trying to find ways to get the US to accept their surrender, which is anything but what happened.

They likely also never heard of the Taisei Yokusankai, or "Imperial Rule Assistance Association", which was the Japanese version of the Fascist and NSDAP parties.  They know about a thimbleful of what actually led to the war, and what caused it to end.  But they are so full of their own self-importance that they will scream incessantly about how right they are.  I mostly find it dull, as it means that for the last decade I have been pointing out the exact same things over and over again.  But it means nothing, they always seem to think they win every time it comes up.

Even most funny was that the story of the "contest to behead 100 people with a sword" had largely been forgotten to history once the two that took part in the contest were executed.  Most even believing it had never happened, and was entirely fictional on old anti-Japanese stories.  Until a history professor at a Tokyo University actually uncovered the original newspaper reports in two major Japanese newspapers (one in Osaka, the other in Tokyo).  It went on for over 2 weeks, and was covered in the sports section between November and December 1937 like it was a baseball pennant race.

Even going to extra innings of 150 beheadings when they were tied.

That was how callous the culture was to outsiders at the time.  Does anybody reasonably think the Big Six would not have been just as callous to their own people?


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> Given Japan's refusal to do anything other than pursue Soviet mediation, it can be safely assumed that they would never have listened to our terms no matter what they were.



Oh, it is even more telling when one examines the messages sent back and forth between Foreign Minister Togo, and the Japanese Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Naotake Sato.  The US knew what was being sent back and forth between them, because they had broken the diplomatic code years earlier.  And the exchange between the two was quite interesting.  With Togo and the Government insisting that they would accept nothing but peace on their terms.  And that those terms were absolute and non-negotiable

Sato even tried to get the Government to agree to return land conquered during the war, and could not even get a firm answer on that!  With the most Tokyo being willing to go was to any such territories being demilitarized yet under Japanese administration.  Frustrated at the total unwillingness to negotiate on anything, Ambassador Sato sent a blistering communique to Foreign Minister Togo lambasting him for sending him on a mission that was obviously designed to fail.



> If the Japanese empire is really faced with the necessity of terminating the war, we must first of all make up our minds to terminate the war.



And finally, Togo admitted that there were no terms, because the Government still thought they were winning the war.  In one of the last messages, Sato charged Togo with sending him nothing but "pretty little phrases" to use to start negotiations;.  Nothing else.

The US was more than aware of these negotiations, and was reading this back and forth as soon as it was happening.  They knew that Ambassador Sato was frustrated, and even he knew that Japan was not serious about surrender, his mission was mostly a stall tactic and nothing else but.  

There was never going to be a "Soviet Mediation", and even the Soviets knew that.  Which is why Stalin ordered his Foreign Minsters to simply stall them.  And of all three sides in this, only one really wanted peace.

Japan wanted war, because they knew their fortunes would turn around and eventually they would win.

The Soviets wanted war, so they could reclaim their territory lost between the end of the Boxer Rebellion and their latest border clashes.  And if the war was ended before they got involved that never would have happened.

Only the US and UK seemed to want peace.  They wanted it over and done with, so they could both go home.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Nukes are and always were illegal chemical and thermal weapons that are banned.
> Bullets do not have to "cleanly kill" in that they usually just go right through, with only a temporary wound.
> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.
> Gun shots in war are almost never lethal anymore.
> 
> But more to the point, NATO trying to put nukes on the Russian border is in violation of several treaties, and is as bad as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Are you suggesting that the US was criminal for forcing the nukes out of Cuba?





Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Nukes are and always were illegal chemical and thermal weapons that are banned.
> Bullets do not have to "cleanly kill" in that they usually just go right through, with only a temporary wound.
> That is why hollow point and dumdum expanding bullets are illegal.
> Gun shots in war are almost never lethal anymore.
> 
> But more to the point, NATO trying to put nukes on the Russian border is in violation of several treaties, and is as bad as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Are you suggesting that the US was criminal for forcing the nukes out of Cuba?


You are incredibly stupid and ignorant.  Nukes aren’t chemical weapons, neither are they “thermal weapons” whatever they are.  Nukes are not illegal.  At least nineteen hundred americans have been killed by enemy action in Afghanistan.  Of those over half died from bullet wounds. On one weekend, seventeen people were killed by “celebratory gunfire” in Kabul alone.  Since you are so slow and ignorant, “celebratory gunfire” is idiots like you shooting aimlessly up in the air.  A “temporary wound” can take months to heal with the victim in pain for a large portion of that time.
NATO is not interested in putting nukes On Russia’s borders. It already has nukes in easy range of every city and military base in Russia.  What Ukraine wanted were DEFENSIVE anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles in it’s own territory to protect itself from Russia.  Events have clearly shown they were necessary.
The reason ration of deaths from gunshot wounds in combat have dropped is that battlefield medicine has gotten so good.


----------



## Dayton3

gipper said:


> LMFAO…you are actually fine with mass murdering defenseless women and children. You’re a sick fuck.


 Personal insult means your arguments are intellectually bankrupt.

I said nothing about being "fine" with mass murdering defenseless women and children.

1) What would make you consider those women and children and being "defensible"?
2) As I've pointed out,  in war time most of those killed are in fact "defenseless".   By way of example,  most aircraft shot down in air to air combat are shot down by opponents that they never saw. 

3) Likewise in land combat most deaths are due to artillery.   Which those killed never even see firing.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> It wasn’t necessary to end the war.


Irrelevant.  We still dropped the atomic bombs with the goal of making Japan surrender.




Unkotare said:


> That leaves just the revenge.


No it doesn't.  We dropped the atomic bombs to try to make Japan surrender.




Unkotare said:


> Killing over 100,000 civilians in atomic incineration and its aftermath, and throwing AMERICANS into concentration camps in revenge against a military enemy? Is that what you think America is about?


Revenge is a perfectly reasonable reason for people to be happy about the atomic bombs.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> There was a reason that when Truman first told the American people about the nuking of Hiroshima, he falsely claimed that Hiroshima was a “military base,” not just a military target, but a military base.


Nothing false about it.  Hiroshima was the headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Actually, of course, it was neither.


Wrong.  Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If Hiroshima was a “military base,” or even a “military target,” then so is every American city with a sea port, an airport, and a contingent of military reservists and/or National Guard soldiers.


Hiroshima had the highest soldier/civilian ratio of any major Japanese city, and held more soldiers than any Japanese city besides Tokyo.




mikegriffith1 said:


> the troops there were in garrison and constituted a small fraction of the city’s population;


There were still a lot of them.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Not one American soldier would have died in the Pacific in August if Truman had not ignored Japan's peace feelers and what he knew about them from intercepts.


Truman didn't ignore the peace feelers.  It was Japan that killed off the peace feelers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Killing hundreds of thousands of women and children is not the American way and is not what America is about.


That's why we dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The American way is to hit military targets, if you must use force, not bomb virtually defenseless cities filled mostly with seniors, women, and children.


Again, that's why we dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * In 1955, Eisenhower wrote to friend and businessman William Pawley about his discussion on the bomb with Stimson:
> On the other hand, when I suggested to Secretary of War Stimson, who was then in Europe, that we avoid using the atomic bomb, he stated that it was going to be used because it would save hundreds of thousands of American lives. (Eisenhower papers, Eisenhower to Pawley, April 9, 1955, in Gar Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, _p. 354)​


It's a shame that Alperovitz is known for fraudulently misquoting people, because if that quote is accurate then that is evidence that the high casualty estimates were real.

Of course, we already know that the high casualty estimates were real, but it would be one more piece of evidence.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Now, Elektra, getting back to your “scum” comment, guess which “scum” said the following:
> 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 was the conclusion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) (USSBS report, p. 26), which was led by such “scum” and “commies” as:
> - Paul Nitze, who went on to serve as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense, and who was chosen by President Ronald Reagan to be his chief negotiator at the SALT talks.


Scum indeed.  The Strategic Bombing Survey was fake.




mikegriffith1 said:


> "Unprovoked"? FDR was strangling Japan with increasingly harsh sanctions. Japan made a sincere effort to reach a compromise with FDR, including an offer to withdraw from southern Indochina, which was FDR's pretext for the oil embargo. Every time Japan offered another concession, FDR would add more conditions. The Japanese realized that FDR was determined to force Japan to fight.
> Since you claim to be a "patriot," you might be interested to know that Japan was staunchly anti-communist and pro-free enterprise and pro-private property. Japan moved into Manchuria to check Soviet and Chinese Communist influence there and to create a buffer zone between Japan and Communism.
> Japan plainly told FDR that it was ready to ditch its pact with Germany in exchange for the lifting of the sanctions, but FDR said no. Also, isn't it interesting that FDR wanted the Japanese to guarantee that they would not attack the Soviet Union?!
> Japan had been our ally in WW I. Japan was the most westernized nation in Asia and also had the best economy because it was based on free enterprise and a fierce respect for private property.


Your support for Japan's genocide against their Asian neighbors is horrific.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> Nothing false about it.  Hiroshima was the headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima had the highest soldier/civilian ratio of any major Japanese city, and held more soldiers than any Japanese city besides Tokyo.
> 
> 
> 
> There were still a lot of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Truman didn't ignore the peace feelers.  It was Japan that killed off the peace feelers.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's why we dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that Alperovitz is known for fraudulently misquoting people, because if that quote is accurate then that is evidence that the high casualty estimates were real.
> 
> Of course, we already know that the high casualty estimates were real, but it would be one more piece of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Scum indeed.  The Strategic Bombing Survey was fake.
> 
> 
> 
> Your support for Japan's genocide against their Asian neighbors is horrific.


All wrong.

Mike will be along shortly let’s hope to destroy your ignorance.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> All wrong.


Nope.  Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion.

Hiroshima held thousands of soldiers.  Hiroshima held more soldiers than any Japanese city other than Tokyo.

Truman didn't ignore the Japanese peace feelers.  It was Japan who killed off the peace feelers.

Gar Alperovitz is a known fraud.

The Strategic Bombing Survey is a known fraud.

If that quote from Ike can be verified, it will indeed be one more piece of evidence showing that the US government feared high casualties from an invasion.

Japan's genocide of their Asian neighbors was indeed horrific.




gipper said:


> Mike will be along shortly let’s hope to destroy your ignorance.


No such ignorance.  Note the ease with which I debunk all of your untrue claims.


----------



## Mac-7

Japan unquestionably started the war

but they were stupid

they accomplished nothing by bombing Pearl Harbor except ensure their own destruction


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> I take it you didn't bother to read any of the posts herein where I document Japan's prostrate condition?


Japan had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes ready to pounce on our invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> There was no need to invade Japan, nor to nuke Japan, to end the war.


If Japan had kept refusing to surrender, we would have kept nuking them, and we would have invaded them, no matter how much you don't like that fact.




mikegriffith1 said:


> We know from internal memos that even the War Department knew that the "half a million" estimate was a wild exaggeration.


It was a plausible enough figure that that is the number of purple hearts that they ordered for the invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Even most of the few scholars who still defend Truman's nuking of Japan have admitted that the half-a-million figure was baseless.


Some may question the estimate of half a million dead (although it was a real estimate).  No one questions the estimate of half a million casualties.




mikegriffith1 said:


> No, nuking two cites was not "the right thing to do." It was a war crime of gigantic proportions.


Wrong.  Bombing military targets is entirely legitimate.




mikegriffith1 said:


> It is not "Monday morning quarterbacking" to point out that Truman did not need to nuke Japan.


Actually "Monday morning quarterbacking" is exactly what it is.

You are criticizing realtime decisions with the advantage of hindsight.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Dozens of people inside the government and in the Manhattan Project voiced opposition to nuking Japan before Truman did it.


Wrong again.  Not one person advised Truman against using the atomic bombs.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And within months of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, voices from both conservative and liberal camps began to raise doubts about the necessity and morality of Truman's action.


More "Monday morning quarterbacking".


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Well, this proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. Even most pro-Truman-nuking scholars admit that 500,000 was an invalid, baseless estimate.


Scholars acknowledge that casualty figures of 500,000 were entirely plausible.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Do you have any response to the fact that even internal War Department memos dismissed the 500K estimate as a severe exaggeration? Or do you just not care?


That is actually the number of purple heart medals that the military ordered for the invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> I stumbled across this fascinating article on how American and Japanese textbooks discuss Hiroshima. The article is titled “Re-visiting Hiroshima: The Role of US and Japanese History Textbooks in the Construction of National Memory,” and it was written by Dr. Keith Crawford, the head of educational research at Edge Hill College in England, and was published in the _Asia Pacific Education Review_ in 2003 (Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 108-117). Here is a telling excerpt from it:
> There is evidence that voices in the US were raised against the decision to drop the bomb but none of this appears in the US texts.​


The most telling thing is its inaccuracy.  No one ever advised Truman against using the atomic bombs.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Ellis Zacharias, Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote “What prevented them [the Japanese] from suing for peace … was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender” (Ellis, 1945, p. 17).​


Zacharias was wrong.  What prevented Japan from suing for peace was the military faction voting against surrender, which they did until the Emperor ordered them to vote for surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> So you say that Hasegawa says that Truman was "not at fault"?! Really?! Uh, then who ordered the nuke attacks?!


The nuclear attacks are not the sort of thing that anyone would be at fault for.  We were defending ourselves.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Whether one believes Truman acted out of malice and vengeance or out of ignorance and incompetence, the fact remains that he should not have nuked Japan.


That's not a fact at all.

Truman very much should have nuked Japan.  We had every right to defend ourselves.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You show yourself to be far out of the scholarly mainstream when you argue that at least 500,000 soldiers would have died in an invasion of Japan. As has been documented in dozens of books, and as can be seen in declassified internal government memos, even the War Department knew that the 500K estimate was ridiculous and baseless.


It is possible that they disagreed with estimates 500,000 deaths (although such estimates did in fact exist).

But they didn't seem to have much objection to estimates of 500,000 casualties, given that that is the number of purple hearts that they ordered for the invasion.


----------



## Open Bolt

the other mike said:


> We did not have to nuke Japan. Debate over.


Who cares?  We did nuke them.

Japan didn't have to attack Pearl Harbor or subject our POWs to the Bataan Death March.

Debate over indeed.




the other mike said:


> The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It


Japan didn't offer to surrender until after Nagasaki.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> * Time and time again, Truman aided the Japanese hardliners and hindered the efforts of the peace advocates by refusing to assure them about the emperor's fate and by refusing to advise them that the Soviets would enter the war if they didn't surrender.


Nonsense.  The military faction did not need help from Truman, and did not receive help from Truman.

The military faction merely voted against surrender until the Emperor finally ordered them to change their vote.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * Truman refused to explore any of Japan's peace feelers or to act on the information about Japan's peace feelers that he obtained from intercepts,


Wrong.  Even though Truman knew that the peace feelers were illegitimate, he did pursue them, just in case they could lead to a real contact with the people in power in Japan.

It was Japan that killed off the peace feelers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> even though he knew that the only real holdup was the status of the emperor.


Wrong again.  That was not the only real holdup.  And Truman knew that it wasn't the only real holdup.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * Even a pro-nuke hack like McGeorge Bundy agreed that nuking Nagasaki just three days after Hiroshima was wrong.


The only real problem with it is, it should have been a same day strike.




mikegriffith1 said:


> In August 1945, Japan was like a man who had been provoked into throwing the first punch,


Except they hadn't.  Japan chose to throw the first punch.




mikegriffith1 said:


> who had been thoroughly beaten in the ensuing fight, who was ready to surrender, and who was only asking for one reasonable condition as his terms for surrender.


Except they hadn't.  Japan was still refusing to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> For every 1 punch Japan was landing, we were landing 20. For every one of our soldiers the Japanese were managing to kill, we were killing at least five or six of their soldiers, plus thousands of Japanese civilians with our aerial bombing and naval bombardment.
> At that point, basic decency and humanity should have kicked in and we should have explored every peaceful option to achieve a negotiated surrender.


Which is exactly what we did do.


----------



## BS Filter

Japan offered to surrender with conditions.  The second bomb took care of that offer.  Case closed.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is fairy tale material. Throughout history, nations have taken sanctions very seriously. When you freeze another nation's assets, cut off most of their oil supply, and deny them access to other vital raw materials, that nation will view those actions as hostile and dangerous, and, if they can, will most likely resort to force if diplomacy fails to undo them.


Based on your logic we have the right to conquer the Middle East and take all their oil.




mikegriffith1 said:


> When the Soviets carried out all kinds of brutal deeds, occupied countries, etc., why didn't FDR do to them what he did to the Japanese?


That the Soviets were evil only started to become apparent under Truman.

And there was only so much that we could do.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And what was the big deal with Japan occupying parts of southern Indochina? France had occupied and taken over all of Indochina, and had killed far more Indochinese than the Japanese did when they came in, yet no Western nation imposed sanctions on France. So why did FDR freeze Japan's assets when Japan moved into southern Indochina?


Gosh.  Maybe it was the genocide that Japan was committing.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Second, your question about the "authorized" peace offer that Truman was "supposed to explore" is disingenuous and avoids the point that most of Japan's high-ranking government officials favored surrender weeks before Hiroshima but could not yet overcome the hardliners' opposition and thus could not bring about a situation where the emperor could break a surrender-decision deadlock.


No.  Japan's high ranking officials were those hardliners who opposed surrender.

That is why they were able to succeed in their opposition to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And why were the peace advocates unable to overcome the hardliners? Because the hardliners kept falling back on their main argument: that surrender would lead to the emperor's removal.


No.  Because the hardliners opposed surrender and voted against it.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman could have broken the hardliners' backs if he had just given Japan assurance that the emperor would not be deposed,


Not in the real world.

In the real world, the hardliners would have kept voting against surrender until the Emperor ordered them otherwise.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Only after the Soviets invaded did the hardliners agree to convene the Big Six, and only then could the peace advocates arrange for a meeting where the emperor could break a surrender-debate deadlock.


So in other words, this nonsense about Japan surrendering earlier if we modified our terms, is nonsense.


----------



## Open Bolt

BS Filter said:


> Japan offered to surrender with conditions.  The second bomb took care of that offer.  Case closed.


There is an issue with your timeline.  Here is the order of events:
August 6: Hiroshima
August 9: Nagasaki
August 10: Japan offers to surrender with conditions


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Uh, well, he was one of our top generals and later became one of our most beloved presidents. He commanded all American and Allied forces in Europe. So one would think that his opinion on nuking Japan would carry considerable weight.


One would be wrong.  The only person that Ike told, Stimson, called him an idiot and didn't bother to pass on his opinion to anyone else.

Considering that Ike only expressed his view after the final orders to drop the atomic bombs had been sent out to the military and Stimson had left Potsdam to return home, Ike would have been too late anyway.  Stimson did not see Truman again until after Hiroshima had been bombed.




mikegriffith1 said:


> How about Douglas MacArthur? Do you care what he thought about nuking Japan? He opposed it too.


Wrong.  He was not even consulted on the matter.




mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR's sanctions were "trivial"?! Really? You must be kidding, or else you don't know how drastic and damaging they were. Any nation facing that kind of economic strangulation would fight to break it.


Japan was always free to stop committing genocide if they wanted us to sell our goods to them.


----------



## BS Filter

Open Bolt said:


> There is an issue with your timeline.  Here is the order of events:
> August 6: Hiroshima
> August 9: Nagasaki
> August 10: Japan offers to surrender with conditions


Wrong.  The only condition agreement on August 10 was keeping the emperor.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> Nope.  Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion.
> 
> Hiroshima held thousands of soldiers.  Hiroshima held more soldiers than any Japanese city other than Tokyo.
> 
> Truman didn't ignore the Japanese peace feelers.  It was Japan who killed off the peace feelers.
> 
> Gar Alperovitz is a known fraud.
> 
> The Strategic Bombing Survey is a known fraud.
> 
> If that quote from Ike can be verified, it will indeed be one more piece of evidence showing that the US government feared high casualties from an invasion.
> 
> Japan's genocide of their Asian neighbors was indeed horrific.
> 
> 
> 
> No such ignorance.  Note the ease with which I debunk all of your untrue claims.


Absurd. Stupid and proven wrong long ago. It’s as if you just finished 6th grade after reading the government’s text book on WWII.


----------



## Open Bolt

BS Filter said:


> Wrong.


That is incorrect.  That was the order of events.




BS Filter said:


> The only condition agreement on August 10 was keeping the emperor.


To be more specific, the condition was that the Emperor retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Absurd. Stupid and proven wrong long ago.


No.  Facts and reality are neither stupid nor absurd.  And they certainly have not been proven wrong.




gipper said:


> It’s as if you just finished 6th grade after reading the government’s text book on WWII.


I can't help that you don't like the facts about Japan's surrender, but reality is true regardless.


----------



## BS Filter

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  That was the order of events.
> 
> 
> 
> To be more specific, the condition was that the Emperor retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.


Wrong again.  The emperor lost all power.
On Jan. 1, 1946, Emperor Hirohito declared he was a mortal, not a divine being. The following year, *Japan's U.S.-drafted postwar constitution took away sovereignty from the emperor and gave it to the Japanese people*, keeping the monarch as a figurehead but without political power.


----------



## Open Bolt

BS Filter said:


> Wrong again.


I'm not wrong at any point.

The order of events is:
August 6: Hiroshima
August 9: Nagasaki
August 10: Japan offers to surrender with conditions

And the condition that Japan asked for on August 10 was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.




BS Filter said:


> The emperor lost all power.
> On Jan. 1, 1946, Emperor Hirohito declared he was a mortal, not a divine being. The following year, *Japan's U.S.-drafted postwar constitution took away sovereignty from the emperor and gave it to the Japanese people*, keeping the monarch as a figurehead but without political power.


Yes.  That much is correct.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> facts that indict FDR and Truman and their gang of leftists.


No such facts.




mikegriffith1 said:


> the immoral actions of FDR and Truman


No such immorality.




mikegriffith1 said:


> needless and cruel vaporizing


Spare us the melodrama.  They were military targets and Japan was refusing to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> of over 200,000 civilians,


Only half that many.




mikegriffith1 said:


> most of them women and children,


Wrong.




mikegriffith1 said:


> ignored clear peace openings with the Japanese,


Wrong.




mikegriffith1 said:


> did everything he could to help Japan's hardliners block surrender,


Wrong.




mikegriffith1 said:


> nuked two Japanese cities and killed over 200,000 people,


No more than 110,000 people.




mikegriffith1 said:


> most of them women and children.


Wrong.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Was Ike a "whiner" too?


Oh hell yes.


----------



## Open Bolt

P@triot said:


> Dude...your revisionist is just bizarre. China *wasn't* communist in 1941. Japan *wasn't* our ally in 1941. And we didn't really care that much about communism because Adolf Hitler was running roughshod across Europe. We had to defeat Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. even if it meant working with the U.S.S.R.
> 
> You're like the fuck'n idiot who claims Reagan was wrong for working with Osama Bin Laden even though they were our allies at the time and they were helping to defeat the U.S.S.R. - which was the biggest threat at that time.


You have a good point, but I wanted to point out that the US didn't actually work with Usama bin Ladn.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?


Well first, we didn't bomb civilians.  We attacked military targets.

But no.  The bombing of Pearl Harbor was much worse than the atomic bombs.

Pearl Harbor was a war crime.  And so was the Bataan Death March.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified self defense.




gipper said:


> Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.


Japan was far from defenseless.  And attacks on military targets are not murder.


----------



## Open Bolt

Cellblock2429 said:


> /—-/ We nuked Nagasaki to get the attention of both the Emperor and Uncle Joe Stalin.


While it is true that we hoped that Stalin would be intimidated by the atomic bombs, that isn't why we nuked Japan.

Japan would have been nuked on exactly the same schedule even if Stalin and the Soviet Union didn't exist.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> Scholars acknowledge that casualty figures of 500,000 were entirely plausible.



And which the Shockley Report blew away.

It must be realized, that all of the casualty estimates were based on experiences fighting in Europe, mostly against the Germans in two wars.  But they were completely wrong when estimating casualties against the Japanese.

For example, the Battle of Okinawa saw around 70,000 US casualties.  And that was primarily among those who had been fighting the Japanese for years.  Unlike the European conflict, the Marines had already accepted that against Japan, you would be expected to kill 5 of them for each American death, and that prisoners would be few.  It was not unusual that in a battle fighting thousands of Japanese, they might take less than 2 dozen prisoner.  Most would die rather than surrender.

And the Battle of Saipan drove that home even more.  Where common civilians killed themselves by the thousands rather than allow themselves to be captured.

Shockley estimated from 1.4 to 4 million Allied casualties in an invasion, with up to 800,000 Allied deaths.  And the deaths of between 5-10 million Japanese.  A lot of his report was dedicated to showing why all of the battle estimates were so wrong, and that comparing the Japanese to any other group in estimating battle casualties would always fail.  But then showing how his numbers took into account such battles as Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Okinawa.


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> Wrong. The only condition agreement on August 10 was keeping the emperor.



And Potsdam only demanded the surrender of their Armed Forces.  The fate of the Emperor was never even hinted at in the Potsdam Declaration.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> But no. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was much worse than the atomic bombs.
> 
> Pearl Harbor was a war crime. And so was the Bataan Death March.
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified self defense.



Actually, I doubt that Pearl Harbor was a war crime.  It is well known that the delay in the Japanese Embassy in decoding the 14 part message meant it was delivered late.  But even if delivered an hour before the attack, it would have made no difference.  All the pieces were put into play over a week before.

But Bataan?  Unquestionably a war crime.  Most of the Japanese behaviors during that war were war crimes.  Systematic executions of all, POWs and civilians alike.  An actual organized rape system, created by and endorsed by the military.  Using humans for scientific experiments and biological warfare tests.

People talk of some of the worst German atrocities and think of Dr. Mengele.  The Angel of Death of Auschwitz.  Now imagine an entire Regiment of Dr. Mengele's.

That would be Unit 731.  Estimates are generally around 400,000 killed by that unit in 10 years.  Mostly in brutal experiments.  And it was hardly alone, there were others.  Unit 100, Unit 1855, Unit 8604, in total over 10,000 people doing war crimes.  Ranging from purposefully infecting people with deadly pathogens to see how long they took to die, to putting them in freezing water, shooting them so that doctors can experiment in how to treat injuries, burning them to see how much of the body can be burned before they would die.  They would starve prisoners to death or watch them die of thirst, to see how long it took depending on weather and level of health.  Almost half a million Chinese died in those experiments.

And the Comfort Women.  Forcing women (mostly from conquered territory) to serve as prostitutes in military run brothels.

There is no need to claim Pearl Harbor was a war crime, as there were millions of them that are clear and obvious war crimes.  Ones that even make most of the actions of Germany look almost civil.


----------



## BS Filter

Open Bolt said:


> I'm not wrong at any point.
> 
> The order of events is:
> August 6: Hiroshima
> August 9: Nagasaki
> August 10: Japan offers to surrender with conditions
> 
> And the condition that Japan asked for on August 10 was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That much is correct.


So now you admit you were wrong.  You're also wrong about conditional surrender.  After the first bomb, Japan was asked to surrender unconditionally and they refused; thus, the second atomic bomb was dropped.  Do your research.


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> After the first bomb, Japan was asked to surrender unconditionally and they refused



Sorry, calling obvious bullshit on that.

Japan was given the terms the month before, at Potsdam.  And never once were they ever "Unconditional Surrender" was the demand.  Here we go, once again.  The only part of Potsdam that demands surrender.



> We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the *unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces*, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.







__





						Potsdam Declaration | Birth of the Constitution of Japan
					





					www.ndl.go.jp
				




I get so sick and tired of having to repeat this ad nauseum.  "Unconditional Surrender" was never a demand, only the unconditional surrender of their armed forces.  Not of the Government, not of the Emperor, nobody else.  Just their military.  And the demands of Potsdam were not repeated, other than in President Truman's speech after Hiroshima, where is simply reminded them that they had the Potsdam Declaration in hand already, and the only way to stop future bombings was to agree to its terms.



> We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.
> *It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.* Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.



Where this fabrication that we demanded an "unconditional surrender of Japan" comes from, I have absolutely no idea.  But it is completely wrong.


----------



## Open Bolt

Mushroom said:


> Actually, I doubt that Pearl Harbor was a war crime.  It is well known that the delay in the Japanese Embassy in decoding the 14 part message meant it was delivered late.  But even if delivered an hour before the attack, it would have made no difference.  All the pieces were put into play over a week before.


Japan had a responsibility to deliver their war declaration before they opened hostilities.  It was their duty to verify that war had been declared before they attacked.




Mushroom said:


> But Bataan?  Unquestionably a war crime.  Most of the Japanese behaviors during that war were war crimes.  Systematic executions of all, POWs and civilians alike.  An actual organized rape system, created by and endorsed by the military.  Using humans for scientific experiments and biological warfare tests.
> 
> People talk of some of the worst German atrocities and think of Dr. Mengele.  The Angel of Death of Auschwitz.  Now imagine an entire Regiment of Dr. Mengele's.
> 
> That would be Unit 731.  Estimates are generally around 400,000 killed by that unit in 10 years.  Mostly in brutal experiments.  And it was hardly alone, there were others.  Unit 100, Unit 1855, Unit 8604, in total over 10,000 people doing war crimes.  Ranging from purposefully infecting people with deadly pathogens to see how long they took to die, to putting them in freezing water, shooting them so that doctors can experiment in how to treat injuries, burning them to see how much of the body can be burned before they would die.  They would starve prisoners to death or watch them die of thirst, to see how long it took depending on weather and level of health.  Almost half a million Chinese died in those experiments.
> 
> And the Comfort Women.  Forcing women (mostly from conquered territory) to serve as prostitutes in military run brothels.


Agreed.  Those were all atrocities.


----------



## Open Bolt

BS Filter said:


> So now you admit you were wrong.


I'm not wrong.  And I'm certainly not going to admit being wrong when I'm not.

The timeline is as I said it was.

August 6: Hiroshima
August 9: Nagasaki
August 10: Japan offers a conditional surrender




BS Filter said:


> You're also wrong about conditional surrender.


No I'm not.  Japan's condition on August 10 was that we allow Hirohito to retain unlimited dictatorial power.




BS Filter said:


> After the first bomb, Japan was asked to surrender unconditionally and they refused; thus, the second atomic bomb was dropped.


Here is a third thing that you are wrong about.  We backed off from unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation.  That was long before Hiroshima.




BS Filter said:


> Do your research.


I've done my research.  That's how I am able to point out all these errors that you keep making.


----------



## BS Filter

Open Bolt said:


> I'm not wrong.  And I'm certainly not going to admit being wrong when I'm not.
> 
> The timeline is as I said it was.
> 
> August 6: Hiroshima
> August 9: Nagasaki
> August 10: Japan offers a conditional surrender
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not.  Japan's condition on August 10 was that we allow Hirohito to retain unlimited dictatorial power.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a third thing that you are wrong about.  We backed off from unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation.  That was long before Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> I've done my research.  That's how I am able to point out all these errors that you keep making.


Japan surrounded "unconditionally".  FACT.




__





						Japan's Unconditional Surrender | HISTORY
					





					www.history.com


----------



## Cellblock2429

Open Bolt said:


> While it is true that we hoped that Stalin would be intimidated by the atomic bombs, that isn't why we nuked Japan.
> 
> Japan would have been nuked on exactly the same schedule even if Stalin and the Soviet Union didn't exist.


/——-/ I’m saying there was more than one reason. The major one was of course to get Japan to surrender, but also to send vs a warning to Stalin.


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> Japan surrounded "unconditionally". FACT.
> Japan's Unconditional Surrender | HISTORY



What in the hell is that?  A single sentence, and a bunch of photos?

You know, it's sad that History was once such a great channel.  Now it is all about reality tv garbage, and the history was left behind long ago.

Here, want some proof that you are wrong?  That is rather simple, really.  Get ready, because here somes those pesky things known as facts.



> We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
> 
> 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 Japanese control wherever situated.*
> 
> We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property and to comply with all requirements which may be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.
> 
> *We hereby command the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters to issue at once orders to the Commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.
> 
> We hereby command all civil, military and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.
> 
> We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith*, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.
> 
> We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all allied prisoners of war and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance and immediate transportation to places as directed.
> 
> The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.







__





						Instrument of Surrender | Birth of the Constitution of Japan
					





					www.ndl.go.jp
				




Wow, seems like that was nothing like an Unconditional Surrender.  It again affirms that the Emperor and the Japanese Government remain in charge, but answer to the SCAP.  That is not "unconditional".  And what is presented above is the "Instrument of Surrender" that was signed in Tokyo Bay.

That is not an Unconditional Surrender.  The Jewel Voice Broadcast never said Japan would surrender unconditionally, it only said that Japan would conform to Potsdam.  And Potsdam never demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan, *only the Unconditional Surrender of their armed forces.*

It is so damned funny though, as none of you seem capable of doing any kind of actual research on your own.  You vomit up some garbage web page that contains nothing of note, and think that means something.  Meanwhile I take the time and effort to dig out actual original source documents, link them in case some do not believe me, then highlight the important parts.

But please, do not give me some idiots opinion, show me some actual hard factual documentation that Japan was asked to surrender unconditionally, or that they did surrender unconditionally.  Because I have shown multiple times that was never the case.


----------



## Mushroom

Cellblock2429 said:


> The major one was of course to get Japan to surrender, but also to send vs a warning to Stalin.



Which would be stupid, Truman already told Stalin that a new kind of bomb more powerful than any other was about to be dropped on Japan if they did not respond.

And of course we know now that Stalin knew more about the bomb than even President Truman did.


----------



## BS Filter

Open Bolt said:


> I'm not wrong.  And I'm certainly not going to admit being wrong when I'm not.
> 
> The timeline is as I said it was.
> 
> August 6: Hiroshima
> August 9: Nagasaki
> August 10: Japan offers a conditional surrender
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not.  Japan's condition on August 10 was that we allow Hirohito to retain unlimited dictatorial power.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a third thing that you are wrong about.  We backed off from unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation.  That was long before Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> I've done my research.  That's how I am able to point out all these errors that you keep making.





Mushroom said:


> What in the hell is that?  A single sentence, and a bunch of photos?
> 
> You know, it's sad that History was once such a great channel.  Now it is all about reality tv garbage, and the history was left behind long ago.
> 
> Here, want some proof that you are wrong?  That is rather simple, really.  Get ready, because here somes those pesky things known as facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instrument of Surrender | Birth of the Constitution of Japan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ndl.go.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, seems like that was nothing like an Unconditional Surrender.  It again affirms that the Emperor and the Japanese Government remain in charge, but answer to the SCAP.  That is not "unconditional".  And what is presented above is the "Instrument of Surrender" that was signed in Tokyo Bay.
> 
> That is not an Unconditional Surrender.  The Jewel Voice Broadcast never said Japan would surrender unconditionally, it only said that Japan would conform to Potsdam.  And Potsdam never demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan, *only the Unconditional Surrender of their armed forces.*
> 
> It is so damned funny though, as none of you seem capable of doing any kind of actual research on your own.  You vomit up some garbage web page that contains nothing of note, and think that means something.  Meanwhile I take the time and effort to dig out actual original source documents, link them in case some do not believe me, then highlight the important parts.
> 
> But please, do not give me some idiots opinion, show me some actual hard factual documentation that Japan was asked to surrender unconditionally, or that they did surrender unconditionally.  Because I have shown multiple times that was never the case.


From your own link:  "*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 Japanese control wherever situated".*

Next thing you'll tell me is that the Nazis weren't socialists.


----------



## Open Bolt

BS Filter said:


> Japan surrounded "unconditionally".  FACT.


Not a fact.  An unconditional surrender is when there are no conditions.
The Potsdam Proclamation presented Japan with a list of generous surrender conditions.








						Potsdam Declaration
					

Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese SurrenderIssued, at Potsdam, July 26, 1945




					www.atomicheritage.org
				



EDIT: It is true though that Japan was not allowed to add any conditions of their own to the list of conditions that we presented to them.


----------



## Open Bolt

BS Filter said:


> Next thing you'll tell me is that the Nazis weren't socialists.


Fascism mixed the worst ideas of both the right and the left.  Nazism took Fascism and added in the mass murder of innocent people.


----------



## BS Filter

Open Bolt said:


> Not a fact.  An unconditional surrender is when there are no conditions.
> The Potsdam Proclamation presented Japan with a list of generous surrender conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Potsdam Declaration
> 
> 
> Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese SurrenderIssued, at Potsdam, July 26, 1945
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.atomicheritage.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: It is true though that Japan was not allowed to add any conditions of their own to the list of conditions that we presented to them.


You don't get it.  Have a nice day.


----------



## BS Filter

Open Bolt said:


> Fascism mixed the worst ideas of both the right and the left.  Nazism took Fascism and added in the mass murder of innocent people.


Whatever....Nazis were socialists.  Period.


----------



## DudleySmith

gipper said:


> LMFAO…you are actually fine with mass murdering defenseless women and children. You’re a sick fuck.



lol you're fine with letting scum overrun whole countries and mass murdering the inhabitants without any resistance that might force you out from hiding under your bed or inconvenience you in any way, so all your idiot chickenshit peacenik posturing is just pathetic wimpering, typical of the unprincipled little dirtbag narcissists produced by the dope and disco culture of the 1960's and 1970's, trying to hide behind some idiotic ideology or other. You scum wouldn't do a thing to defend freedom, or anything else.

A recent survey found over 60% of Democrats wouldn't defend this country in any way, and over 32% of Republicans feel the same way; they would run away instead. Contrast that with the less than 2% of Americans after the bombing of Pearl. We see these little turd blossoms on here all the time, sniveling little pissants making apologia for the likes of Japan and Germany's actions and disparaging the U.S. for daring to put a stop to the excesses of these vermin. We need to take a clue from Thomas Jefferson and start deporting these vermin to some place they will be happy, like Red China or Putin's Russia, and let these cretins learn first hand just how 'valued' they are by their friends.


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> From your own link: "*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 Japanese control wherever situated".*



Yes, armed forces.

Does it say the Government?

Does it say the Emperor?

Does it say the Nation?  Or the people?

No, it only says the armed forces.  Thank you for making it even more clear that the surrender was very specific and not "unconditional" at all.


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> From your own link: "*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 Japanese control wherever situated".*
> 
> Next thing you'll tell me is that the Nazis weren't socialists.



Oh, and final nail in the coffin.  Potsdam was almost the exact same wording used in the German Instrument of Surrender.  Demanding only the surrender of the armed forces, not the civilian government.  But in that case, with the death of Der Wallpaper Hangar, the NSDAP government had already largely imploded.  But if you look at what happened, the Allied Powers simply moved in, and largely left the government left in place.  Mayors were still mayors, police were still police.  They even quickly cleared and drafted a lot of German Military to assume most of the law enforcement duties previously done by the Gestapo and SS.

But notice, Germany also did not surrender until the NSDAP collapsed with the death of the leadership.  Even their planned "after defeat" operations like Werewolf never happened.  Even those most fanatical knew the government was done, so no use fighting for and dying for something that no longer existed.

Now, an example of an Unconditional Surrender can be found in Kuwait.  When Iraq invaded that nation in 1990, there was no surrender at all.  They took over the entire nation, destroyed all of the existing government infrastructure, and absorbed it into their own country.  We are seeing the same thing happen in Ukraine now.  As Russia gains control of a city they replace all infrastructure with their own puppets.  Mayors, City Councils, Law Enforcement, all existing before are removed and it is now under "New Ownership".

That was never demanded of Japan.  It might have been of Germany, before Der Doodler decided to eat a PPK sandwich.

Oh, and any moron should know they were Socialists.  After all, it is clearly right there in their name.  NSDAP.


----------



## gipper

DudleySmith said:


> lol you're fine with letting scum overrun whole countries and mass murdering the inhabitants without any resistance that might force you out from hiding under your bed or inconvenience you in any way, so all your idiot chickenshit peacenik posturing is just pathetic wimpering, typical of the unprincipled little dirtbag narcissists produced by the dope and disco culture of the 1960's and 1970's, trying to hide behind some idiotic ideology or other. You scum wouldn't do a thing to defend freedom, or anything else.
> 
> A recent survey found over 60% of Democrats wouldn't defend this country in any way, and over 32% of Republicans feel the same way; they would run away instead. Contrast that with the less than 2% of Americans after the bombing of Pearl. We see these little turd blossoms on here all the time, sniveling little pissants making apologia for the likes of Japan and Germany's actions and disparaging the U.S. for daring to put a stop to the excesses of these vermin. We need to take a clue from Thomas Jefferson and start deporting these vermin to some place they will be happy, like Red China or Putin's Russia, and let these cretins learn first hand just how 'valued' they are by their friends.


War hysteria pushed by the corrupt establishment fucks up a lot of people, who should know better.


----------



## elektra

Thank God for the big bombs of history that won a war and ended the deaths of so many people on both sides. 

I also thank God that he gave us the intelligence to laugh at your petty, hateful, ignorant attempts to rewrite such a great history. 

It is nice to see the stupid, the hateful, expose their ignorance so openly. 

We should of did the same while fighting North Korea. Maybe next time.


----------



## BS Filter

Mushroom said:


> Yes, armed forces.
> 
> Does it say the Government?
> 
> Does it say the Emperor?
> 
> Does it say the Nation?  Or the people?
> 
> No, it only says the armed forces.  Thank you for making it even more clear that the surrender was very specific and not "unconditional" at all.


You're an idiot.


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> You're an idiot.



Thank you for that excellent and informative post.  I can see that as always you have well thought out your response, and provided ample proof of why you are correct.

However, I have noted long ago that you provide no references, seem to have only the barest understanding of the war and the Japanese government at the time, and seem to rather be like John Snow.

Care to comment next on the _Taisei Yokusankai, _and how they impacted the course of the war and the decision to surrender?


----------



## gipper

elektra Mushroom DudleySmith Open Bolt 

The way things are going lately you guys might get your death wish with a nuclear holocaust. Oh how happy you’ll be, except your likely to be dead.


----------



## BS Filter

Mushroom said:


> Thank you for that excellent and informative post.  I can see that as always you have well thought out your response, and provided ample proof of why you are correct.
> 
> However, I have noted long ago that you provide no references, seem to have only the barest understanding of the war and the Japanese government at the time, and seem to rather be like John Snow.
> 
> Care to comment next on the _Taisei Yokusankai, _and how they impacted the course of the war and the decision to surrender?


So the history books are are wrong according to you?  You're an idiot.


----------



## BS Filter

BS Filter said:


> So the history books are are wrong according to you?  You're an idiot.











						The Dangerous Illusion of Japan’s Unconditional Surrender
					

For decades, U.S. foreign policy has been badly distorted by the way that World War II ended.




					foreignpolicy.com
				




Notice the word "unconditional".


----------



## BS Filter

Here's another source.  Unconditional.




__





						Japan Surrenders
					

Enlarge   The Japanese envoys sign the Instrument of Surrender on board the U.S.S. Missouri. Record Group 80-G General Records of the U.S. Navy. On September 2, 1945, the Japanese representatives signed the official Instrument of Surrender, prepared by the War Department and approved by...




					www.archives.gov


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> Notice the word "unconditional".



I notice it is an article I have to pay to read, and that at the very top it clearly states it is an "Argument".  In other words, that is an opinion piece.

But I again notice quite clearly in what I could read that the SCAP accepted the surrender of the "Imperial General Headquarters and all of the armed forces under Japanese control".

Once again, a highly conditional surrender.  Where does it say the government surrendered?  The people?  Where was the nation itself surrendered?

You keep failing to grasp the significant difference.  The military is not the country. 

How here, try to exercise your brain a bit, and follow what I am saying.  In WWII the US loses, and is forced to do the same thing.  Surrender all of it's armed forces.

But once that is done, the President still runs the country, through the canescent of Congress.  Judges are not replaced, the nation is not put under Martial Law, all of the old structure remains in place.  SO explain to me, how that could be an "unconditional surrender", if the only thing that changed is that the military surrendered and nothing else?

FYI, the history I learned did indeed explain the difference.  I can only assume you have never gone beyond the basic history they teach in public schools.  Where all of WWII is covered in a mere two weeks or so, and barely goes into any kind of details of more than a couple of battles (generally only D-Day and Bulge, maybe Iwo Jima and Okinawa).  Or that WWII started for the US because they slapped a boycott on Japan and they had no choice but to attack.  Of course, they only give the absolute basics of history, and often get things horribly wrong.  Like saying the US won the War of 1812, or that the US entered WWI because of the sinking of the HMS Lusitania.

Most times, such "history" at most gives a student a Cliff's Notes version of an article from Reader's Digest. 

Myself, I have actually made it a specialty to study the Pacific War for almost 40 years now.  And actually lived in Japan.  You maybe should have realized it by how easily I mention a great many things that almost never appear in a "history book" outside of a College Level course on the topic.  I have actually talked to individuals that are often in history books, and have made this one conflict more than any other my area of special interest.

Feel free to go back and read here or in any other thread whenever I bring up the Emperor.  Notice, I never call him by his name, he is always "Emperor Showa", and I call that time the "Early Showa Era".  Once again, because I spent decades getting into the mind of the leaders of the era, and to do so had to learn to at least as far as I could "Think Japanese".

You, by the way things I have stated quite clearly are just brushed off you dismiss as completely unimportant.  The Big Six, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, I bet that and more mean absolutely nothing to you.  But without understanding those two organizations, it is completely impossible for you to ever understand what was going on in the minds of those in charge of Japan, and who were the only ones with the power to surrender.

In short, you are a bigot and troll, and I have long ago grown tired of you.

Oh, and I am sure this little fact will blow your mind.  At the end of WWI, Germany did not surrender.  Please feel free to start another topic on that, but it is true.  That shows how superficial history is in most schools.  And most walk out with a diploma, and barely understand anything about what really happened.


----------



## BS Filter

Mushroom said:


> I notice it is an article I have to pay to read, and that at the very top it clearly states it is an "Argument".  In other words, that is an opinion piece.
> 
> But I again notice quite clearly in what I could read that the SCAP accepted the surrender of the "Imperial General Headquarters and all of the armed forces under Japanese control".
> 
> Once again, a highly conditional surrender.  Where does it say the government surrendered?  The people?  Where was the nation itself surrendered?
> 
> You keep failing to grasp the significant difference.  The military is not the country.
> 
> How here, try to exercise your brain a bit, and follow what I am saying.  In WWII the US loses, and is forced to do the same thing.  Surrender all of it's armed forces.
> 
> But once that is done, the President still runs the country, through the canescent of Congress.  Judges are not replaced, the nation is not put under Martial Law, all of the old structure remains in place.  SO explain to me, how that could be an "unconditional surrender", if the only thing that changed is that the military surrendered and nothing else?
> 
> FYI, the history I learned did indeed explain the difference.  I can only assume you have never gone beyond the basic history they teach in public schools.  Where all of WWII is covered in a mere two weeks or so, and barely goes into any kind of details of more than a couple of battles (generally only D-Day and Bulge, maybe Iwo Jima and Okinawa).  Or that WWII started for the US because they slapped a boycott on Japan and they had no choice but to attack.  Of course, they only give the absolute basics of history, and often get things horribly wrong.  Like saying the US won the War of 1812, or that the US entered WWI because of the sinking of the HMS Lusitania.
> 
> Most times, such "history" at most gives a student a Cliff's Notes version of an article from Reader's Digest.
> 
> Myself, I have actually made it a specialty to study the Pacific War for almost 40 years now.  And actually lived in Japan.  You maybe should have realized it by how easily I mention a great many things that almost never appear in a "history book" outside of a College Level course on the topic.  I have actually talked to individuals that are often in history books, and have made this one conflict more than any other my area of special interest.
> 
> Feel free to go back and read here or in any other thread whenever I bring up the Emperor.  Notice, I never call him by his name, he is always "Emperor Showa", and I call that time the "Early Showa Era".  Once again, because I spent decades getting into the mind of the leaders of the era, and to do so had to learn to at least as far as I could "Think Japanese".
> 
> You, by the way things I have stated quite clearly are just brushed off you dismiss as completely unimportant.  The Big Six, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, I bet that and more mean absolutely nothing to you.  But without understanding those two organizations, it is completely impossible for you to ever understand what was going on in the minds of those in charge of Japan, and who were the only ones with the power to surrender.
> 
> In short, you are a bigot and troll, and I have long ago grown tired of you.
> 
> Oh, and I am sure this little fact will blow your mind.  At the end of WWI, Germany did not surrender.  Please feel free to start another topic on that, but it is true.  That shows how superficial history is in most schools.  And most walk out with a diploma, and barely understand anything about what really happened.


You really are full of crap. Who was the person who ruled Japan after surrender and oversaw the drafting of their Constitution?


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> Who was the person who ruled Japan after surrender and oversaw the drafting of their Constitution?



Emperor Showa.


----------



## BS Filter

Mushroom said:


> Emperor Showa.


Wrong.  General Douglas MacArthur.  You really are full of crap.
After the defeat of Japan in World War II, the United States led the Allies in the occupation and rehabilitation of the Japanese state. *Between 1945 and 1952, the U.S. occupying forces, led by General Douglas A.* *MacArthur, enacted widespread military, political, economic, and social reforms*.




Office of the Historian › milestones
Occupation and Reconstruction of Japan - Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the ...​


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> Wrong. General Douglas MacArthur. You really are full of crap.
> After the defeat of Japan in World War II, the United States led the Allies in the occupation and rehabilitation of the Japanese state. *Between 1945 and 1952, the U.S. occupying forces, led by General Douglas A.* *MacArthur, enacted widespread military, political, economic, and social reforms*.



No, he oversaw the occupation.  He did not rule the country.

What, you honestly think that somehow a General would be appointed as the ruler of a country, with almost no oversight, ruling as a dictator?

He oversaw the occupation, supervised as a new Constitution was drafted, oversaw the dismantling of the Taisei Yokusankai, all with the full cooperation of the Emperor and the officials that were deemed innocent of any war crimes or having taken part in the prosecution of the war.

He was not a King, he was not a Dictator, the equivalent position would be he was the Military Governor, not unlike his previous in the Philippines.  He had a lot of power and could veto decisions of the Government if he thought they were not in the interest of the Allied Powers, but he himself did not rule.

What, you honestly think he ruled the country?  That just shows how little you really do understand about the Occupation of Japan.  That the US would appoint a General as some kind of King to rule over another nation.  With no oversight, no checks and balances, simply ruling as they saw fit and answerable to nobody.

I knew what you were going to say, and once again you did not disappoint me.  And showed how little you know of what the Occupation really was.  Emperor Showa was still the Emperor, the Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister and head of the Executive Branch.  The Diet was still the legislative authority once it was reconstituted in 1947.  

In fact, even during the Occupation he was not the "Ultimate Authority".  That actually resided with the "Far East Commission".  The decision had already been made to not break Japan into "Occupation Zones" like Germany had been, but to maintain a unified occupation with the US primarily holding all occupation duties.  But the Commission was chaired by 13 members representing each of the Allied Powers, and they had the ultimate oversight.  They could even veto decisions made by General MacArthur, and did most of the work behind the scenes.  They actually made all the policies, the General simply carried them out.

As I said, you have an incredibly primitive view of the war, and also of the occupation I see.  You actually do seem to believe that the US let some General act as a King of a foreign nation.  By the same token, I guess you also believe that General Tommy Franks was the "Ruler of Iraq" after the Ba'ath Party was removed form power.  Or that General Eisenhower was the "Ruler of Germany" when it was occupied.


----------



## DudleySmith

BS Filter said:


> Wrong.  General Douglas MacArthur.  You really are full of crap.
> After the defeat of Japan in World War II, the United States led the Allies in the occupation and rehabilitation of the Japanese state. *Between 1945 and 1952, the U.S. occupying forces, led by General Douglas A.* *MacArthur, enacted widespread military, political, economic, and social reforms*.
> View attachment 615960
> Office of the Historian › milestones
> Occupation and Reconstruction of Japan - Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the ...​



Correct. From land reforms to their new Constitutional form of government was imposed by the SCAP, which was of course MacArthur in practice. It started changing when the economy didn't respond well in a few years and they kind of had to let the Zaibatsus reform  and handle the markets. As your link indicates, the dictatorship started going away about three years after occupation. The Constitution MAcArthur wrote for them still remained for many years after though.

My Dad went into Japan as part of the occupation forces, from fighting in the Philippines. He did pretty good at gambling, about all there was to do there off duty for a long time, and was getting to know a lot of the locals. A month or so before he left he loaned a destitute local guy a couple of hundred in scrip to get his business back up and running, then got sent back home. He didn't expect to ever see or hear from the guy or the money  again, but about five years later he got several packages of nice porcelains that somehow made it across the Pacific without getting broken in transit worth several times what he loaned the guy. Don't know how he found my Dad's address, but they kept in touch for a while after that. My brother still has the porcelains, and I have some jade stuff they did deals over after re-connecting.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> elektra Mushroom DudleySmith Open Bolt
> 
> The way things are going lately you guys might get your death wish with a nuclear holocaust. Oh how happy you’ll be, except your likely to be dead.


I will be extremely happy cause the first place to be trampled and destroyed is where you sleep.

Socialism always leads to war, us conservatives will be here to save the world.


----------



## Open Bolt

BS Filter said:


> So the history books are are wrong according to you?


No.

You are wrong according to the history books.




BS Filter said:


> Notice the word "unconditional".


Notice all the conditions in the surrender terms?


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> The way things are going lately you guys might get your death wish with a nuclear holocaust. Oh how happy you’ll be, except your likely to be dead.


Better dead than red.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> And I would again point out that Ike's 1963 account is supported by his son, by his biographer, by his 1955 letter to William Pawley, and by Gen. Bradley's account of the Stimson meeting.


General Bradley's fraudulent account certainly doesn't support Ike's account.




mikegriffith1 said:


> For example, are you ever going to address the mountain of evidence that nobody in the War Department believed that we would lose 500,000 men if we invaded Japan and that this estimate was recognized as erroneous and baseless? Even the War Department's experts on the subject, the S&P staff officers, stated in an official memorandum that the estimate was "entirely too high" (Waldo Heinrichs and Marc Gallicchio, _Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945_, pp. 567-568).


They may have felt that estimates of 500,000 dead were too high.  But they were comfortable with predictions of 500,000 casualties, as that is the number of purple hearts that they ordered for the invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> I'm guessing you don't know that the 500K estimate originated with Herbert Hoover.


That is incorrect.  It originated with the study conducted by William B Shockley.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Ironically, Hoover gave that wild estimate in the hope that it would discourage an invasion and would cause Truman to give the Japanese milder surrender terms.


Hardly a wild estimate.  The "Shockley numbers" are higher than estimates for "Downfall alone" because Shockley gave numbers for the conquest of all of Japan, whereas Downfall only planned for the capture of southern Kyushu and then the Tokyo plain.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Hoover rightly believed that FDR had needlessly and treasonously provoked Japan to attack us in order to protect the Soviet Union and to enable him to drag America into the war.


Boy it sure does bother you that we opposed Japan's genocides.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> You are not informed.  They tried several times to surrender.


Japan did not try to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




gipper said:


> All they asked is don't murder our emperor.


Japan asked that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.




gipper said:


> Dirty Harry Truman said fuck you and die you yellow slanty eyed MFers.  Then after he mass murdered 200,000 defenseless women and children, he said okay you can keep your emperor.


Attacks on military targets are not mass murder.

What Truman said was that Hirohito was going to be subordinate to MacArthur.




gipper said:


> They sent out multiple peace feelers. This is well known. Yes the military didn’t, but Japanese government officials did.


The military were the ones in charge.  Peace feelers from other people were not terribly useful.

Yet even though Truman knew that the peace feelers were illegitimate, he pursued them anyway in the hopes that they might evolve into contact with the people who were actually in charge.

Unfortunately the people in charge in Japan killed off the peace feelers.




gipper said:


> At any rate, mass murdering defenseless women and children can never be justified, except by stupid brainwashed statist Americans.


Attacks on military targets are not mass murder.




gipper said:


> The truth is Japan was essentially defenseless, by summer 1945.


Defenseless except for the millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invasion.




gipper said:


> This of course means Truman's act was one of barbaric proportions, unparalleled in all of human history.


This is getting silly.  Japan refused to surrender, and we had every right to attack military targets.




gipper said:


> The typical duped American can't bring themselves to accept this fact, even though it is evident.


It isn't a fact.




gipper said:


> So they resort to lies and idiotic equivalences, to justify it.


No, they merely point out the truths that Japan was refusing to surrender, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.




gipper said:


> The sad consequence of this historical ignorance, is our leaders continue to commit horrendous acts of violence.


Hardly ignorance.

Horrendous acts of violence are often justified in today's world.




gipper said:


> So let’s put your position stated another way. Since the Big Six wouldn’t surrender unconditionally, Truman had every right to mass murder 200,000 defenseless Japanese women and children.
> Why don't you find this abhorrent?


At the time the atomic bombs were dropped, Japan was refusing to surrender period, regardless of conditions.

Attacks on military targets are not murder.

The atomic bombs did not kill anywhere near that many women and children.  There were plenty of men in those cities.

The reason why people do not find the atomic bombs abhorrent is because they are horrified at the atrocities that Japan committed.  And also because they recognize that the bombing of Hiroshima was absolutely necessary for the survival of humanity.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> all the needless American deaths that occurred because of Truman's refusal to pursue a reasonable negotiated peace, i.e., after Truman ignored several Japanese peace feelers (we know he was briefed on them),


Fake news.  Truman did not ignore them.  It was japan who killed off the peace feelers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> after he ignored the repeated warnings from his own Japan experts that the Japanese would fight to the death if they thought we were going to depose the emperor (Grew personally explained this to him in May),


More fake news.  He did not ignore those warnings.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and after he refused to privately negotiate once he learned from Japanese intercepts that the emperor himself wanted to end the war


Even more fake news.  Japan never gave Truman an opportunity for private negotiations.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and that the only obstacle was Truman's insistence on unconditional surrender (we know he was informed of this fact).


Even more fake news.  That was hardly the only obstacle.




mikegriffith1 said:


> deaths would have been avoided if Truman had not refused to budge from FDR's "unconditional surrender" policy.


Even more fake news.  Unconditional surrender was abandoned with the issuance of the Potsdam Proclamation.




mikegriffith1 said:


> For that matter, we would have had no war with Japan if FDR had not treasonously sided with the Soviet Union, had not imposed draconian sanctions on Japan for doing the same thing that Western powers had done a few decades earlier, had not rejected Japan's entirely reasonable peace offers to get him to lift the sanctions, and had not moved the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii and stationed B-17 bombers in the Philippines.


It sure does bug you that we opposed Japan's genocide of their Asian neighbors.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> What in the world are you talking about?


He was pointing out that you are completely wrong in every respect.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Are you really unable to grasp the point, or are you just being incredibly disingenuous?


Neither.  I am sure he grasped your point.  Your point, however, is completely wrong.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Let me try to break this down in simple terms, step by step:
> 
> * Months before Hiroshima, members of the peace faction began sending peace feelers through third parties to the U.S., such as the approach via a third party to Allen Dulles, such as the approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal with us.
> 
> * It was made clear in these approaches that the only real obstacle to obtaining a surrender was fear about the emperor's status in unconditional surrender. I documented this in a previous post where I reviewed some of the peace feelers.


OK so far.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * The peace advocates needed Truman to simply give assurance that the emperor would not be deposed in order for them, the peace supporters, to be able to overcome the hardliners' opposition, since the hardliners' trump card was that the Americans had given no assurance about the emperor's status.


You are wrong here.  The hardliners were refusing to surrender no matter what.  A guarantee of the Emperor's position would not have changed that.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * The hardliners on the Big Six could block any meeting of the council and could also block the convening of an imperial conference, since Japan was not a dictatorship. The emperor could not just snap his fingers and order the Supreme War Council to meet, much less to attend an imperial conference. There were checks and balances--that's how Tojo was forced to resign after the loss of Saipan, and that's how the next two prime ministers were both pro-surrender.


This is wrong as well.  Japan was a dictatorship.  The Emperor was the dictator, and the hardliners exercised dictatorial power in his name.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * If Truman had given assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, the Big Six hardliners would have lost their number one argument against surrender and would have then been under tremendous pressure to agree to convene the Big Six and to attend an imperial conference.


The hardliners were not against surrender because of the Emperor's status.  They were saying no to surrender no matter what.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If they had refused, this would have given the peace faction a powerful justification to force an extra-constitutional showdown over surrender.


That would not have gone well for them.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> When are you going to deal with the point that the war could have ended in June if Truman had not refused to clarify the emperor's status in unconditional surrender?


Said point is completely untrue.  Japan had no interest in surrender terms so long as they thought that the Soviets might help them escape the war without surrendering.




mikegriffith1 said:


> So killing over 200,000 civilians would have been an acceptable price to save one American soldier? Wow, that's just evil and vicious.


Spare me the pathetic whining.  The entire population of Japan was worth the life of one American soldier.

And since Japan was refusing to surrender, we had every right to bomb military targets.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Your boy Truman was the one who refused to help the peace faction in the Japanese government and who therefore delayed surrender by weeks.


Fake news.




mikegriffith1 said:


> We've already covered this ground several times, and you simply refuse to deal with the fact that an invasion was not necessary,


Necessity is irrelevant.  Japan was refusing to surrender, so we had every right to bomb military targets.




mikegriffith1 said:


> that by no later than June most of Japan's leaders wanted to end the war on terms acceptable to us,


Fake news.

The people in control in Japan were still refusing to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> that Truman played right into the hardliners' hands by refusing to clarify the emperor's status,


The hardliners were refusing to surrender regardless of the Emperor's status.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and that Japan would have surrendered without nukes.


Luckily we got to nuke them first before they surrendered.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You somehow misread McNay's review, not to mention Hasegawa's book. If you had read McNay's review with any care, you would have seen that he explained that Hasegawa's point is that the only impact the nukes had was that it caused the peace advocates to push harder to try to get the hardliners to agree to surrender. The peace advocates needed no convincing. They had been trying to bring about a surrender for weeks. Hiroshima simply gave them another excuse to make another push for surrender. The point you keep ducking is that Hiroshima had zero impact on the hardliners.


The point that you keep getting wrong is that the status of the Emperor also had no impact on the hardliners.

The hardliners were refusing to surrender no matter what.  It took an order from the Emperor to change that.




mikegriffith1 said:


> What a barbaric, un-American standard.


You don't speak for America.




mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR provoked Japan to war,


Japan provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.




mikegriffith1 said:


> no excuse for FDR and Truman to order bombing that deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and children.


Fake news.  The atomic bombs did not kill that many women and children.  And of those women and children that it did kill, none were deliberate.

The atomic bombings did not need any excuse.  We have every right to bomb military targets.




mikegriffith1 said:


> That's like saying that if you provoke a smaller and weaker person to hit you first, that gives you the right to seriously injure him in ways that he can't prevent.


Maybe so.  But as I just noted above, your depiction was factually inaccurate in just about every way possible.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> Better dead than red.


That’s a good microcosm for all your posts. Dumb and simple.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> ^^^^^Does all this justify Truman’s actions?


Yes.




gipper said:


> Why can’t you admit Truman’s actions were undeniably a war crime, for which he should have hung?


Some of us refuse to admit to falsehoods.




gipper said:


> Are you really trying to justify the bombing that killed 100,000 civilians, mostly women and children, because the Japanese had a small number of troops there?


Not mostly women and children.

And Japan had a large amount of troops there.  It was also the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.




gipper said:


> You care about Koreans, but not Japanese. WTF!


The Koreans were victims.  The Japanese were perpetrators.




gipper said:


> Committing greater atrocities to stop lesser atrocities is illogical, immoral, and abhorrent.


Not necessarily.  But bombing a military target is in no way an atrocity.




gipper said:


> Make no mistake, Truman’s action was a far greater atrocity than what the Japanese did.


Truman's action was not an atrocity at all.




gipper said:


> Plus, as you now know, it was entirely unnecessary since Japan was incapable of offensive action, entirely defenseless, and seeking surrender.


Fake news.  Japan was far from defenseless, and was refusing to surrender.


----------



## DudleySmith

Open Bolt said:


> Boy it sure does bother you that we opposed Japan's genocides.



^^^^ This. It bothers these Reds and neo-nazis a lot.


----------



## BS Filter

Mushroom said:


> No, he oversaw the occupation.  He did not rule the country.
> 
> What, you honestly think that somehow a General would be appointed as the ruler of a country, with almost no oversight, ruling as a dictator?
> 
> He oversaw the occupation, supervised as a new Constitution was drafted, oversaw the dismantling of the Taisei Yokusankai, all with the full cooperation of the Emperor and the officials that were deemed innocent of any war crimes or having taken part in the prosecution of the war.
> 
> He was not a King, he was not a Dictator, the equivalent position would be he was the Military Governor, not unlike his previous in the Philippines.  He had a lot of power and could veto decisions of the Government if he thought they were not in the interest of the Allied Powers, but he himself did not rule.
> 
> What, you honestly think he ruled the country?  That just shows how little you really do understand about the Occupation of Japan.  That the US would appoint a General as some kind of King to rule over another nation.  With no oversight, no checks and balances, simply ruling as they saw fit and answerable to nobody.
> 
> I knew what you were going to say, and once again you did not disappoint me.  And showed how little you know of what the Occupation really was.  Emperor Showa was still the Emperor, the Prime Minister was still the Prime Minister and head of the Executive Branch.  The Diet was still the legislative authority once it was reconstituted in 1947.
> 
> In fact, even during the Occupation he was not the "Ultimate Authority".  That actually resided with the "Far East Commission".  The decision had already been made to not break Japan into "Occupation Zones" like Germany had been, but to maintain a unified occupation with the US primarily holding all occupation duties.  But the Commission was chaired by 13 members representing each of the Allied Powers, and they had the ultimate oversight.  They could even veto decisions made by General MacArthur, and did most of the work behind the scenes.  They actually made all the policies, the General simply carried them out.
> 
> As I said, you have an incredibly primitive view of the war, and also of the occupation I see.  You actually do seem to believe that the US let some General act as a King of a foreign nation.  By the same token, I guess you also believe that General Tommy Franks was the "Ruler of Iraq" after the Ba'ath Party was removed form power.  Or that General Eisenhower was the "Ruler of Germany" when it was occupied.


Where is a link to your claim?


----------



## BS Filter

Open Bolt said:


> I'm not wrong.  And I'm certainly not going to admit being wrong when I'm not.
> 
> The timeline is as I said it was.
> 
> August 6: Hiroshima
> August 9: Nagasaki
> August 10: Japan offers a conditional surrender
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not.  Japan's condition on August 10 was that we allow Hirohito to retain unlimited dictatorial power.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a third thing that you are wrong about.  We backed off from unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation.  That was long before Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> I've done my research.  That's how I am able to point out all these errors that you keep making.


And I suppose you also believe that General Douglas McCarthur wasn't the guy in charge of the overhaul of Japan?


----------



## BS Filter

Open Bolt said:


> No.
> 
> You are wrong according to the history books.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice all the conditions in the surrender terms?


I notice all the "conditions" are from the USA.  The USA totally changed Japan's military, economic system, and government.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> * Hasegawa also points out that Stalin urged Truman to continue to insist on unconditional surrender and not to give Japan any reason to hope for conditions (pp. 85-86). Stalin feared that if Truman softened his surrender demand, the Japanese would surrender before the Soviets could enter the war (p. 86). Truman followed Stalin's advice. Just great.


Truman did not follow Stalin's advice.  The Potsdam Proclamation backed off from unconditional surrender.

But if Truman had followed _*your*_ advice, he would have let Stalin have input into the Potsdam terms.  And that would have meant following Stalin's advice.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * Regarding Truman’s falsehood that Hiroshima was “a military base” and that it was bombed to “avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians,”


Not a falsehood.  That was the truth.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Dr. Robert Jacobs says the following in his review of the National Geographic documentary _24 Hours After Hiroshima:_
> The film reiterates the misleading claim that wartime Hiroshima was “a city of considerable military importance:​


Not misleading.  That is the truth.




mikegriffith1 said:


> A communications center and assembly area hardly vest a city with “considerable military importance,”​


A large concentration of troops does however.

As does the fact that Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion of Japan.




mikegriffith1 said:


> There are many points to consider here. First of all, as the film itself mentions, virtually every major city in Japan had been burned to the ground in the spring of 1945 by the firebombing squadrons of Curtis LeMay. Can it be that the US Army attacked and burned 67 cities, but preserved several targets of “considerable military importance” as showcases for future weapons?​


Yes, in fact.

And the records are quite clear on that matter.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The cities that were taken off the firebombing list (to preserve virgin targets so that assessments of the effects of atomic bombs could be made) were clearly of secondary importance to Japan’s ability to continue to prosecute the war.​


Fake news.  No they weren't.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Consider the map below, printed in the _New York Times_ on Friday August 10, 1945 (the day after Nagasaki was bombed). This map purports to show up to 30 important targets in Hiroshima and their scale of damage after the nuclear attack. The map shows conclusively that the two or three most important military targets (the Army transport base, Army ordnance depot, food depot and clothing depot) are all located in the Ujina port area, and are outside of the area of destruction. Almost all of the “targets” that are inside the area of destruction are bridges, hardly targets that were primarily of military importance. The map vividly reveals that the bomb did not target the military assets clustered at Ujina, but rather the city center: it targeted specifically civilian Hiroshima. (p. 3) (https://apjjf.org/-Robert-Jacobs/3446/article.pdf)​


The map is inaccurate.  It leaves out the most important military targets, all of which were in the center.




mikegriffith1 said:


> * The cruel and unnecessary August 14 bombing included a bombing raid by 150 B-29s that dropped 700 one-ton bombs on Osaka.


Hardly cruel.  We attacked military targets.

And entirely necessary, as the surrender would never have happened without that August 14 raid.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Surely, surely Truman had to have some understanding that Japan’s leaders were rather busy trying to formulate a reply to the Byrnes Note, which they received on August 11. Yet, he bombed them two days later, on August 13, and then again on August 14. No one thought to make any plans to recall the bombers if Japan sent a surrender message before the bombers took off or while they were en route.


Japan should consider themselves lucky that they wised up and surrendered before the next atomic bomb was ready to drop.  It was only a few days away.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> What follows are three relatively short extracts from Dr. Peter Kuznick’s article “The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative,” published in _The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, _July 3, 2007. Dr. Kuznick is a professor of history at American University.
> 
> Inflated Casualty Estimates for U.S. Invasion of Japan:
> 
> This victor’s narrative privileges possible American deaths over actual Japanese ones. As critics of the bombing have become more vocal in recent years, projected American casualty estimates have grown apace--from the War Department’s 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead to Truman’s 1955 insistence that General George Marshall feared losing a half million American lives to Stimson’s 1947 claim of over 1,000,000 casualties to George H.W. Bush’s 1991 defense of Truman’s “tough calculating decision, [which] spared millions of American lives,” to the 1995 estimate of a crew member on Bock’s Car, the plane that bombed Nagasaki, who asserted that the bombing saved six million lives--one million Americans and five million Japanese. (p. 2)​


There was no inflation.

Those high casualty estimates were always that high.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Innumerable scholars have debunked the “half a million” myth,


The reality of those estimates is not a myth.

And try as progressive scholars might, no scholar has yet debunked reality.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and we know from internal War Department memos that senior military planners knew this estimate was baseless and implausible. But, as we can see, this hasn’t stopped the myth from not only being spread but from being padded.


Reality is not a myth.  Nothing has been padded.




mikegriffith1 said:


> There were several reasonable versions of surrender terms that would have ended the war without an invasion, but Truman rejected every one of them, even after he learned, several weeks before Hiroshima, that the emperor wanted to end the war and that he hoped the Soviets would broker a peace deal.


Fake news.  Truman never rejected reasonable surrender terms.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The Nuking of Hiroshima Produced Limited Military Casualties Because the Bomb Was Aimed at the Civilian Part of the City:


Fake news.  The atomic bomb was dropped near the military headquarters and military barracks.

The military casualties were quite satisfactory.




mikegriffith1 said:


> American strategic planners targeted the civilian part of the city, maximizing the bomb’s destructive power and civilian deaths.​


They targeted the military heart of the city.




mikegriffith1 said:


> It produced limited military casualties.​


Fake news.  The military casualties were quite satisfactory.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Admiral William Leahy angrily told an interviewer in 1949 that although Truman told him they would “only … hit military objectives …. they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was just what they wanted all the time.” (p. 2)​


Leahy was a goofy moron.

During the war before Japan surrendered, the only thing that Leahy had to say about atomic bombs was that, as an expert in explosives, he could guarantee that atomic bombs would never work.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Of course, when Truman announced the nuking of Hiroshima, he not only said that Hiroshima was “a military base” but that it had been chosen “because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” It is possible that Truman did not know this was an obscene lie; he may have been merely repeating what he had been told by his military advisers and/or by Byrnes.


Not a lie at all.

It does seem though that Truman was under the mistaken impression that nuking a military base would not result in collateral damage.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Over 100,000 civilians were killed at Hiroshima, most of them women and children.


There were plenty of men killed as well.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The Air Force Association and the American Legion Demanded that All Photos of Hiroshima Victims Be Removed from the 1995 _Enola Gay_ Exhibit:


The exhibit was filled with anti-American lies.  It is right that people forced it to be taken down.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> There was no inflation.
> 
> Those high casualty estimates were always that high.
> 
> 
> 
> The reality of those estimates is not a myth.
> 
> And try as progressive scholars might, no scholar has yet debunked reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is not a myth.  Nothing has been padded.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Truman never rejected reasonable surrender terms.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  The atomic bomb was dropped near the military headquarters and military barracks.
> 
> The military casualties were quite satisfactory.
> 
> 
> 
> They targeted the military heart of the city.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  The military casualties were quite satisfactory.
> 
> 
> 
> Leahy was a goofy moron.
> 
> During the war before Japan surrendered the only thing he had to say about atomic bombs was that, as an expert in explosives, he could guarantee that atomic bombs would never work.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a lie at all.
> 
> It does seem though that Truman was under the mistaken impression that nuking a military base would not result in collateral damage.
> 
> 
> 
> There were plenty of men killed as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The exhibit was filled with anti-American lies.  It is right that people forced it to be taken down.


Talking to yourself again and making absolutely no sense again.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Some here probably know who General Telford Taylor was. He was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. In 1970, Taylor wrote that while the morality of Hiroshima was debatable, he knew of no credible justification for Nagasaki, and he said Nagasaki was a war crime:


He sounds like he was pretty goofy.  Bombing military targets is not a war crime.

The justification for Nagasaki was that Japan was refusing to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable, but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki.​


The justification is that Japan was refusing to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes” (_Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, _Chicago: Quandrangle, 1970, p. 143; see also Richard Minear, _Victors’ Justice: Tokyo War Crimes Trial_, Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 101)​


Not difficult to contest at all.  Bombing military targets is not a war crime.




mikegriffith1 said:


> What would you say if I told you that James Byrnes, Truman’s Japan-hating secretary of state, the author of the Byrnes Note, admitted after the war that the atomic bombs did not force Japan to surrender, that Japan was already beaten before they were nuked, and that this was evidenced by Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel?!


Japan was free to surrender any time they liked.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Very few books on Japan’s surrender mention this amazing fact.


Well, it isn't particularly noteworthy.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Talking to yourself again and making absolutely no sense again.


Wrong on both counts.  I have never talked to myself, and I have always made sense.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> Hardly a wild estimate. The "Shockley numbers" are higher than estimates for "Downfall alone" because Shockley gave numbers for the conquest of all of Japan, whereas Downfall only planned for the capture of southern Kyushu and then the Tokyo plain.



Plus Secretary Stimson knew the estimates he was given were outright wrong.  In most of the Pacific Campaign battles, casualties were coming in at rated 3-5 times higher than estimated before the battles.  He knew that the estimates were entirely wrong, because they were using estimates based on fighting Germany.  Those figures did not work when fighting Japan, so he commissioned William Shockley to prepare a new estimate, using the casualties experienced when fighting the Japanese on other islands, like Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Saipan (the last two were important as it gave a better baseline for civilian casualties).

Because unlike in Europe, when fighting the Japanese there were many cases of suicide among the civilian population, them taking up primitive arms, or even Japanese soldiers killing them so they would not be "dishonored by being captured".  The estimates Secretary Stimson was given would likely have worked, in Italy, France, Germany, etc.  But for fighting the Japanese, they were way too low.

To give an idea how low, the Army estimated casualty figures for 18 months of fighting in Japan at around 43,000.  General MacArthur estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days, 125,000 after the first 4 months.  To put that into perspective, the 2 months of fighting on Okinawa (not even a home island but another conquered territory) was around 60,000.  And that actually landing on the "Home Islands" would be even worse, especially as many more civilians would likely take part in resisting the invasion, then committing suicide as the Allies pushed forward.

But you are slightly mistaken on the names.  "Operation Downfall" was the name of the entire operation to conquer Japan by land.  "Operation Olympic" was the name for capturing and securing Kyushu.  The following operation to capture Honshu was "Operation Coronet".  That would have started with landing on the Kanto Plain, then pushing north to Tokyo.


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> Where is a link to your claim?



No, that is not how it works.

You are the one that made the claim that Mac was the Ruler of Japan.  Please, provide any proof to verify that original insane claim.  In fact, please provide any proof that would be acceptable or even legal for the US to have done.  Like, any case in the past where the US Government gave over to a military (or civilian) commander such powers without oversight.

Oh, and that the other Allied Powers (UK, China, Soviet Union) would have agreed to that either.  Because it was a Joint Occupation, and I can't see the British (let alone the Soviets) agreeing to allow a single person to act as ruler of a nation without significant civilian oversight.

It is a silly claim, and completely preposterous.  I named who was actually in charge, you have to prove that they were not really in charge, and that somehow a single American was acting as a ruler entirely on his own.


----------



## BS Filter

Mushroom said:


> No, that is not how it works.
> 
> You are the one that made the claim that Mac was the Ruler of Japan.  Please, provide any proof to verify that original insane claim.  In fact, please provide any proof that would be acceptable or even legal for the US to have done.  Like, any case in the past where the US Government gave over to a military (or civilian) commander such powers without oversight.
> 
> Oh, and that the other Allied Powers (UK, China, Soviet Union) would have agreed to that either.  Because it was a Joint Occupation, and I can't see the British (let alone the Soviets) agreeing to allow a single person to act as ruler of a nation without significant civilian oversight.
> 
> It is a silly claim, and completely preposterous.  I named who was actually in charge, you have to prove that they were not really in charge, and that somehow a single American was acting as a ruler entirely on his own.


I provided you with a link to a reputable site containing the information.  You have provided nothing.  That's how this works.  Read this and learn.  General McCarthur had absolute authority in Japan.




__





						Douglas MacArthur, America’s Emperor of Japan
					

He was a general's general, tough, unrelenting, a man who embraced the role history thrust on him. He was also haughty and controversial, traits that would lead to his eventual downfall. General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the Allie [...]




					adst.org


----------



## Open Bolt

Mushroom said:


> But you are slightly mistaken on the names.  "Operation Downfall" was the name of the entire operation to conquer Japan by land.  "Operation Olympic" was the name for capturing and securing Kyushu.  The following operation to capture Honshu was "Operation Coronet".  That would have started with landing on the Kanto Plain, then pushing north to Tokyo.


Downfall only encompassed Olympic and Coronet.  It didn't include plans for forcibly capturing territory beyond what those two operations captured.

They assumed that once we captured Tokyo, Japan would then surrender no matter what, and there would be no need for further use of force.

Shockley's estimate assumed that there would be no surrender ever and we'd have to fight a bloody battle over every single square inch of Japan with even schoolchildren attacking with spears.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> They tried to surrender but Dirty Harry ignored them, so that he could nuke them.


Japan didn't try to surrender until *after both* atomic bombs had already been dropped.




gipper said:


> He really liked mass murdering defenseless Japanese women and children.


Attacks on military targets are not mass murder.




gipper said:


> Plus he wanted to impress Uncle Joe.


True, but not really relevant to the bombings.  The point of the bombings was to make Japan surrender.




gipper said:


> In other words, you think mass murdering women and children of a defenseless nation is entirely okay, as long as they attacked you first.


Attacks on military targets are not mass murder.




gipper said:


> PS...Japan didn’t kill millions of people. You have been duped.


Yes they did.  Your holocaust denial is appalling.


----------



## Open Bolt

HenryBHough said:


> If Truman had more than a one-time use pair of nuts he'd have nuked Moscow when he finished with Japan.  Even if he had to wait a few months whilst the boffins brewed 'nother nuke.


Where would the B-29s take off from in order to carry out such a mission?


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Show me where you have "proven" that I, not to mention the scholars I've quoted, am wrong about the fact that we targeted the center of Hiroshima instead of the outskirts where the factories and military facilities were located.


If nothing else, you are wrong about where the military facilities were.

The primary military facilities were located in the center, where the bomb hit.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Byrnes insisted that Japan was beaten before we nuked them.


Are you under the impression that there is any sort of significance to Byrnes having said this??




mikegriffith1 said:


> Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Truman, instead of taking the advice of his Japan experts, took Stalin's and Byrnes' advice not to modify the surrender terms.


The very existence of the surrender terms shows that Truman was not taking Stalin's advice to stick to unconditional surrender.

The leniency of the Potsdam Proclamation shows that Truman was wise enough to reject *your* advice to let Stalin be a party to the Potsdam Proclamation.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Show me where you have "proven" that I am wrong about the fact that Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attack.


Your error is ignoring the vast defenses Japan had against our coming invasion.  They had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes ready to pounce on our invading forces.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Show me where I am wrong about the fact, noted by Hasegawa, that Soviet intelligence reported that in April 1945 the Japanese knew they could not continue the war for more than another eight months.


Does this fact have any relevance to anything?




mikegriffith1 said:


> That is a ludicrous comparison that, by the way, is based on Soviet and Chinese Communist propaganda. You have no clue what you are talking about regarding Japan's actions in China.
> 
> You do realize that Japan was capitalist and anti-Communist, right?  You do realize that Japan was the most Westernized nation in Asia at the time, right?  You do realize that Japan's main opponent in Manchuria was not the Chinese but the Soviets, right?  You do realize that Japan acquired Korea after defeating Russia, which was trying to acquire Korea too, right? You do realize that millions of Chinese sided with the Japanese against the Nationalists and the Communists, because they brought stability, law and order, and economic progress, right?
> 
> Leaving aside the questionable claim that Japan started the war in China, I take it you want to condemn the lesser of the evils in Asia. The Japanese army did not kill nearly as many innocent people as did the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, and they arguably did not kill as many people as did the Nationalists. In some places, such as Korea and Taiwan, Japanese rule, by any rational comparison, was moderate and beneficial.
> 
> Truman handed China over to the Communists and sentenced tens of millions of Chinese to death in so doing. Because of FDR's and Truman's pro-Soviet/pro-Communist policies on China and Korea, China fell to the Communists; the Soviets gained valuable territory in Manchuria and on key coastal islands; and we had to wage a bloody war in Korea just to free half of the country from the Communists, something that would not have been necessary if we had not demanded that Japan abandon Korea.


Your apology for Japan's genocidal rampage through Asia is breathtakingly appalling.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> You have cherry-picked two statements from his book and have ignored everything else he says in the book, not to mention everything else he has said in his subsequent articles. Let us review a few facts about Hasegawa’s book, not just the two statements you have cherry-picked (and misinterpreted).
> 
> FACT: Hasegawa states in plain English that the idea that the nukes caused Japan to surrender and that nuking Japan saved American lives is a “myth," and he says that  there were alternatives to nuking Japan that Truman failed to pursue:
> 
> Americans still cling to the myth that the atomic bombs provided the knockout punch to the Japanese government. The decision to use the bomb saved not only American soldiers but also the Japanese, according to this narrative. This myth serves to justify Truman’s decision and ease the collective American conscience. To this extent, it is important to American national identity. But as this book demonstrates, this myth cannot be supported by historical facts. Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration, for reasons of its own, declined to pursue. . . .​


Hasegawa is wrong.  Truman pursued every method of forcing Japan to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> FACT: Hasegawa notes that Stalin hoped that Japan would not surrender before the Soviets were able to enter the war. The Soviets were worried that Truman would soften the surrender terms and that Japan would surrender before the Soviet Union could enter the war. Therefore, Stalin urged Truman to continue to insist on unconditional surrender:
> To his mind, the war would have to last long enough for the Soviet Union to join it. . . .​Stalin also feared the early termination of the war as a result of Japan’s premature acceptance of surrender. In order to prolong the war long enough for the Soviets to complete their preparations to attack Japan, he urged the United States to adhere to the unconditional surrender demand. (p. 86)​I think it’s a travesty that Truman chose to follow the advice of one of the biggest mass murders in world history.


Mr. Truman didn't follow Stalin's advice.  The Potsdam Proclamation abandoned unconditional surrender.

But if Truman had followed *your* advice, he would have made Stalin a party to the Potsdam Proclamation, which would have meant letting Stalin have input over how harsh the terms were.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You, on the other hand, have ducked and dodged all over the place when confronted with the fact that Truman followed the very policy that Stalin wanted him to follow.


That isn't a fact.  Truman didn't follow your advice and let Stalin be party to the Potsdam Proclamation.

Truman instead disregarded Stalin and abandoned unconditional surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> By the way, Hasegawa also notes that Stalin was worried about the peace feelers that Japan was sending through Sweden and Switzerland (p. 88). We know Truman was made aware of these peace feelers, yet he did nothing to pursue them.


Wrong.  We know that Truman did pursue them.

Truman knew that the peace feelers lacked legitimacy, but he pursued them anyway in the hope that they might evolve into legitimate contacts with the Japanese government.

It was Japan that killed off the peace feelers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Nor did Truman modify the surrender terms even after he learned that Hirohito himself wanted to end the war, that Hirohito had authorized an approach to the Soviets to mediate a peace deal, and that the only real obstacle was the fear that the emperor would be deposed in unconditional surrender.


That wasn't the only obstacle, and Mr. Truman knew it wasn't the only obstacle.

The primary obstacle was the fact that the Japanese Army was refusing to surrender no matter what.




mikegriffith1 said:


> We know that in May, Acting Secretary of State Grew carefully explained to Truman that the Japanese would never surrender if they believed we would depose the emperor. Grew also explained how and why the emperor's power was limited by Japanese law and tradition. But Truman, bound by his unbelievably ignorant belief that the emperor was one of the militarists, wouldn't listen.


Nonsense.  Truman listened to what Grew had to say.




mikegriffith1 said:


> FACT: Hasegawa notes that the peace faction had to be careful or else the hardliners might force the appointment of a new cabinet, and violent hardliners might assassinate peace advocates:
> 
> Togo also knew how delicate the domestic situation was. One false step and the cabinet might implode, or political figures who worked for peace might be assassinated. (p. 95)​


Yep.




mikegriffith1 said:


> FACT: In May 1945, the Big Six adopted a document that stated that “Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire” (p. 73).
> 
> This explains why the hardliners on the Big Six immediately agreed to convene a Big Six meeting after they learned of the Soviet invasion, whereas they saw no need for a Big Six meeting after they learned of Hiroshima.


The Japanese Empire was dealt a death blow when the US military captured Okinawa.  That was long before the Soviets got involved.

In fact, Japan was doomed from the moment they lost the Battle of the Philippine Sea, mid 1944.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> But Truman, ignorantly doing Stalin's bidding, refused to follow up on any of these peace feelers, even though he was aware of them.


Wrong.  Even though Truman knew that the peace feelers were illegitimate, he followed up on them just in case they might lead to legitimate contacts.

It was Japan that killed off the peace feelers.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Hasegawa . . . also says . . . that Truman failed to pursue alternatives to nuking.


If so then he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Mr. Truman pursued every way possible to force Japan to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> I myself am unsure whether Truman acted out of malice or out of ignorance and incompetence, or a mix of both.


None of the above.  Mr. Truman acted out of heroism and compassion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Hasegawa argues that . . . there were alternatives to nuking that Truman refused to pursue.


This Hasegawa character really has no clue what was going on at the end of the war.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Hasegawa acknowledges that the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) reached the opposite conclusion, but he contends that the USSBS got it wrong and that some of the Survey's evidence contradicted their conclusion (pp. 294-295).


The Strategic Bombing Survey were indeed a bunch of hacks.




mikegriffith1 said:


> I agree with Hasegawa, namely, that . . . Truman failed to pursue alternatives to nuking.


That merely means you both are wrong.  Truman did everything possible to try to force Japan to surrender.


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> I provided you with a link to a reputable site containing the information. You have provided nothing. That's how this works. Read this and learn. General McCarthur had absolute authority in Japan.



Oh my goodness, I love how you keep giving me references that show you are wrong.



> Although, ostensibly guided by directions from Washington, MacArthur exercised a great deal of independent authority. In theory, it was the Far Eastern Advisory Commission, which comprised representatives of all the allied countries, that established general policies for the occupation.
> 
> *In fact, the real authority for issuing policies and directives to SCAP resided in Washington*. But MacArthur took a rather imperial view of his role and was not unduly influenced by instructions from Washington or guidance from the Far Eastern Advisory Commission….



That is right from your own reference.

The fact is, Mac learned a lot of governing an "Occupation" as he had been military governor of the Philippines.  A role rather close to one he himself held years later in the Philippines.  He knew that all he needed to do was to give advice, and it would likely be followed.  But he also knew that if he stepped out of line, both Washington and the Advisory Commission would step right in and overrule him.  He was smart and experienced enough to never do that.

What, are you surprised that a great many actually do things as they are supposed to?

Once again, you fail to show in any way how he "ruled", and while your own reference refers to him as having "a great deal of independent authority", and that he acted "imperial", it never says that he himself ruled.

As I said, you keep trying to prove your points, but apparently reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours.  And all you do is provide even more references confirming exactly what I am saying.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> Shockley's estimate assumed that there would be no surrender ever and we'd have to fight a bloody battle over every single square inch of Japan with even schoolchildren attacking with spears.



Which in many ways is what would have happened.

Because without a surrender, they would have never stopped fighting until the entire nation had been conquered.  This can be seen in the "holdouts" that were still trying to fight the war decades later.  Still hiding and fighting, because they had never been ordered to surrender.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> If nothing else, you are wrong about where the military facilities were.
> 
> The primary military facilities were located in the center, where the bomb hit.



The headquarters for the 2nd General Army was about a half mile from "Ground Zero" of the Hiroshima blast.  Over 20,000 Japanese Soldiers were killed when it detonated.

In fact, almost the entire command staff of the 2nd General Army were killed, and Marshal Hata only survived because he was visiting a remote logistics location at the time of the bomb.  He ordered all surviving personnel to assemble at the nearby Ujina Air Base.  Which was heavily damaged, but largely survived.


----------



## BS Filter

Mushroom said:


> Oh my goodness, I love how you keep giving me references that show you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That is right from your own reference.
> 
> The fact is, Mac learned a lot of governing an "Occupation" as he had been military governor of the Philippines.  A role rather close to one he himself held years later in the Philippines.  He knew that all he needed to do was to give advice, and it would likely be followed.  But he also knew that if he stepped out of line, both Washington and the Advisory Commission would step right in and overrule him.  He was smart and experienced enough to never do that.
> 
> What, are you surprised that a great many actually do things as they are supposed to?
> 
> Once again, you fail to show in any way how he "ruled", and while your own reference refers to him as having "a great deal of independent authority", and that he acted "imperial", it never says that he himself ruled.
> 
> As I said, you keep trying to prove your points, but apparently reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours.  And all you do is provide even more references confirming exactly what I am saying.


Perhaps you don't really understand words and their definition.  I have provided historical fact.  You have provided your opinion.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Some Americans are too feeble minded to accept the fact that the a-bombings were entirely unnecessary,


And others just realize that necessity is totally irrelevant.

Japan refused to surrender so we kept attacking them.  The end.




gipper said:


> to say nothing of the terrible immorality. It’s just a bridge too far.


My morality finds the atomic bombing of Japan to be absolutely delightful.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And what is sad and ironic is that many of those Americans are conservatives--they just seem to have a mental/emotional block when it comes to this issue. They will excoriate FDR and Truman on a host of other issues, and rightfully so,


That's the thing about us conservatives.  We will happily condemn actual wrongdoing.  But when someone does something that is actually good then we support it.

The atomic bombing of Japan was a wonderful event.  All good people support it.




mikegriffith1 said:


> but they can't seem to bring themselves to condemn FDR for his treasonous and/or horrendous handling of WW II nor to condemn Truman for his treasonous and/or horrible handling of the end of the Pacific War and its aftermath.


No such treason.  No such horrendous handling.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Sigh. . . .  Just sigh. . . . Gosh, really? After all the facts presented in this thread about what FDR was doing to the Japanese to choke their economy and provoke them to fight, this is your response? And "China"?! You must be kidding. Go back and read this thread.


Some of us just object to genocide I guess.




mikegriffith1 said:


> There is just no getting you to engage in a reasoned, fact-based discussion on this issue, is there?  And who starts a fight: the one who keeps trying to provoke the fight and wants to fight, or the one who tries to avoid the fight but finally responds to the provocations and throws the first punch because he realizes that the other person is determined to hurt him?


Japan started the fight.  We had every right to embargo their genocide.




mikegriffith1 said:


> There you go again acting like all Japanese were guilty of the actions of the bad actors in the army. Pray tell: What barbaric actions did the women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit? What barbaric actions did the seniors, women, and children in the 65 cities that we fire-bombed and/or naval-bombarded commit?


Let's start with Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March.




mikegriffith1 said:


> What percentage of Japanese soldiers do you believe committed war crimes, and what percentage of Japan's population do you believe those soldiers constituted?


All of them.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> This is a disingenuous argument


No it isn't.  The facts are just inconvenient for you.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and an erroneous comparison.


There are no errors in the comparison.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base done in response to FDR's provocations, both military and economic.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets attacked in response to Japan's provocations.

Unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a war atrocity.  Japan attacked during peacetime.




mikegriffith1 said:


> To compare an attack on a military base that killed about 3,000 military personnel to Truman's nuke attacks on two cities that killed over 200,000 civilians, especially when he knew Japan was already beaten and trying to surrender, is absurd.


The events are quite different.  The attack on Pearl Harbor was an atrocity.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified self defense.

Japan did not attempt to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The nukes did not cause Japan's surrender; the Soviet invasion caused the surrender.


Our military's capture of Okinawa caused Japan's surrender.  The Soviet invasion merely made their mediation impossible.




mikegriffith1 said:


> We did not need to nuke Japan.


Too bad.  Japan didn't need to attack Pearl Harbor.  Japan didn't need to perpetrate the Bataan Death March.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Japan was already beaten and prostrate and was trying to surrender.


Japan did not try to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




mikegriffith1 said:


> There was no need to invade, and no need for nukes.


Too bad.  Japan didn't surrender so we got to keep attacking them.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender--Truman simply needed to advise the Japanese that the emperor would not be deposed, but, taking Stalin's advice, he refused to do so, even though he knew this was the only obstacle to surrender.


Wrong.  Japan's actual leaders were refusing to surrender no matter what.  It took an order from the Emperor to change that.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman could have achieved a surrender without nukes and without an invasion, but he was determined to use nukes.


Using nukes was entirely reasonable considering Japan's refusal to surrender.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> I think his point is that the Japanese attack on the U.S. military ships and planes at Pearl Harbor was far more justified than Truman's atomic-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,


His point is appalling and even evil.  Pearl Harbor was a war crime.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified self defense.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were filled mostly with women, children, and seniors,


Fake news.




mikegriffith1 said:


> especially given the fact that Truman knew that most of Japan's leaders, including the emperor, were ready to surrender, if only he would guarantee that the emperor would not be deposed,


More fake news.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and that Japanese officials had been sending out peace feelers for weeks.


Feelers that had no legitimacy.

Feelers that Truman pursued, despite knowing they lacked legitimacy, in the hope that they might evolve into legitimate communications with the Japanese government.

Feelers that the Japanese government killed off.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Are you ever going to answer the question of what you think any other country would do if three major nations ganged up on it and did to it what the U.S., England, and Holland were doing to Japan? What do you think any nation would do if three other nations froze its assets, making it virtually impossible for it to make purchases on the international market, cut off 90% of its oil supply, cut off most of its supply of vital raw materials, moved a major naval base thousands of miles closer to it, and also stationed bombers within 700 miles of its territory and within 600 miles of some of its military installations--and then rejected every reasonable peace offer that the nation made to get those hostile acts revoked? Hey?


A moral nation would halt the genocide that they were perpetrating that was the cause of the sanctions.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Your jingoistic ignorance is matched only by your rudeness.


Your whitewashing of Japan's atrocities and your false accusations against Truman and FDR are pretty appalling.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You are no "patriot."


Sure he is.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Your heroes FDR and Truman handed over hundreds of millions of people to Communism, preserved one of the most murderous regimes in modern history, and enabled another historically murderous regime to come to power.


How would you have had Truman stop the USSR?




mikegriffith1 said:


> Determined to preserve and aid the Soviet Union, FDR picked a fight with our long-time anti-Communist ally Japan,


Well there was the small matter of that genocide that Japan was perpetrating.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Then, his lackluster VP took Stalin's advice and refused to modify the surrender terms because he was determined to drop at least two nukes,


Fake news.  Truman did abandon unconditional surrender.

However, had Truman taken *your* advice and made Stalin a party to the Potsdam Proclamation, unconditional surrender would have been back on the table.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If that's your version of "patriotism," Eisenhower and a whole bunch of other senior military officers weren't patriotic.


Indeed they were not.


----------



## Mushroom

mikegriffith1 said:


> After all the facts presented in this thread about what FDR was doing to the Japanese to choke their economy and provoke them to fight, this is your response?



You do know what those sanctions were about, right?  The brutal and unjust war against China.  Which in a single battle saw over 200,000 civilians killed.  That is why the US placed sanctions upon Japan.

By your logic, we are at this time provoking Russia to attack us, because we put sanctions against them for attacking Ukraine.

Sanctions are not to provoke a nation to attack, they are to encourage them to stop a barbaric action that a country opposes.  If Japan had stopped slaughtering the Chinese, the sanctions would have ended.


----------



## Mushroom

BS Filter said:


> Perhaps you don't really understand words and their definition.  I have provided historical fact.  You have provided your opinion.



From your own reference once again.



> *In fact, the real authority for issuing policies and directives to SCAP resided in Washington*.



As I said, from your own reference.  Which stated quite clear that the authority came from Washington.  Not quite sure why you are contradicting what your own reference said, then screaming I am wrong and you are right.  Your own reference says you are wrong.

Go ahead, keep being a pigeon however.  You do it well.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Get informed. Read this and tell me what you think of it.
> Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb | Ralph Raico


I find the article to be misleading and inaccurate.

First, it falsely denies the military value of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Second, it falsely claims that there were no estimates of massive casualties if we invaded.

Third, it falsely claims that Truman stuck to unconditional surrender.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> That’s not funny.


Sure it is.  The prospects for a massive bombing campaign in Iran is enormously funny.

We should keep the bombing conventional, not nuclear, of course.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here is a sensible explanation of the alternatives that were available to Truman in August 1945, alternatives that did not involve killing over 200,000 civilians and seriously injuring thousands of others with two atomic bombs, presented by Dr. Alex Wellerstein, a professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Dr. Wellerstein holds a doctorate in the history of science from Harvard University. Dr. Wellerstein:
> 
> Many of those who defend the bombings seem to end up in a position of believing that 1. there were no other options on the table at the time except for exactly what did occur, and 2. that questioning whether there were other options does historical damage. As a historian, I find both of these positions absurd. First, history is full of contingency, and there were several explicit options (and a few implicit ones) on the table in 1945 — more than just “bomb” versus “invade”. . . .​
> The Hiroshima mission was delayed until August 6th because of weather conditions in Japan. The Kokura mission (which became the Nagasaki mission) was originally scheduled for August 11th, but got pushed up to August 9th because it was feared that further bad weather was coming. At the very least, waiting more than three days after Hiroshima might have been humane. Three days was barely enough time for the Japanese high command to verify that the weapon used was a nuclear bomb, much less assess its impact and make strategic sense of it. Doing so may have avoided the need for the second bombing run altogether. Even if the Japanese had not surrendered, the option for using further bombs would not have gone away. . . .​


Should our military have also slowed down the rate of fire on their machineguns in order to give Japan more of a pause between each shot?

This idea that "slowing down our attacks to ease up the pressure on Japan" is some sort of realistic alternative is nonsense.

The time to ease pressure on Japan came after their surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Two months before Hiroshima, scientists at the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory, one of the key Manhattan Project facilities, authored a report arguing that the first use of an atomic bomb should not be on an inhabited city. The committee, chaired by Nobel laureate and German exile James Franck, argued that a warning, or demonstration, of the bomb on, say, a barren island, would be a worthwhile endeavor. If the Japanese still refused to surrender, then the further use of the weapon, and its further responsibility, could be considered by an informed world community. Another attractive possibility for a demonstration could be the center of Tokyo Bay, which would be visible from the Imperial Palace but have a minimum of casualties if made to detonate high in the air. Leo Szilard, a scientist who had helped launch the bomb effort, circulated a petition signed by dozens of Manhattan Project scientists arguing for such an approach. . . .​


We weren't there to put on fireworks shows.  We were there to kill people and break things.

The idea that "giving Japan a fireworks show instead of smashing military targets" is some sort of realistic alternative is nonsense.

And what if Japan had surrendered before we had had a chance to nuke Hiroshima?  Then the US and USSR would have faced the Cuban Missile Crisis without the example of Hiroshima to deter them from launching a large nuclear war.  The human race could be extinct right now.




mikegriffith1 said:


> By the summer of 1945, a substantial number of the Japanese high command, including the Emperor, were looking for a diplomatic way out of the war. Their problem was that the Allies had, with the Potsdam Declaration, continued to demand “unconditional surrender,” and emphasized the need to remove “obstacles” preventing the “democratic tendencies” of the Japanese people.​


Actually the Potsdam Proclamation backed off from unconditional surrender.  It was a list of generous surrender terms.




mikegriffith1 said:


> What did this mean, for the postwar Japanese government? To many in the high command, this sounded a lot like getting rid of the Imperial system, and the Emperor, altogether, possibly prosecuting him as a “war criminal.” For the Japanese leaders, one could no more get rid of the Emperor system and still be “Japan” than one could get rid of the US Constitution and still be “the United States of America.”​


That dilemma was easily solved.  Japan only needed to start talking to the US to clarify the surrender terms.

Japan did not decide to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.  But once they did decide to surrender, Japan was able to quite quickly talk to us about clarifying the surrender terms.




mikegriffith1 said:


> During the summer, those who constituted the “Peace Party” of the high council sent out feelers to the then still-neutral Soviet Union to serve as possible mediators with the United States, hopefully negotiating an end-of-war situation that would give some guarantees as to the Emperor’s position. (Were there alternatives to the atomic bombings?)​


The peace party had no real power.  The people who had real power in WWII Japan were the Emperor and the Japanese Army.

The Emperor and the Japanese Army supported going to the Soviets because they hoped that Soviet mediation would allow Japan to escape the war without surrendering.

When the Soviets declared war and their mediation became impossible, the Japanese Army wanted to fight to the bitter end, but the Emperor ordered them to support surrender instead.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> That's third-grade logic. Just about every legal system on the planet recognizes the principle that provocation can constitute starting the fight, even if the provocator does not throw the first punch.


Japan provoked the US into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.




mikegriffith1 said:


> So you're just gonna keep repeating this militaristic myth and ignore the fact that Japan was prostrate and starving,


No myth.  Japan had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> that Japan was trying to surrender,


Japan was refusing to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> that Truman knew all of these things,


Truman knew that Japan had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invasion.

Truman knew that Japan was refusing to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and that the nukes did not even cause Japan to surrender anyway?


Good God.  *Who cares whether the atomic bombs were what caused surrender???*

The war was still going on and we had every right to attack military targets.




mikegriffith1 said:


> You know, if it was such a righteous deed, why did Truman lie about the first nuke? Huh?


No such lie.  Truman told the truth.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Why did he pretend that Hiroshima was "a military base"


No pretending.  Hiroshima was a military base.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and that it was nuked to minimize civilian casualties?


Truman seems to have been under the mistaken impression that nuking a military base would not result in collateral damage.

But do note that we dropped leaflets warning civilians to flee before we nuked the place.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Why did the Truman administration and MacArthur's occupation government lie about radiation effects and dismiss all the reports of severe injury and death from radiation? Why did the War Department suppress most photos and films of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims?


Because they believed them to be anti-American propaganda.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Hey? Is that the conduct of people who believe they've done something good?


Yes.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> If Truman had done what he knew he needed to do to end the war in July, the overwhelming majority of GIs would not have cared one hoot that the emperor was not deposed.


Fake news.  Truman knew of no way of ending the war in July.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Oh, no, no, that dog won't hunt. Truman KNEW that Japanese officials were sending out peace feelers in May, three months before Hiroshima.


Truman also knew that the peace feelers were illegitimate.

Truman pursued them anyway, just in case they might evolve into a legitimate contact.

Japan killed off the peace feelers.  Truman knew that as well.




mikegriffith1 said:


> By early July, Truman KNEW that even the emperor wanted to surrender


No he didn't.  He knew that it was a possibility, but he did not know for sure.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and that the only real obstacle was the fear that the emperor would be deposed.


Truman knew no such falsehood.

Truman knew that the Japanese military was refusing to surrender regardless of the status of the Emperor.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew, one of the few genuine Japan experts in the government, gave Truman two extensive briefings in May and explained the emperor's status and limited power and why the Japanese would never surrender if they thought the emperor would be deposed.


Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew advised Truman in July that Japan was probably just trying to escape the war without surrendering.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And Truman KNEW that Japan was already severely beaten and prostrate.


Truman knew that Japan had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes ready to pounce on our invading forces.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Truman lied to his own chief of staff and assured him that the nukes would only be used on military targets.


Nope.  Truman told the truth.




mikegriffith1 said:


> He lied to the American people and told them the egregious falsehood that Hiroshima was "a military base"


Not a lie.  That is the truth.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and that this "military base" was chosen as the first target to minimize civilian casualties. Truman was either being played as an absolute fool by the Japan haters in the War Department and the State Department, such as Byrnes and Acheson, or he was lying through his teeth.


It does seem that Truman was misinformed about the potential for collateral damage.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Democrats stabbed South Vietnam in the back and refused to provide the air and logistical support we had promised by treaty to give them.


This I can agree with.  We should have kept aid flowing to South Vietnam.  I am deeply ashamed of my country that we cut off aid to our ally in their time of greatest need.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Admiral Zacharias, like so many other scholars, lamented Truman’s failure to follow up on the peace opening that was provided when we learned that the Japanese were seeking Soviet mediation to clarify the surrender terms and to reach a peace deal,


There was no peace opening for us to follow up on.  The contacts between Japan and the USSR were private and we were not invited.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and the admiral noted that the holdup was the lack of certainty about the emperor’s fate in unconditional surrender.


The admiral is wrong.  The holdup was Japan's desire to use Soviet mediation to try to escape the war without surrendering.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Admiral Zacharias argued that if the various statements on unconditional surrender, including the Potsdam Declaration, had been provided in June, the war would have ended without Soviet intervention and without the dropping of nukes:


If they would have accepted the Potsdam Proclamation in June, why did they refuse to accept it in July?




mikegriffith1 said:


> It is left to the judgment of history to explain why it was necessary for the Soviet Union to take its course of action​


That one is easy.  Japan was not willing to contemplate anything other than Soviet mediation.

Stalin was an evil bastard and he stonewalled the Japanese request because he wanted to prolong the war so he could seize Japanese territory.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and why the Allies refused to exploit the opening provided by Japan herself.​


Another easy one.  Because there was no opening for the US.  It was a private exchange between Japan and the USSR.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If the detailed interpretations of the unconditional surrender formula had been forthcoming in June rather than the end of July [when the Potsdam Declaration was issued], the war would have ended without Soviet participation and before the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although the historical perspective is insufficient as yet to provide a complete picture as it existed in June 1945, it is an undeniable fact that the diplomatic situation provided an opportunity for peace many weeks before mid-August. . . . (pp. 367-368)​


It is hard to see why Japan would have accepted terms in June that they later rejected in July.  But not nuking Japan would certainly have been a disaster for humanity.

Imagine the US and USSR facing the Cuban Missile Crisis without the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from nuking each other.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> I find the article to be misleading and inaccurate.
> 
> First, it falsely denies the military value of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Second, it falsely claims that there were no estimates of massive casualties if we invaded.
> 
> Third, it falsely claims that Truman stuck to unconditional surrender.


Ralph Raico was a great man. You could learn so much from him, if you were capable of learning.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> There was no peace opening for us to follow up on. The contacts between Japan and the USSR were private and we were not invited.



Hell, even the Soviets knew that the terms proposed by Japan for an armistice would have never been accepted by the Allied Powers.

Hell, even the Japanese Ambassador to the Soviet Union knew the terms would never be acceptable to the Allied Powers.  That is why he sent several scathing messages back to the Prime Minster telling them they had better get serious about offering to surrender before it was too late.

And not just the Soviets.  They had previously tried to get Sweden and Switzerland to act as intermediaries.  But when each nation found out what terms Japan wanted, both refused to present those terms to the Allies.  That should give an idea of how absolutely unrealistic the terms that Japan was offering were.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Ralph Raico was a great man.


It's a shame that he spouts so many falsehoods.




gipper said:


> You could learn so much from him, if you were capable of learning.


I prefer not to "learn" untrue things.  I'm a fact-oriented person.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Open Bolt said:


> Where would the B-29s take off from in order to carry out such a mission?


The B-29 had a two thousand seven hundred mile combat radius.   It's less than one thousand six hundred miles from Paris to Moscow or one thousand five hundred miles from Scapa Flow to Moscow.  Moscow was within easy range of hundreds of allied air bases.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> allowing the Soviets to enter the Pacific War was a huge mistake.


As if we were somehow in charge of whether the Soviets entered the war?




mikegriffith1 said:


> Another myth that Hasegawa debunks is that Truman decided to nuke Japan because Japan rejected the Potsdam Declaration. Hasegawa points out that General Handy’s order to General Spaatz authorizing the use of nukes was given on July 25, the day before the Potsdam Declaration was released:
> It is important to note that Handy’s order to Spaatz, the only existing direct order to deploy atomic bombs against Japan, was given on July 25, the day before the Potsdam Proclamation was issued. The popular myth, artificially concocted by Truman and Stimson themselves and widely believed in the United States, that Japan’s rejection of the Potsdam Proclamation led to the U.S. decision to drop the bomb, cannot be supported by the facts. Truman wrote that he issued the order to drop the bomb _after _Japan rejected the Potsdam Proclamation. The truth is quite the opposite. (_Racing the Enemy, _p. 152)​


Except, if Japan had immediately accepted the Potsdam Proclamation and surrendered, the war would then be over and no atomic bombs would have then been dropped.

Looking at it from hindsight though, it sure is a good thing that we were able to nuke Hiroshima before the end of the war.  We wouldn't be here right now if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them during the Cuban Missile Crisis.




mikegriffith1 said:


> This explains why Truman and Byrnes refused to clarify the emperor's status in the Potsdam Declaration. They did not want Japan to surrender until they had a chance to drop at least one or two nukes on Japan.


It explains nothing of the sort.  They refused to clarify the Emperor's status at that time because there was no reason to think that such clarification would have resulted in Japan surrendering.

If such clarification would have been all that stood in the way of surrender, then Japan would have requested such clarification, much as they attempted to do on August 10.




mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR began imposing increasingly harsh sanctions on Japan for doing the same thing that we, the French, the British, not to mention the Soviets, had been doing for decades.


The US had certainly not been perpetrating genocide on anyone.  I seriously doubt that France or the UK were doing so either.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Interestingly, even historian George Feifer, who wrote a labored, lengthy defense of the nuking of Hiroshima, conceded that a strong case can be made against the nuking of Nagasaki:
> A stronger case can be made against the second bomb [Nagasaki], especially its dropping so cruelly soon after the first. The Supreme War Council’s minutes reveal that Hiroshima’s destruction made no real dent in its thinking. After acknowledging that an awesome new weapon had caused it, the members essentially proceeded directly to their outstanding military concerns. Nevertheless, three days gave them too little time to assess the damage and the nature of the weapon that produced it, let alone to reflect on the larger consequences. (_The Battle of Okinawa: The Blood and the Bomb_, 2001, Kindle Edition, loc. 8979)​


People can be pretty goofy sometimes.

As if there was some kind of requirement that we pause between each blow to give the enemy time to rest and recover?




mikegriffith1 said:


> Feifer also conceded that Japan was practically prostrate before Truman nuked her:
> The country’s woeful condition before the bombs were dropped was hardly secret either. Virtually her entire merchant marine and Navy lay at the bottom of the Pacific, while America alone, without the Royal Navy, had 23 battleships, 99 carriers, and 72 cruisers on hand in August. The Imperial Navy’s corresponding numbers were one, six, and four—and it had fuel only enough to sustain a force of 20 operational destroyers and perhaps 40 submarines for a few days at sea. Nor was sufficient food available for civilians who showed their ration cards in the shops that stood still. Relentless saturation bombing, easier than ever with the new bases on Okinawa and the feeble opposition from Japanese interceptors, was leveling Japan’s cities.​The average adult existed on under 1,300 calories a day. As many as 13 million were homeless. Malaria and tuberculosis were rampant, especially in shantytowns rising in the urban ashes. Schoolchildren, barefoot in winter as well as summer, rooted out forest pine stumps for the war effort. The trees themselves were long gone. In Tokushima, home of many of the 6,000 troops lost on the _Toyoma Maru_, metal was so scarce that the bells of shrines were melted down, together with charcoal braziers, the sole source of heat for the remaining wood-and-paper homes. While huge numbers of Red Army troops mobilized to attack Manchuria—just as Tadashi Kojo had feared a year earlier, when his regiment was shipped from there to Okinawa—there was no hope of supplying the defenders even if the merchant fleet hadn’t been destroyed and the country’s industry wasn’t in shambles. Exhausted, slowly starving Japan was in no shape for further fighting. (Ibid., loc. 8862-8878)​


Except, Japan had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading forces.


----------



## Open Bolt

luchitociencia said:


> I'm not American born. And until right over my teens, I remember to heard in my country that the attack to Pearl Harbor was the culmination of several petitions of Japan for the US to stop the oil embargo.


If Japan had wanted our oil, they needed to stop using that oil to commit genocide.




luchitociencia said:


> What I heard was that while the war was in progress, the US and England decided to provoke Japan to get into the war.


I always hear that Japan provoked us into nuking them.




luchitociencia said:


> Japan was in need of oil to keep their fish industry in business but the oil was controlled by the allies before the end of the war and they denied their petitions.


Again, Japan needed to first stop committing genocide.




luchitociencia said:


> This version I heard in my teens "justifies" the desperate resolution of Japan to attack the US base near their island.


The version I hear says that Japan's atrocities provide justification for nuking them.

Pearl Harbor was near Japan's island (presumably meaning Honshu)??


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Yes, FDR did all he could to incite Japan to attack. He imposed draconian sanctions and absurd demands on Japan, like demanding their leave China before oil would be released. He knew Japan couldn’t meet his demands. He then refused to even meet with Japan’s envoys in Washington, who tried on multiple occasions to appease FDR.


You sure are outraged that FDR took such a strong stand against Japan's genocide.




gipper said:


> He also knew the Japanese fleet was steaming to Pearl Harbor, since their naval communications code was broken by the US. He refused to warn commanders and then scapegoated them after the attack. He did get the carriers out, but sacrificed the sailors left in the harbor. (Clearly FDR was a psychopath).


Fake news.




gipper said:


> Mass murdering defenseless civilians can’t ever be considered defensible. It was a war crime for which no one paid a price.


Attacks on military targets are neither murder nor war crimes.

An example of war crimes are Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Hasegawa hits the nail on the head when he makes the case that Truman and Byrnes used the Potsdam Declaration as their excuse for nuking Japan, that they refused to include an assurance about the emperor’s status in the declaration precisely because they feared that such an assurance would induce the Japanese to surrender before the nukes could be dropped:


Hardly.  The reason why they left that part out was because they knew that Japan would still refuse to surrender.

And if such clarification had been the only obstacle to surrender, Japan would have sought such clarification right then, just as they later did on August 10.




mikegriffith1 said:


> In order to drop the bomb, the United States had to issue the ultimatum to Japan. . . . And this ultimatum had to be rejected by the Japanese in order to justify the use of the atomic bomb. The best way to accomplish all this was to insist upon unconditional surrender. . . .​


Except, the Potsdam Proclamation abandoned unconditional surrender and gave Japan a list of generous surrender terms.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Hasegawa also points out that Truman and Byrnes’ decision not to ask the Soviets to sign the Potsdam Declaration, even though they knew the Soviets wanted and expected to be included in any such proclamation, was a further guarantee that Japan would not accept it:
> The omission of Stalin’s signature from the Potsdam Proclamation had a profound effect on Japanese policy. The Japanese immediately noticed that Stalin did not sign the proclamation. This prompted them to continue their efforts to terminate the war through Soviet mediation rather than immediately accepting the conditions stipulated by the Potsdam Proclamation. (p. 162)​As Truman and Byrnes knew, Stalin’s signature on the Potsdam Declaration might have caused the Japanese to either accept the Potsdam terms or to open direct negotiations with America.


Truman and Byrnes knew that making the Soviets party to the Potsdam Proclamation would give the Soviets input into the terms offered, and the Soviets would have made the terms harsher so as to make Japan less likely to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> These facts belie the story that Truman and Byrnes wanted to avoid Soviet entry into the war at all costs.


True.  Should the war have progressed to the point of us invading Japan, we wanted the Soviets to help us with that invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> They were more determined to avoid an early Japanese surrender so they could nuke Japan than they were to keep the Soviets from entering the war.


No.

They were determined to make Japan surrender.  Both the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war were intended to help make Japan surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> As Hasegawa notes,
> But the question remains: If Byrnes’ overriding concern was Soviet expansion in China, why did he not accept Stimson’s recommendation to forestall Soviet entry into the war?​


No such recommendation.

Stimson knew very well that the US had no control over when (or if) the Soviets entered the war.




mikegriffith1 said:


> From the Magic intercepts, he was well aware that dropping the demand for unconditional surrender and ensuring the continuation of a constitutional monarchy under the current dynasty [i.e., promising not to depose the emperor] might quicken Japanese surrender. More important, he also knew that any ultimatum that insisted upon unconditional surrender would be rejected by Japan. (p. 158)​


I guess that is maybe why the Potsdam Proclamation abandoned unconditional surrender and offered Japan a list of generous surrender terms.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> No, you read facts that you could not bring yourself to process.


No facts.  So far much of what you've been posting has been untrue.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If any version is "revisionist," it is the Stimson version,


Hardly.  Stimson's version is historically accurate.




mikegriffith1 said:


> the Stimson version, which every nuke defense since then has used as its starting point.


My defense of the atomic bombings certainly doesn't rely on it.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with Stimson's published defense, but I prefer to focus much more on the reality that there is absolutely nothing wrong with bombing enemy military targets during wartime.

I agree with Stimson that the invasion would have been a horrific bloodbath.  I just don't rely on this fact in my arguments.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Stimson didn't even write most of it.


So what?




mikegriffith1 said:


> Why do you suppose that the vast majority of scholars who specialize in Japan's surrender disagree with you?


That isn't even remotely true.

But your use of appeal to authority fallacies shows that your position is crumbling.  People don't resort to logical fallacies when they have a sound argument to rely on.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Your uncle did not know that the Japanese had been ready to surrender weeks earlier,


Wise uncle.

Japan was still refusing to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> that Truman and his cronies knew this,


Truman knew that Japan was still refusing to surrender.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and that Japan would have surrendered in a matter of days after the Soviets entered the Pacific War, without our dropping any nukes or any other kind of bomb.


Monday morning quarterbacking.

Thank God Hiroshima was nuked though, or otherwise it would not have restrained the US and USSR from nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And the surrender might not have gone forward if not for that last conventional bombing raid on August 14.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> You sure are outraged that FDR took such a strong stand against Japan's genocide.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> Attacks on military targets are neither murder nor war crimes.
> 
> An example of war crimes are Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March.


No one’s reading your dumb posts Open Dolt.


----------



## Mushroom

luchitociencia said:


> I'm not American born. And until right over my teens, I remember to heard in my country that the attack to Pearl Harbor was the culmination of several petitions of Japan for the US to stop the oil embargo.



Nope.

Japan started making plans to start the war in January 1941.  The Oil Embargo was not until 1 August, at the same time the final plans for starting the war were being drafted.



luchitociencia said:


> What I heard was that while the war was in progress, the US and England decided to provoke Japan to get into the war.
> 
> This version I heard in my teens "justifies" the desperate resolution of Japan to attack the US base near their island.
> 
> By the way, do you know why the US government decided to put in concentration camps to Japanese people regardless of age and sex?



Yes, Japan has been pretty good about denying their own culpability in the war.  Denying Unit 731, denying the Comfort Women.  Denying the slaves made from conquered territories, denying their own soldiers slaughtering civilians on Okinawa, denying ordering civilians to kill themselves rather than being captured.

Even denying their own Ni-Go and F-Go atomic bomb programs.

But what in the hell did the UK do to deserve to be attacked?  They had already been involved in a desperate war with Germany since 1939, and had cut off all trade because of the threat of U-boats and the need of things themselves.  What shipping they had in operation was solely dedicated to supplying England with what it needed.  They had neither the interest or need to do any form of trade with Japan.  If that is the claim, it is a silly one.  And the blame for the end of trade is not with the UK but with Germany.

And the US did not put in concentration camps all that were Japanese.  Only those living in the "Exclusion Area".







Live in the exclusion area, you were relocated.  Live outside the exclusion area, and you were fine.  Oh, and it was not just Japanese.  Germans and Italians were placed in camps also.  Largely because of lessons of the First World War.  Where German Nationals did massive damage to two US Navy bases in the US.  One in California, the other in New York.  They wanted all who might be a threat moved inland, away from the large military bases (especially naval bases).

Of course, most "Japanese history" also tries to justify the millions slaughtered in China as justified.  And denied such horrors as the Rape of Nanking.  Or that the "Contest to behead 100 people with a sword" as an Allied fabrication.  That is, until a Japanese professor trying to prove it never happened actually uncovered proof that it did, and was widely reported in Japanese newspapers of the time.


----------



## P@triot

AZrailwhale said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about on any of those issues.


He literally has no idea what he’s talking about on _anything_. You should see his bat-shit crazy rambling in other threads.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> No one’s reading your dumb posts Open Dolt.


Why? Is your vagina hurting you too much today to read?

There is nothing worse than pussies who would rather surrender (or sit by and watch atrocities) because they are too scared to fight.


----------



## P@triot

mikegriffith1 said:


> Good grief! I've already refuted this nonsense.


The _only_ thing you’ve “refuted” is credibility about your sanity.


mikegriffith1 said:


> I posted a detailed review of Japan's peace feelers and noted that the emperor, two foreign ministers, senior military officers, and others approved of peace feelers through third parties.


“Feelers” *isn’t* surrender, clown. Japan was still fighting and killing.


mikegriffith1 said:


> I've also pointed out that we knew in July, from intercepts and other sources, that the emperor himself wanted to end the war and that the only issue, *the only concern, was his status* in a surrender.


So his ego got him nuked? Good! Should have had the humility to actually surrender.


----------



## P@triot

Open Bolt said:


> Japan provoked the US into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


   

Japan earned nuclear bombings the moment they bombed Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Nothing but war propaganda to justify mass murder.


No propaganda.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed military targets.

And attacks on military targets are not murder.




gipper said:


> They tried to surrender several times.


No they didn't.




gipper said:


> Dirty Harry told them to fuck off die.


Fake news.




gipper said:


> You can never justify massacring defenseless civilians.


But you can always justify attacking military targets.




gipper said:


> No one’s reading your dumb posts Open Dolt.


Childish insults will not change the fact that the atomic bombs were proper and justified attacks against military targets.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> No, it has not.


That is incorrect.  It has indeed been proven that Japan only offered to surrender after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Unkotare said:


> Overtures to surrender were floated even before the Yalta Conference. The scumbag fdr ordered that they be ignored. As a result, many many more American servicemen died before his lackey could finally use their new toy to incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians, as he had wanted more than anything.


Fake news.  Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Unkotare said:


> Invasion was NOT the only other option against an already-defeated foe.


The fact remains, if Japan was still refusing to surrender on the day that we were finally ready to invade, then we were going to invade.




Unkotare said:


> MacArthur informed fdr in significant detail before the Yalta Conference that overtures to surrender were being proffered, but fdr ordered him to ignore them. This is well before Okinawa. The scumbag fdr wanted blood and he would have it; American as well as Japanese.


Fake news.  Never happened.


----------



## Open Bolt

Kilroy2 said:


> then again if the US had been a little less aggressive and allow the Japanese to save face then who knows a peace treaty might have been reached with the killing of immoral act of killing civilians


We were less aggressive, and we did allow them to save face.  The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender terms.

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets by the way.




Kilroy2 said:


> then the US could save face instead of arguing among themselves as what was the best way to end the war


We did not lose face.  Progressives just oppose our use of the atomic bombs because they hate America.


----------



## Open Bolt

the other mike said:


> Anyone defending our nuking of Hiroshima or Nagasaki has no soul.


We were at war and we had every right to attack military targets.




the other mike said:


> Even if we had dropped Little Boy directly on Hitler, it wouldn't have justified killing the 150,000 people around him would it ?


Why not?


----------



## Open Bolt

Pumpkin Row said:


> Well, firstly, Japan had already surrendered before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the United States refused that surrender and dropped not one, but two nukes.


Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Pumpkin Row said:


> Secondly, those were civilians, not "enemies". They were random people, going about their own lives, no say in the war, no say in the surrender terms. These were cities, not military bases.


Both atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.




Pumpkin Row said:


> the Japanese GOVERNMENT wanted to stay in power, which was their condition,


Actually what Japan requested was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Needless to say, we refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




Pumpkin Row said:


> all those people that the US Government murdered with an atomic bomb had nothing to do with it. All they did was murder 7000 people they saw as nothing more than tax cattle, much like how the US Government views you.


Attacks on military targets are not murder.




Pumpkin Row said:


> Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.


No need to pretend.  Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Pumpkin Row said:


> So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians?


Hiroshima was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.  It also held tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.

Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki were part of Japan's war industry.




Pumpkin Row said:


> Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.


Attacks on military targets are not murder.




Pumpkin Row said:


> "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.
> No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands.


Attacks on military targets are still not murder.


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> Even if true, that still doesn't make the bombing necessary or moral.


Japan was still refusing to surrender and we had every right to keep attacking military targets.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> the Japanese only decided to attack Pearl Harbor after FDR had imposed draconian sanctions on them that would have caused the collapse of Japan's economy if Japan did not find other sources of oil and other raw materials--and even then Japan only attacked after FDR had rejected every Japanese peace proposal.


If Japan had wanted to keep buying our stuff, then they shouldn't have been using that stuff to commit genocide.




mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR provoked Japan to attack so he could save the Soviet Union and have an excuse to enter WW II.


Japan provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.




mikegriffith1 said:


> They were practically defenseless.


Except for those millions of troops and thousands of kamikazes waiting to greet our invasion.




mikegriffith1 said:


> More of your militarist propaganda.


RetiredGySgt is offering facts.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The army unit was on the outskirts of the city


No it wasn't.  It was right in the center.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and was a garrison HQ unit, with no fortifications. You say you were a Gunnery Sergeant--then you know what a garrison unit is. A garrison unit is a unit that is not in combat status. Furthermore, those troops were mostly reservists and supply troops.


43,000 soldiers is quite a garrison.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If we wanted to bomb the garrison unit, we could have easily done so with conventional bombing and without damaging the city,


Carpet-bombing with conventional weapons also destroyed cities.

And a massive conventional raid would have inspired the troops to take cover and survive.  The atomic bomb caught them out in the open and killed them.




mikegriffith1 said:


> but the nuke was aimed at the center of the city.


Which is right where the military headquarters was and where the thousands of troops were.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And I notice that neither you nor MaryL addressed the point that three days was far too soon to drop another atomic bomb on Japan, not to mention that we knew that Japan's largest Christian community lived in Nagasaki.


Said point is nonsense.  There is no requirement that we allow the enemy to rest and recover between each blow.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> Indeed, if we were really so worried about the small garrison HQ unit that was stationed on the outskirts of Hiroshima,


43,000 soldiers is a pretty large garrison unit.  And the garrison unit was in the center of the Hiroshima.




mikegriffith1 said:


> we could have easily bombed it with conventional bombers.


Setting aside the fact that carpet-bombing also destroyed cities, a large conventional raid would have inspired the soldiers to take shelter and far fewer would have been killed.

But even if destroying the city with a conventional raid had been a viable option, so what?  The nuke did just fine.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Furthermore, the nuke was aimed at the center of the city, which is why the army compound suffered minimal damage compared to the city, and why so many of the soldiers there survived.


The destruction of the military headquarters was total.  And most of the enemy soldiers were killed.

Aiming the nuke in the center of the city where the military facilities were is the reason why the military damage was so extensive.




mikegriffith1 said:


> If that garrison unit made Hiroshima a "military target," then just about every major city in America is a "military target" because every major American city has national guard units and several units of reservists.


Hiroshima had more Japanese soldiers than any city other than Tokyo.

Hiroshima had the highest soldier/civilian ratio of any major Japanese city.

Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And they just keep repeating myths that have been soundly debunked in this thread.


Facts are not myths, and you have not debunked any.




mikegriffith1 said:


> And let's not forget, as historian John Dower points out, that Truman approved a massive conventional bombing raid on Japan _five days after Nagasaki and after we knew Japan was going to surrender:_
> Even after the Japanese government clearly indicated its intention to surrender, the United States chose to send a massive final bombing mission over Tokyo on August 14, killing and injuring additional thousands of civilians. (_History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for_ _the American Past_, p. 86)​


Japan had not clearly indicated its willingness to surrender when the raid was approved.

And the surrender might never have happened if not for that bombing raid.




mikegriffith1 said:


> A true patriot does not find it necessary to defend war crimes ordered by the corrupt and immoral Truman administration.


No such war crimes, no such corruption, and no such immorality.


----------



## Mushroom

P@triot said:


> Japan earned nuclear bombings the moment they bombed Pearl Harbor.



Actually, I can give them a pass there as that was a legitimate military target.

The slaughter of civilians on Guam?  The Bataan Death March?  Unit 731?  Comfort Women?  Slaughtering their own civilians just in the event they might surrender?  The Rape of Nanking?  For all that and even more I do agree with that, as none of those were "military" at all.  But their twisted form of Bushido that gave them the idea that they could do anything they wanted, and the lives of nobody else mattered.

Funny how those that cry the most never seem to bring up those incidents.  Like how they will scream about "innocent civilians" living near the largest shipyard and a major military command, but ignore around 8 million Chinese civilians slaughtered.  And I mean that literally, as the IJA actually made it a game of killing civilians just for sport.

Just as the same ones will cry about the "US Concentration Camps".  Compare those to the conditions that the Japanese put civilians in during the war.  Where rape, starvation, beatings, and death at the whim of a pissed off guard were the norm.  Not to mention actual cannibalism.  I have never heard of Americans beating, torturing, raping, killing, or eating the Japanese, Italians, and Germans that were interred.  Nor of the incredible death rates even close to that of the civilians the Japanese held.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
> By Walter Trohan





Unkotare said:


> Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
> By Walter Trohan





Unkotare said:


> Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
> By Walter Trohan





Unkotare said:


> Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
> By Walter Trohan


Fake news.  Never happened.

I mean, yes that article was unfortunately published.

But everything that the article says is untrue.




Unkotare said:


> Always. The unnecessary slaughter of civilians doesn't bother you, does it? Neither one bothered the fucking scumbag fdr, that's for damn sure.


The slaughter was necessary.

Without the example of Hiroshima to deter them, the US and USSR would not have made it out of the Cuban Missile Crisis without killing off the human race.




Unkotare said:


> The war could have ended in any number of ways with a surrender and without the incineration of hundreds of thousands of women, children, and the elderly.


And humanity would have gone extinct by the end of 1962 without the example of Hiroshima to restrain the US and USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.




Unkotare said:


> The terms of surrender being floated - terms that MacArthur informed fdr about in a 40 page letter before that old son of a bitch left for Yalta - outlined terms for surrender that turned out to be exactly the same terms that truman ultimately accepted after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians. This was well before Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Just think how many American servicemen might not have had to die in those terrible battles.


Except, that never happened.  Japan didn't offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Just think of all the people who are alive today because we had the example of Hiroshima to deter the US and USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.




Unkotare said:


> Only two atom bombs existed at the time,


Japan was just a few days away from getting hit with a third atomic bomb when they surrendered.


----------



## Open Bolt

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, if there was a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia or China, it would end civilization as we know it.   They've estimated that even if Pakistan and India had a nuclear war with their relatively small arsenals,  it would result in 2 billion deaths and the collapse of the world economy.


Just think how the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out without the example of Hiroshima to restrain the US and USSR.


----------



## Open Bolt

Silver Cat said:


> And what about 2025?
> History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "


If the US and Japan are involved in a nuclear war in 2025, they will be fighting on the same side.




Silver Cat said:


> May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.


A nuclear war in 2025 (that involves the US) would probably result in the use of hundreds or even thousands of nuclear weapons.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> By summer 1945, they were defenseless. This is why the US air forces could daylight bomb with impunity. They had no air defenses. This means they were defenseless


That is incorrect.  Japan had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading forces.




gipper said:


> They only asked that the emperor not be harmed.


Japan did not ask this until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

And actually, no.  That isn't what Japan asked.  They asked that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Needless to say we refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.


----------



## Pogo

Open Bolt said:


> Facts should never be dismissed.


Nor should entire contexts from THREE FUCKING YEARS AGO when whatever this aged topic was about appeared.  What, you think I've been sitting here for three years waiting for some feedback on a topic I don't even remember on a site I don't even use any more?  You must be from the Special Bus.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> We would have had plenty more atomic bombs come off the assembly line had the war continued.



The expected rate of production was 2 per month until the end of 1945, increasing to 10-15 per month by the end of 1946.  And most of those would have been of the Fat Man type implosion device, as plutonium was easier to produce than refining uranium.

And this was even taken into account, as most of Operation Olympic was to use 1-3 bombs just prior to landing.  In addition to the use of bombs strategically on more major mainland cities.  But one of the last targets prior to Operation Coronet would have been nuking Tokyo.  That would have been roughly March 1946, and it was understood that if they had not surrendered by then, there was no more reason to try and keep the Emperor alive.


----------



## Open Bolt

Mushroom said:


> And most of those would have been of the Fat Man type implosion device, as plutonium was easier to produce than refining uranium.


All of them would have been implosion.  You could get 3-4 implosion bombs with the amount of uranium that it took for one gun type bomb.

They built Little Boy in case implosion didn't work.  They decided to use Little Boy instead of recasting the uranium into multiple implosion cores because it would take too long to recast the uranium.  But future uranium would have been made directly into implosion cores instead of being wasted on gun-type bombs.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> All of them would have been implosion. You could get 3-4 implosion bombs with the amount of uranium that it took for one gun type bomb.



No, because we were still producing uranium, and it is believed that of the first few dozen bombs built, 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 would have been shotgun style Little Boy weapons.

The large-scale conversion from shotgun to implosion largely came after the war was over, and even our uranium bombs were converted to implosion devices for the most part.  But in the event WWII had continued, we would have continued with those two tested and working designs.

The large increase in stockpiles came in the 1950s, once the research was done to increase our outputs of both Uranium and Plutonium.  But in a "WWII to 1946+" scenario, this would not have happened until later.

It must be remembered, obtaining bomb grade uranium is fairly straightforward, if slow.  With implosion bombs, you have to still refine it to a degree, then do the step to convert it to plutonium.  And we already had operational GD facilities.  Those would not have shut down, and in many ways a shotgun bomb is still easier, faster, and more reliable than an implosion device.


----------



## Open Bolt

Mushroom said:


> 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 would have been shotgun style Little Boy weapons.


That would have been criminally wasteful.  Each gun type bomb consumed enough uranium to power 4 implosion type bombs.

Note:
_"4. The final components of the first gun type bomb have arrived at Tinian, those of the first implosion type should leave San Francisco by airplane early on 30 July. I see no reason to change our previous readiness predictions on the first three bombs. In September, we should have three or four bombs. One of these will be made from 235 material and will have a smaller effectiveness, about two-thirds that of the test type, but by November, we should be able to bring this up to full power. There should be either four or three bombs in October, one of the lesser size. In November, there should be at least five bombs and the rate will rise to seven in December and increase decidedly in early 1946. By some time in November, we should have the effectiveness of the *235 implosion type bomb* equal to that of the tested plutonium implosion type."_





__





						Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Bomb Production Schedule, July 30, 1945
					

The Manhattan Project could make atomic bombs at an ever-increasing rate



					www.dannen.com
				





			https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/45.pdf


----------



## elektra

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, sad events in World War II, the responsibility for their destruction rests squarely on the Japanese. From the Japanese mother packing fuses in bombs to her Japanese husband off to his job as prison guard tormenting Anerican prisoners, to the leadership in Tokoyo, the blame for destroying Nagasaki and Hiroshima only rests in the hands of the entirety of the Japanese people.


2 bombs, our two biggest bombs, ended the war. Nothing evil or murderous, simply two bombs.

If I was president I would of prayed to develop at least one earlier, to drop on Germany. 

War is hell, a hell that must be fought, a hell that progressively gets worst the longer War continues. 

20th century War certainly lived up to the  hype and displayed our technological advances as only a War can.

I thank all the Americans still living that fought that war, this nemorial day I will take my boys to shake their hands, the very few of which are still alive.


----------



## gipper

P@triot Open Bolt Mushroom 

At least the war criminals McNamara and LeMay aren’t as dumb as you guys. 

Chris Hedges: The Lie of American Innocence​Our hypocrisy on war crimes makes a rules-based world, one that abides by international law, impossible.​by  Chris Hedges

_Civilians in every war since have been considered legitimate targets. In the summer of 1965, then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara called the bombing raids north of Saigon that left hundreds of thousands of dead an effective means of communication with the government in Hanoi. *McNamara, six years before he died, unlike most war criminals, had the capacity for self-reflection. Interviewed in the documentary, “The Fog of War,” he was repentant, not only about targeting Vietnamese civilians but about the aerial targeting of civilians in Japan in World War II, overseen by Air Force General Curtis LeMay.*

“*LeMay said if we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals,” McNamara said in the film. “And I think he’s right…LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose, and not immoral if you win?”*

LeMay, later head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, would go on to drop tons of napalm and firebombs on civilian targets in Korea which, by his own estimate, killed 20 percent of the population over a three-year period.
Chris Hedges: The Lie of American Innocence_


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> P@triot Open Bolt Mushroom
> 
> At least the war criminals McNamara and LeMay aren’t as dumb as you guys.
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Lie of American Innocence​Our hypocrisy on war crimes makes a rules-based world, one that abides by international law, impossible.​by  Chris Hedges
> 
> _Civilians in every war since have been considered legitimate targets. In the summer of 1965, then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara called the bombing raids north of Saigon that left hundreds of thousands of dead an effective means of communication with the government in Hanoi. *McNamara, six years before he died, unlike most war criminals, had the capacity for self-reflection. Interviewed in the documentary, “The Fog of War,” he was repentant, not only about targeting Vietnamese civilians but about the aerial targeting of civilians in Japan in World War II, overseen by Air Force General Curtis LeMay.*
> 
> “*LeMay said if we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals,” McNamara said in the film. “And I think he’s right…LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose, and not immoral if you win?”*
> 
> LeMay, later head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, would go on to drop tons of napalm and firebombs on civilian targets in Korea which, by his own estimate, killed 20 percent of the population over a three-year period.
> Chris Hedges: The Lie of American In_



Chris Hedges is a lousy reporter and a worst person. A plagerist, fired, good for nothing person.


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> Chris Hedges is a lousy reporter and a worst person. A plagerist, fired, good for nothing person.


Typical.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> Typical.


Ya we shoulda just let the Germans have  Europe and Russia right? And we should have let North Korea have South Korea Right? You are a MORON incapable of independent thought.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya we shoulda just let the Germans have  Europe and Russia right? And we should have let North Korea have South Korea Right? You are a MORON incapable of independent thought.


Typical ignorance of a statist warmongering dupe.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Typical.


I know, very typical of revisionists, plagiarism and then they are fired


----------



## gipper

elektra said:


> I know, very typical of revisionists, plagiarism and then they are fired


Says the guy who believes the lying government.


----------



## elektra

gipper said:


> Says the guy who believes the lying government.


There is much to believe and not to believe, this one is easy when all you can cite is has been hacks. 

I actually wish you had more to offer, that is what makes things interesting. But when you link to the obvious idiots then all you deserve is scorn.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> At least the war criminals McNamara and LeMay aren’t as dumb as you guys.


Attacks on military targets are not war crimes.  Telling the truth is not dumb.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> We were fighting a foreign military, not women, children and the elderly; not unarmed civilians.


That's why we dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.




Unkotare said:


> So, over 100,000 civilians in a civilian city


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.




Unkotare said:


> was 'revenge' for a military attack on a military base that wasn't even in the United States? Can you find a military or political leader of the day who expressed the notion that it was an act of revenge? As for dropping a second atom bomb on behalf of other nations, good luck finding any shred of evidence that our motivation was thus?


The motivation for dropping the atomic bombs was the hope that doing so would further the cause of making Japan surrender to us.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> The bombs never should have been dropped. Just accept their surrender and go home. Imagine the thousands of lives saved on both sides,  had that been done.


That would have cost the entire human race once the US and USSR got to the Cuban Missile Crisis without the example of Hiroshima to deter them from launching all their nukes at each other.




gipper said:


> They tried to surrender many times.


That is incorrect.  Japan did not try to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




gipper said:


> You seem to think the Japanese people deserved it for the minor event that was Pearl Harbor. Most warlike of you.


If minor events are no big deal to you, then why are you complaining about the minor events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?




gipper said:


> The wanton massacring of civilians is a war crime.


That's why we dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.




gipper said:


> By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor. Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


That is incorrect.  Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Their post-atomic-bomb condition was a request that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Truman did not agree, and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




gipper said:


> That’s as I thought. Americans like you believe mass murdering Japanese civilians by the hundreds of thousands was warranted because the Imperial Japanese government, of which the Japanese people had no control, attacked Pearl Harbor killing about 2000 US servicemen.


Attacks on military targets are not murder.

And while Pearl Harbor was unforgivable, don't forget the Bataan Death March.


----------



## DudleySmith

Open Bolt said:


> And while Pearl Harbor was unforgivable, don't forget the Bataan Death March.



Gipper and and the feces fetishist hate the U.S. and think the wrong people won both world wars, is all.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> No, they didn't.


Actually yes they did.  Japan outright rejected the Potsdam Proclamation.




Unkotare said:


> The "condition" in question was the retention of the emperor.


That was only asked for after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

And what they asked for was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.




Unkotare said:


> The "conditions" were _*exactly*_ those that Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians and subjecting many, many more to radiation poisoning.


Mr. Truman certainly did not agree.  He told Japan that Hirohito was going to be subordinate to MacArthur.




Unkotare said:


> If the scumbag fdr weren't dead set on basking in the sea of civilian blood he had so long dreamed of, an end to the war might have been negotiated before the loss of American life at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the slaughter of an unconscionable number of civilians.


Except, it was Japan, not FDR or Truman, who needlessly prolonged the war.




gipper said:


> This is something most Americans just can’t accept, even though it’s true.


Well, that's because it isn't true.




gipper said:


> It’s been proven a thousand times, but you aren’t man enough to accept it. I get it.


Your falsehoods have never been proven.

It isn't even possible to prove a falsehood.




gipper said:


> The truth is hardly anti American.


The trouble is, there is nothing true in what you say.




gipper said:


> Besides why are you proud of your government for committing history’s greatest war crime?


Bombing military targets is in no way a war crime.




gipper said:


> Why would you support the mass murdering of defenseless civilians?


Wartime strikes on military targets are not murder.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> That wasn’t merely hindsight. Eisenhower made the same argument in 1945.


Ike's 1945 opposition was pretty feeble.

Ike only voiced his opposition to a single person (his immediate superior Stimson).

Ike only voiced his opposition to Stimson on July 27, after the final orders to drop the atomic bombs had already been sent out to the military and Stimson had left the Potsdam conference to head back to Washington.  Stimson was not back in the same room with Truman until after Hiroshima had already been bombed, so even if Ike had managed to be convincing, he was too late to stop the bombing of Hiroshima.

Ike was spectacularly unconvincing.  By Ike's own account, Stimson all but called him an idiot.


----------



## Open Bolt

LA RAM FAN said:


> Our real history and the real truth is that fdr provoked the Japanese to attack us.


That's OK.  Japan balanced it out by provoking the US into dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## Open Bolt

JoeB131 said:


> We didn't have a fifth bomb or a fourth bomb.


Atomic bomb number three was only a few days away from being dropped when Japan surrendered.

Had the war continued, we would have had atomic bombs number four, five, and six (maybe even seven) in September.

Numbers seven (if not already in September), eight, nine, and ten were due in October.

Atomic bombs number eleven through fifteen were due in November.

From December onward, atomic bomb production was really going to take off.




JoeB131 said:


> That was the point, we didn't have Bombs 3 and 4 until the END of 1945.


Bomb number three was only a few days away from being dropped when Japan surrendered.

Bomb number four would have been ready early in September.

After destroying Kokura Arsenal (and maybe hitting somewhere in Tokyo to give the Emperor a front row seat to a mushroom cloud) they were going to start saving up bombs and then use them all at once to clear the beaches when we invaded.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> I have quoted (many times) prominent US military leaders _of that time_ who said that the bomb was unnecessary and immaterial to ending the war. Are they "revisionist historians"?


Who cares if the atomic bombs were necessary or material??

Japan was refusing to surrender so we kept attacking them.




Unkotare said:


> If fdr were interested in protecting American lives he would have pursued the possibility of ending the war much sooner


Unfortunately there was no such possibility for him to pursue.




Unkotare said:


> rather than ignoring MacArthur's 40-page communique informing him of Japanese overtures toward ending the war (again, under the exact same terms that Truman eventually accepted anyway).


The trouble is, it is hard not to ignore imaginary things that have never existed.  Most people only pay attention to reality.




Unkotare said:


> = empty speculation


Not at all.  The facts just lead to a conclusion that you are wrong.




Unkotare said:


> We will never know what might have happened because fdr rejected any possibility of peace out of hand. He had no interest in peace and so all those American servicemen, and all those civilians in Japan were bound to die to satisfy another bloodthirsty leftist like all the rest throughout history.


Except, it was Japan, not FDR, who rejected any possibility of peace out of hand.




Unkotare said:


> Maybe nothing would have come from pursuing the many well-known overtures to an earlier peace, but we will never know.


Since the supposed overtures never existed, it can easily be concluded that nothing would ever come of them.




Unkotare said:


> He most certainly did.


No he didn't.




Unkotare said:


> MacArthur penned a 40-page letter to fdr himself outlining the peace overtures that he personally had learned of. This was even before Yalta. The scumbag fdr tossed it aside saying “_MacArthur_ is _our greatest general_ and our _poorest politician_.”  Human life - of American servicemen or civilians anywhere - meant nothing more to him than a political game piece.


Fake news.  Never happened.




Unkotare said:


> The terms sought were exactly the ones Truman eventually accepted anyway.


Except Japan didn't seek those terms until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

And Truman didn't accept them.  He refused to let Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power.




Unkotare said:


> Yes, that's right. The only term insisted upon as a deal-breaker was the retention of the emperor.


That offer came only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.  Before then Japan was refusing to surrender.

And what Japan insisted on was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.




Unkotare said:


> Guess what Truman agreed to


Not that.  Truman told Japan that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




Unkotare said:


> after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians anyway?


The atomic bombs were dropped before Japan made any surrender offers.

And they were dropped on military targets.




Unkotare said:


> The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of *key contemporary leaders in the US military*, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was *not a matter of military necessity*. *American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender* through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin.


Fake news.  Mr. Truman never received any such advice.

Also, US intelligence knew no such thing.  They had no idea what sort of game Japan was playing.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Dropping two a-bombs on a defenseless nation is a war crime.


Wartime strikes on military targets are not war crimes.  An example of a war crime is the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japan was far from defenseless.  They had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our guys when we invaded.




gipper said:


> If you had any intelligence, you would know why Truman did it and it wasn’t to end the war. The war was already over.


The war was not over.  Japan was still refusing to surrender when we dropped the atomic bombs on them.




gipper said:


> You’re not informed. The Japanese tried to surrender several times. All ignored by the blood thirsty FDR and Dirty Harry.


Fake news.  Never happened.

Japan didn't try to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




gipper said:


> Unconditional surrender resulted in thousands of needless deaths, thanks to the two assholes in the White House.


Unconditional surrender was dropped when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which was a list of generous surrender terms.




gipper said:


> Funny thing...after Truman mass murdered thousands of defenseless Japanese women and children with the two bombs,


Wartime strikes on military targets are not murder.  An example of murder would be the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.




gipper said:


> he agreed to the only condition Japan had asked for, that the US not hang Hirohito.


What Japan asked for after the atomic bombs were dropped was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Truman told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




gipper said:


> Take it from me, they tried several times to surrender.


Japan did not try to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




gipper said:


> It’s clear the Japanese wanted to surrender, well before the two bombs.


If that's true, then it was their bad for not actually doing so.




gipper said:


> Their only condition was the emperor. Truman refused and committed his war crime, then accepted their only condition.


Wartime strikes against military targets are not war crimes.  An example of a war crime is the peacetime attack against Pearl Harbor.

And no, Truman never agreed to let Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power.  He made Hirohito subordinate to MacArthur.




gipper said:


> These facts are undeniable.
> An intelligent person would question the use of the bombs based on these facts.


The trouble is, they are not facts.  And as falsehoods, it is actually quite easy to deny them.




gipper said:


> Even Secretary of War Henry Stimson, said: “the true question was not whether surrender could have been achieved without the use of the bomb but whether a different diplomatic and military course would have led to an earlier surrender. A large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on.” In other words, Stimson knew that the US had unnecessarily prolonged the war.


It was Japan that unnecessarily prolonged the war.  The US had no control over Japan's refusal to surrender.




gipper said:


> You’re not man enough to accept the truth.


The truth is Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.




gipper said:


> Imagine had the war ended early in 1945. Imagine the numbers of Americans who would have lived.


Actually that would have led to the extinction of the human race once the US and USSR got to the Cuban Missile Crisis without the example of Hiroshima to restrain them.




gipper said:


> In essence, this means your beloved FDR and Truman were traitors.


No it doesn't.  They had no control over the fact that Japan was refusing to surrender.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I have asked repeatedly for a link to this 40 page letter of Mac's he has never provided it. Nor any links to any supposed peace offers from the Big6


----------



## Open Bolt

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have asked repeatedly for a link to this 40 page letter of Mac's he has never provided it. Nor any links to any supposed peace offers from the Big6


The reason why no evidence of those things is ever provided is because those things never happened.


----------



## elektra

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have asked repeatedly for a link to this 40 page letter of Mac's he has never provided it. Nor any links to any supposed peace offers from the Big6


you must first attain the xrt 9000 alternative universe history shifter


----------



## DudleySmith

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have asked repeatedly for a link to this 40 page letter of Mac's he has never provided it. Nor any links to any supposed peace offers from the Big6



I've done several searches for that over the years, it's myth these tards keep parroting, since they all get their idiot theories from the same sources, but indeed never existed. The earliest references to it I can find on the web is from a article footnote in The Historical Review after a bunch of neo-Nazis took that journal over, and in literary sources from a bibliography in an old book by the John Birch Society, both appear to be false claims, the neo-Nazis were citing the John Bircher book as a source..


----------



## Unkotare

President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." 









						Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
					

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...




					origins.osu.edu


----------



## Unkotare

"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "


----------



## Unkotare

"
Contrary to popular belief, however, not all Pacific war veterans applaud the atomic annihilation of two Japanese cities. 

Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it." "


----------



## Unkotare

"Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." "


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


Proven false with Eisenhowers words, in this op, directly from books Eisenhower wrote


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> "Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." "


A rescue pilot heard, more bullshit. Where was this rescue pilot when 900 sailors died after the Indianapolis was sunk by the Japanese? 6 days before the 1st atom bomb is dropped 900 sailors are murdered by the Japanese and you call that defenseless?


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "


More fake history proven in this thread


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Proven false with Eisenhowers words, in this op, directly from books Eisenhower wrote


Some people have a real hard time with history that doesn't validate what they want to believe and have taken as certain since childhood.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> More fake history proven in this thread


Direct quote.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Some people have a real hard time with history that doesn't validate what they want to believe and have taken as certain since childhood.


Explain this problem you have


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Direct quote.


Still waiting for a link to that letter Mac Carther wrote....... Still waiting for a link to any actual offer by the big 6 before the atom bombs were dropped


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "


Halsey was 100% in agreement  with dropping the bomb

After the bombs were dropped, upon hearing that the Japanese were about to surrender, Halsey growled, "Have we enough fuel to turn around and hit the bastards once more before they quit".


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Explain this problem you have


I have no problem. History is what it is. Can't be afraid to look at it directly and challenge old narratives that may not turn out to be accurate after all.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Halsey was 100% in agreement  with dropping the bomb
> ...



Sure doesn't sound like it.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Sure doesn't sound like it.


After the bombs were dropped, upon hearing that the Japanese were about to surrender, Halsey growled, "Have we enough fuel to turn around and hit the bastards once more before they quit".

That is a stretch of your imagination


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Direct quote.


Yet, Halsey wanted to bomb Japan more, why?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> After the bombs were dropped, upon hearing that the Japanese were about to surrender, Halsey growled, "Have we enough fuel to turn around and hit the bastards once more before they quit".
> 
> That is a stretch of your imagination


I kindly included a direct quote previously.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "


That contradicts his earlier statement that by the end of the war, Japanese would only be spoken in hell.  And disregards the fact that the Japanese "peace feelers" came from individuals NOT part of the Japanese government who were not authorized to make offers to the allies.


----------



## Unkotare

DIRECT
QUOTE


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> I kindly included a direct quote previously.


You have not sourced any of your claim about peace offers ever. You can not link to the supposed letter Mac wrote and you can not link to any ACTUAL offers by the Big 6 prior to the bombs dropping.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> I kindly included a direct quote previously.


And I provided a direct quote where as, before the Japanese surrendered and after the to atomic bombs were dropped your authority, the Admiral you tell us should believed, Admiral Halsey stated in exact words, "turn around and bomb them again before they surrender".

Admiral Halsey was all in on destroying the Japanese until they surrendered. Admiral Halsey was bombing the living shit out of the Japanese.

Yes, link to your quote, let us see how long after the war and in what context Halsey said what you claim.

Your quote means nothing unless we know it's source, when it was made, and the context.

My quote comes from the Admiral's book


----------



## Unkotare

Go back and reread the DIRECT QUOTES as often as you like.


----------



## miketx

gipper said:


> Hilarious.


America hater.


----------



## gipper

miketx said:


> America hater.


Of course. Same old same old.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> On what planet?


On this planet.




mikegriffith1 said:


> By June 1945, the Japanese were entirely on the defensive, were nearing starvation levels of food, were essentially defenseless against air raids, and had no meaningful presence at sea.


Japan was still refusing to surrender, and they had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our guys when we invaded.




mikegriffith1 said:


> What makes Truman's decision all the more revolting is that he KNEW that even the emperor was ready to end the war as long as we would grant him the sole condition that he would not be deposed.


Mr. Truman knew no such thing.

The Emperor was not ready to end the war on those terms until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Before that, the Emperor was holding out for ending the war in a draw without surrendering.




mikegriffith1 said:


> That is downright macabre.


Not really.  It is good that we have a nuclear deterrent.




mikegriffith1 said:


> We could have demonstrated our nuclear bombs to the world without dropping them on defenseless civilian targets in a country whose civilian leaders were trying to end the war on reasonable terms.


We could have, and we did.

We did demonstrate our nuclear bombs to the world without dropping them on defenseless civilian targets in a country whose civilian leaders were trying to end the war on reasonable terms.

We demonstrated our nuclear bombs to the world by dropping them on military targets in a country that was refusing to surrender.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YET even after 2 atomic bombs AND a Soviet Invasion Japan did NOT surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> What an amazingly ignorant and dishonest argument.
Click to expand...

His argument is factually correct in all respects.

I realize that the truth is inconvenient for the left.  But the truth remains true anyway.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Some here probably know who General Telford Taylor was. He was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. In 1970, Taylor wrote that while the morality of Hiroshima was debatable, he knew of no credible justification for Nagasaki, and he said Nagasaki was a war crime:
> The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable, but I have never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki. It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes” (_Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, _Chicago: Quandrangle, 1970, p. 143; see also Richard Minear, _Victors’ Justice: Tokyo War Crimes Trial_, Princeton University Press, 1971, p. 101)


He was wrong.  Wartime attacks on military targets are not war crimes.

If you want an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.




mikegriffith1 said:


> What would you say if I told you that James Byrnes, Truman’s Japan-hating secretary of state, the author of the Byrnes Note, admitted after the war that the atomic bombs did not force Japan to surrender, that Japan was already beaten before they were nuked, and that this was evidenced by Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel?!


I'd shrug and say so what?  Their bad for not surrendering earlier.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Well, here’s how it happened: Some Japanese officials were claiming that they had had no choice but to surrender once they saw that America had nukes, and they implied that in a “fair” (i.e., conventional) fight, Japan would have defeated an American invasion of the home islands and forced America to sue for a negotiated peace.
> When Byrnes heard these claims, he held a press conference on August 29 to refute them. He told reporters that Japan was already beaten before we nuked them, and as proof he cited Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel that the Japanese knew they were beaten before Hiroshima. The next day, August 30, the _New York Times _printed a story on Byrnes’ remarks—the story was titled “Japan Beaten Before Atom Bomb, Byrnes Says, Citing Peace Bids.” Dr. Peter Kuznick discusses the _New York Times_ article on Byrnes’ comments:
> The _New York Times_ reported, “…Byrnes challenged today Japan’s argument that the atomic bomb had knocked her out of the war. He cited what he called Russian proof that the Japanese knew that they were beaten before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.” (The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative)


So what?  Their bad for not surrendering earlier.


----------



## Open Bolt

mikegriffith1 said:


> You can repeat a myth 1,000 times, but it will still be a myth.


You can deny reality 1,000 times, but it will still be reality.




mikegriffith1 said:


> This simplistic, disingenuous line that "yet they did not surrender" is as misleading and dishonest as the Southern Lost Cause line that "Lincoln did not abolish slavery until after the war."


The truth is always inconvenient to the left.  But no matter how much you squirm, there is nothing disingenuous or misleading or dishonest about the truth.

Japan did in fact refuse to surrender until after both atomic bombs were dropped on them.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The Japanese moderates, including the emperor, had been trying to end the war on terms acceptable to the U.S. since at least the end of June, and we know that Truman knew it.


That is incorrect.  Japan was trying to end the war in a draw without surrendering.  There was nothing about that that was acceptable to the US.




mikegriffith1 said:


> The moderates desperately needed Truman's help to overcome the hardliners' opposition, but instead Truman sabotaged the moderates' cause and enabled the hardliners to block surrender for weeks.


The hardliners did not need or receive help from Mr. Truman.  They were more than able to block surrender all on their own, and only the Emperor had the power to overrule them.

The Emperor was free to overrule them any time he wanted, and it was his choice to wait until after the atomic bombs had been dropped before he did so.




mikegriffith1 said:


> Only the Soviet entry into the war finally created a situation where the emperor could halt the war,


The Emperor was free to overrule the hardliners and surrender any time he wanted to.  It was his own choice to wait so long to do so.




mikegriffith1 said:


> and even then Byrnes' idiotic reply to the Japanese peace offer delayed the surrender by nearly 48 crucial hours and almost led to a continuation of the war.


There was nothing idiotic about Mr. Byrnes' reply.  We had no intention of letting Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Was William Leahy delusional? Was MacArthur? Eisenhower? Halsey?


Yes.




Unkotare said:


> If the bloodthirsty fdr had any interest in peace the war might well have been over long before either bomb, or before the terrible loss of American life on Iwo Jima and Okinawa for that matter. Like all leftists, human life meant nothing to fdr.


Except it was not FDR who prolonged the war.  Japan was free to surrender at any time.

It was Japan that prolonged the war by refusing to surrender.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Doesn’t matter.
> Why do you support the wanton cold blooded murdering of defenseless civilians?  Are you a psychopath?


The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.  Attacks on military targets are not murder.




gipper said:


> Dumb. Mass murdering defenseless civilians because their government bombed your military base, is the thinking of an adolescent.


No such mass murder.  The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

The peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor was a horrific war crime.  It more than justified our attacks on Japanese military targets.




gipper said:


> They tried to surrender numerous times but your bloodlust and hatred, forces your peanut sized brain to ignore reality.


Wrong.  Japan made no attempt to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped on them.




gipper said:


> Lol. See?  You refuse to accept the truth.


Nothing that you have said is true.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> Yes.
> 
> ....


Of course YOU know better than our country's leading military commanders of the day. Of course.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> 
> It was Japan that prolonged the war by refusing to surrender.


That is incorrect. This has been demonstrated here many times.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Japan made no attempt to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped on them.
> ...


Incorrect.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.  .....


But the vast, vast, vast majority of those killed were civilians? That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> That is incorrect.


The war was going to continue until Japan surrendered.

By putting off their first surrender offer until August 10, Japan prolonged the war until at least August 10.




Unkotare said:


> This has been demonstrated here many times.


I've gotten up through page 112 now, and so far no one has demonstrated that Japan offered to surrender before August 10.




Unkotare said:


> Incorrect.


The atomic bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9.

Japan's first surrender offer came on August 10.




Unkotare said:


> But the vast, vast, vast majority of those killed were civilians? That makes a lot of sense.


There was more military damage than just Japanese soldiers killed.  There was also the destruction of the military headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion, and the destruction of the factory that made the specialized torpedoes to defeat Pearl Harbor's natural defenses.

Any civilians that were killed were collateral damage.  They were not the target.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> The war was going to continue until Japan surrendered.
> ...


The war was going to continue until that POS fdr (finally through his stooge truman) got a chance to use his new toy on hundreds of thousands of civilians. That scumbag would never have settled for less.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> I've gotten up through page 112 now, and so far no one has demonstrated that Japan offered to surrender before August 10.
> 
> 
> 
> ....


Apparently, you don't read very carefully.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ....
> 
> 
> 
> There was more military damage than just Japanese soldiers killed.  There was also the destruction of the military headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion, .....


Willfully ignorant of history.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> .....
> 
> Any civilians that were killed were collateral damage.  They were not the target.


You should have more self respect than to post such a ridiculous lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Incorrect.


Then LINK to a credible source that lists where the BIG 6 offered surrender BEFORE the Atomic Bombs were dropped.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Apparently, you don't read very carefully.


YOU nor anyone else has LINKED to any such surrender offer by the GOVERNMENT of Japan.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Of course YOU know better than our country's leading military commanders of the day. Of course.


Well, yes.  I do.  But my agreement that they are delusional was not really a challenge to their claim that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bombs.

I agreed that they are delusional because I just think that their endless whining about it is pretty ridiculous.

If Japan would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bombs, then it was *Japan's* mistake for not having done so.

Japan was given plenty of opportunity to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

*Japan* was the one who decided to wait until August 10 to surrender.

If Japan had been ready to surrender before that, then waiting until August 10 to surrender was a massive screw up on *Japan's* part.




Unkotare said:


> The war was going to continue until that POS fdr (finally through his stooge truman) got a chance to use his new toy on hundreds of thousands of civilians. That scumbag would never have settled for less.


The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

FDR and Truman had no control over when Japan surrendered.

It was Japan that decided when they were going to surrender.

It was Japan that decided to wait until August 10 to surrender.

It is a good thing that Japan waited so long though.  The human race would be extinct today if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.




Unkotare said:


> Apparently, you don't read very carefully.


I read just fine.  Japan did not make any offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Unkotare said:


> Willfully ignorant of history.


The fact that I knew that Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion is the opposite of ignorance.




Unkotare said:


> You should have more self respect than to post such a ridiculous lie.


The truth is not a lie.  Hiroshima was bombed because it was a large military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers and held the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion.

The second atomic bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, a massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) factory complex that made Japan's light and heavy machine guns and 20mm antiaircraft guns, as well as all the ammo for those weapons.  Unfortunately it was diverted to the secondary target, the Mitsubishi shipyards, which made some of Japan's largest warships, and was then diverted even further.  But the second atomic bomb still managed to smash the factory that made the specialized torpedoes for defeating Pearl Harbor's defenses.


----------



## Open Bolt

LuckyDuck said:


> The initial plans were for military targets, however, as bombing in those days was strictly by sight only, and the weather wasn't cooperating, they had alternate designated targets if they couldn't hit the military ones.  The only thing I agree with, is that the US should have waited a bit longer to see if the Japanese would surrender.  Some of the Japanese generals wanted to keep fighting to the end, which would have cost thousands more American lives, had they not surrendered.


Why pause between blows and give the enemy a chance to recover??

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.  Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of soldiers and held the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion.

Nagasaki had the factory that made the specialized torpedoes designed to defeat Pearl Harbor's natural defenses.


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> Nuking Japan was poorly thought out


Not at all.  They did a good job of planning the missions.




there4eyeM said:


> and not really "necessary"


When we are at war with someone, we attack them.  That's how it works.




there4eyeM said:


> as if incinerating mere citizens ever could be


The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.




there4eyeM said:


> Many other ways to have handled the situation existed.


The way we handle going to war with someone is by attacking them.




there4eyeM said:


> One would have been to just go to the source of the problems and bomb Moscow, for example, if it were well and truly the intention to demonstrate power and determination.


Aside from the difficulty of reaching Moscow, there was the fact that it was Japan that we were at war with, not the Soviet Union.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> It’s ironic that Dirty Harry Truman, may he be burning in Hell for eternity, mass murdered all those defenseless Japanese women and children to impress Uncle Joe...when we know that Uncle Joe knew all about the bomb, before Dirty Harry knew.


Attacks on military targets are not murder.  The reason for the attacks was to make Japan surrender.




gipper said:


> So, Dirty Harry’s war crime was committed to impress Uncle Joe, but didn’t.


Wartime attacks on military targets are not a war crime.  For an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.

The reason for the attacks was to make Japan surrender.




gipper said:


> Do you really think this justifies the bombings?


What justifies the bombings is the mere fact that Japan was refusing to surrender.




gipper said:


> Has it ever occurred to you statists that we didn’t need to occupy Japan?


We would have had to if they had kept refusing to surrender.




gipper said:


> Accept their surrender and go home.


Japan was refusing to surrender.




gipper said:


> Before Truman’s war crime,


Wartime attacks on military targets are not war crimes.

For an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.




gipper said:


> Japan was a destroyed nation with no military. It posed no threat to us or anyone else.


They still had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading forces.




gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japs did it to themselves.
> They did it on Okinawa.  By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
> The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
> The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
> Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> Revisionist history. Dumb too.
Click to expand...

Not at all.  All of his facts are accurate.




gipper said:


> The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
> You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?


Sorry, but when someone goes around murdering Americans, they can expect to have to surrender to America's military.

If Japan didn't want us to invade them, then they shouldn't have been attacking us in the first place.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Open Bolt said:


> Attacks on military targets are not murder.  The reason for the attacks was to make Japan surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Wartime attacks on military targets are not a war crime.  For an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 
> The reason for the attacks was to make Japan surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> What justifies the bombings is the mere fact that Japan was refusing to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> We would have had to if they had kept refusing to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was refusing to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Wartime attacks on military targets are not war crimes.
> 
> For an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.
> 
> 
> 
> They still had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading forces.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  All of his facts are accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but when someone goes around murdering Americans, they can expect to have to surrender to America's military.
> 
> If Japan didn't want us to invade them, then they shouldn't have been attacking us in the first place.


They are so cowardly they ignore my requests for proof of their ignorant claims. Poop boy has NEVER once posted a link to support any of his claims he has posted a link to a newspaper article from the 60's that makes the same spurious claims he does but the article has no listed sources either.


----------



## Unkotare

You’re late to an argument that has already been lost.

Read the thread over and over if you want.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> You’re late to an argument that has already been lost.


That is incorrect.  Your denials of history do not win arguments.




Unkotare said:


> Read the thread over and over if you want.


Once will be enough.


----------



## Open Bolt

RetiredGySgt said:


> They are so cowardly they ignore my requests for proof of their ignorant claims.


No proof exists on account of their claims not being true to begin with.  The critics of the atomic bombings are simply denying history.


----------



## Concerned American

mikegriffith1 said:


> Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima


There was no strategic reason for dropping either bomb.  The US had the opportunity to test the bomb under real world circumstances and determine the long term effects on humans.  Nagasaki was just a continuation of the test.  The bombs used were of different configurations.  "Fat Boy" and "Little Man"  One bomb was bulbular while the other was long and narrow.  I would be interested in knowing which one was more effective if anyone has any research that has been made public.  The world knew that Japanese were defeated and the Diet was in session considering terms of surrender when the first bomb was dropped.


----------



## Concerned American

Bottom line.  It was a weapon that needed to be tested and demonstrated.  Second guessing 75 years later is useless.  War is hell.  If you don't want the atrocities of war--quit fighting.


----------



## Concerned American

Open Bolt said:


> Wartime attacks on military targets are not war crimes.
> 
> For an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.


Hiroshima was not a military target.  Ground zero was 60' above Hiroshima city hall, "The T bridge."  Pearl Harbor was a military base.  However, Pearl Harbor WAS a peace time sneak attack and was reprehensible.  Bombing a civilian population center with an atomic bomb was also reprehensible--War is hell.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Concerned American said:


> Hiroshima was not a military target.  Ground zero was 60' above Hiroshima city hall, "The T bridge."  Pearl Harbor was a military base.  However, Pearl Harbor WAS a peace time sneak attack and was reprehensible.  Bombing a civilian population center with an atomic bomb was also reprehensible--War is hell.


Simply NOT TRUE. The headquarters for defense of the Island was there. Further it had a manufacturing source,


----------



## Mac-7

Concerned American said:


> Hiroshima was not a military target.  Ground zero was 60' above Hiroshima city hall, "The T bridge."  Pearl Harbor was a military base.  However, Pearl Harbor WAS a peace time sneak attack and was reprehensible.  Bombing a civilian population center with an atomic bomb was also reprehensible--War is hell.


The atomic bomb ended japanese resistance and saved both American and japanese lives


----------



## Concerned American

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply NOT TRUE. The headquarters for defense of the Island was there. Further it had a manufacturing source,


By that logic, Seattle and SF and San Diego are fair targets, eh?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Concerned American said:


> By that logic, Seattle and SF and San Diego are fair targets, eh?


As ports yes they are,


----------



## Concerned American

Mac-7 said:


> saved both American and japanese lives


That is about as convoluted as you can get.  We'll save your life by killing you.  LMAO, do you think before you post?  Reminds me of what we said about an old recruiting ad--Join the Navy, see the world, meet new people----and kill them.


----------



## Concerned American

RetiredGySgt said:


> As ports yes they are,


So Hiroshima city hall (the target) is a port now?


----------



## Mac-7

Concerned American said:


> That is about as convoluted as you can get.  We'll save your life by killing you.  LMAO, do you think before you post?  Reminds me of what we said about an old recruiting ad--Join the Navy, see the world, meet new people----and kill them.


On every japanese held island the US invaded more japanese than Americens were killed

often by a ratio of 10 to 1

and estimates of US deaths invading Japan were hundreds of thousands


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Concerned American said:


> So Hiroshima city hall (the target) is a port now?


look dumb ass it was the headquarters of an entire ARMY


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply NOT TRUE. The headquarters for defense of the Island was there. Further it had a manufacturing source,


LOL talk about ignoring facts Poop boy disagrees with this statement.


----------



## Concerned American

Mac-7 said:


> On every japanese held island the US invaded more japanese than Americens were killed
> 
> often by a ratio of 10 to 1
> 
> and estimates of US deaths invading Japan were hundreds of thousands


Your argument would be valid if this had happened in 42 or 43 or 44, but it happened in 45 after all of those island campaigns were completed and Japan was on its knees.  It is well known through any history book that Japan was on the verge of surrender in Aug. of 1945.


----------



## Mac-7

Concerned American said:


> Your argument would be valid if this had happened in 42 or 43 or 44, but it happened in 45 after all of those island campaigns were completed and Japan was on its knees.  It is well known through any history book that Japan was on the verge of surrender in Aug. of 1945.


That may what revisionist lib historians choose to believe 75 years later 

but someone forgot to tell the japanese

they were willing to fight to the last man, woman and child if Hirohito told them to

and he didnt say otherwise till after the atomic bombs fell


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Concerned American said:


> Your argument would be valid if this had happened in 42 or 43 or 44, but it happened in 45 after all of those island campaigns were completed and Japan was on its knees.  It is well known through any history book that Japan was on the verge of surrender in Aug. of 1945.


No it is not ALL the Government of Japan ever offered was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines.


----------



## Concerned American

RetiredGySgt said:


> look dumb ass it was the headquarters of an entire ARMY


No sense in getting testy, gunny.  Again--the target was not the military base, it was the T-bridge at city hall.  That was a civilian target.  The point of the matter remains, it was an overkill that gave great insight to the use of the bomb.  It doesn't remove the fact that it was unnecessary.  As I said in a previous post, second guessing 75 years later does no good for anyone.  War sucks, there are winners and losers in any conflict.  It sucked to be Japan in Aug. 1945.


----------



## Concerned American

Mac-7 said:


> That may what revisionist lib historians choose to believe 75 years later


It is not revisionist, nor lib.  It is a fact.  Read _Hiroshima _by John Hershey. He was on the ground in Hiroshima while the ashes were still warm. I think you are taking this way too personally and you are either misinterpreting or not reading my previous posts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Concerned American said:


> It is not revisionist, nor lib.  It is a fact.  Read _Hiroshima _by John Hershey. He was on the ground in Hiroshima while the ashes were still warm. I think you are taking this way too personally and you are either misinterpreting or not reading my previous posts.


No one till the 70's started claiming the Japanese were trying to surrender. THE FACT is they never tried ALL they EVER offered was a return to 41 start lines everywhere but China and a cease fire.


----------



## Concerned American

RetiredGySgt said:


> No one till the 70's started claiming the Japanese were trying to surrender.


_Hiroshima, _John Hershey published 1946.


----------



## Mac-7

Concerned American said:


> It is not revisionist, nor lib.  It is a fact.  Read _Hiroshima _by John Hershey. He was on the ground in Hiroshima while the ashes were still warm. I think you are taking this way too personally and you are either misinterpreting or not reading my previous posts.


I should take it personally  because my father was part of the invasion force that was spared by the atomic bomb

if he didnt make it I would not be here today

there are always dissenting opinions and Hiroshima is no exception


----------



## Concerned American

Mac-7 said:


> I should take it personally  because my father was part of the invasion force that was spared by the atomic bomb
> 
> if he didnt make it I would not be here today
> 
> there are always dissenting opinions and Hiroshima is no exception


My dad was part of the occupation forces in 1950-1952.  I was born in Tokyo Army Hospital in Aug. 1951 and I returned 19 years later as a Marine stationed 30 miles south of Hiroshima at MCAS Iwakuni.  I think I might have a bit of personal knowledge of the events.  When were you there?


----------



## Mac-7

Concerned American said:


> _Hiroshima, _John Hershey


I looked up summaries of the book and did not find any criticism of the  decision


Concerned American said:


> My dad was part of the occupation forces in 1950-1952.  I was born in Tokyo Army Hospital in Aug. 1951 and I returned 19 years later as a Marine stationed 30 miles south of Hiroshima at MCAS Iwakuni.  I think I might have a bit of personal knowledge of the events.  When were you there?


I have never been to japan

but neither were you there in 1945 so you are no authority based on personal experience either


----------



## there4eyeM

Given what was going on at the time of WWII, it is not surprising the bombs were used as they were. 
They could have been used otherwise to perhaps greater advantage.
Given how we see things today, it is not surprising that dropping the bombs is criticized.


----------



## Concerned American

Mac-7 said:


> I looked up summaries of the book and did not find any criticism of the  decision
> 
> I have never been to japan
> 
> but neither were you there in 1945 so you are no authority based on personal experience either


Summaries are not the whole book.  Every historical account of anything has criticisms.  As for being there in 1945, I have spent weeks in Hiroshima and done quite a bit of study on the event.  Criticisms 75 years later are second guessing.  The facts are what they are.  Two A bombs were dropped.  Was it necessary? Probably not.  To blindly insist that Truman was 100% correct in his decision is naive at best.  Again war is hell and it sucked to be a Japanese civilian on those days.


----------



## Mac-7

Concerned American said:


> My dad was part of the occupation forces in 1950-1952.  I was born in Tokyo Army Hospital in Aug. 1951 and I returned 19 years later as a Marine stationed 30 miles south of Hiroshima at MCAS Iwakuni.  I think I might have a bit of personal knowledge of the events.  When were you there?


I had a friend in school whose mother was japanese

in every way he was every bit as American as i was or anyone else

or so I thought till one night we were all getting drunk on draft beer at the pizza place and talking history

after awhile he got really serious and said
“You know, we could have won that damn war”

Me and the 3rd drunk looked at each other and said

“I thought we did win!”


----------



## Mac-7

Concerned American said:


> Summaries are not the whole book.  Every historical account of anything has criticisms.  As for being there in 1945, I have spent weeks in Hiroshima and done quite a bit of study on the event.  Criticisms 75 years later are second guessing.  The facts are what they are.  Two A bombs were dropped.  Was it necessary? Probably not.  To blindly insist that Truman was 100% correct in his decision is naive at best.  Again war is hell and it sucked to be a Japanese civilian on those days.


I didnt say the criticism didnt exist

but I cant comment on what I didnt see


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> They could have been used otherwise to perhaps greater advantage.


It's hard to see how.  The Hiroshima bombing was nearly perfect.




there4eyeM said:


> Given how we see things today, it is not surprising that dropping the bombs is criticized.


The left should be ashamed of the way they always deny history.


----------



## Open Bolt

Concerned American said:


> There was no strategic reason for dropping either bomb.


That is incorrect.  Japan was still refusing to surrender.




Concerned American said:


> The US had the opportunity to test the bomb under real world circumstances


The atomic bombs were already tested at that point.  Trinity proved them.




Concerned American said:


> and determine the long term effects on humans.


This was already understood.




Concerned American said:


> Nagasaki was just a continuation of the test.


Nagasaki was because Japan was still refusing to surrender.




Concerned American said:


> The bombs used were of different configurations.  "Fat Boy" and "Little Man"  One bomb was bulbular while the other was long and narrow.


They didn't have time to recast the uranium in Little Boy into implosion cores.




Concerned American said:


> I would be interested in knowing which one was more effective if anyone has any research that has been made public.


Implosion is far superior.




Concerned American said:


> The world knew that Japanese were defeated and the Diet was in session considering terms of surrender when the first bomb was dropped.


That is incorrect.  Japan did not contemplate surrendering until *after both* atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Concerned American said:


> Bottom line.  It was a weapon that needed to be tested and demonstrated.


The testing was already done.

Demonstration to the world was necessary of course, but the reason why the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan instead of somewhere else was because Japan was still refusing to surrender.




Concerned American said:


> Second guessing 75 years later is useless.  War is hell.  If you don't want the atrocities of war--quit fighting.


Agreed.




Concerned American said:


> Hiroshima was not a military target.


That is incorrect.  Hiroshima was a large military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers and was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.




Concerned American said:


> Ground zero was 60' above Hiroshima city hall, "The T bridge."  Pearl Harbor was a military base.  However, Pearl Harbor WAS a peace time sneak attack and was reprehensible.


Agreed.




Concerned American said:


> Bombing a civilian population center with an atomic bomb was also reprehensible--War is hell.


That's why we dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.




Concerned American said:


> By that logic, Seattle and SF and San Diego are fair targets, eh?


None of them have the concentration of military forces that Hiroshima did.

Norfolk Virginia is much more comparable to WWII Hiroshima.




Concerned American said:


> So Hiroshima city hall (the target) is a port now?


Hiroshima was Japan's primary military port.  The city hall was not the target.




Concerned American said:


> Your argument would be valid if this had happened in 42 or 43 or 44, but it happened in 45 after all of those island campaigns were completed and Japan was on its knees.


Japan was not on their knees and the island campaigns were not completed.  There were still two million Japanese soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting for us in Japan.




Concerned American said:


> It is well known through any history book that Japan was on the verge of surrender in Aug. of 1945.


They were free to surrender any time they wanted.  Japan chose to wait until we nuked them twice.

They were smart enough to surrender before we nuked them a third time though.




Concerned American said:


> Again--the target was not the military base, it was the T-bridge at city hall.  That was a civilian target.


The T-shaped bridge was not the aimpoint because it was the target.  It was the aimpoint because it was easily identifiable from the air and was near where they wanted the atomic bomb to explode.

The point of the atomic bomb was not to try to destroy that bridge.  The target was the military headquarters and all of the soldiers in the city.




Concerned American said:


> The point of the matter remains, it was an overkill that gave great insight to the use of the bomb.


The point is wrong on both counts.  We already understood how to use atomic bombs.

It was hardly overkill.  The destruction was quite appropriate.




Concerned American said:


> It doesn't remove the fact that it was unnecessary.


If that is a fact, it is an irrelevant one.  Japan was still refusing to surrender, so we had every right to keep attacking them.




Concerned American said:


> As I said in a previous post, second guessing 75 years later does no good for anyone.  War sucks, there are winners and losers in any conflict.  It sucked to be Japan in Aug. 1945.


Maybe Japan shouldn't have been inflicting a reign of terror on the rest of the world.




Concerned American said:


> Summaries are not the whole book.


From what I recall, all the book did was recount the experiences of atomic bomb survivors.

It is hard to see how that would be relevant to anything.




Concerned American said:


> As for being there in 1945, I have spent weeks in Hiroshima and done quite a bit of study on the event.  Criticisms 75 years later are second guessing.  The facts are what they are.  Two A bombs were dropped.  Was it necessary? Probably not.  To blindly insist that Truman was 100% correct in his decision is naive at best.


Not given the fact that he was 100% correct.

Without the example of Hiroshima, the US and USSR would not have been deterred from nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.




Concerned American said:


> Again war is hell and it sucked to be a Japanese civilian on those days.


The soldiers didn't fare well either.


----------



## Flash

Mac-7 said:


> On every japanese held island the US invaded more japanese than Americens were killed
> 
> often by a ratio of 10 to 1
> 
> and estimates of US deaths invading Japan were hundreds of thousands


The problem the Japs had was that they treated their entire Army like the US Marine Corps.

They were taught that every man was rifleman and their mission was to engage the enemy and kill them

That is great but it is not trigger pullers that win extended wars but logistics.   For instance, at any one time only about one in three Jap aircraft were operational because they did not have strong spare parts supply lines and mechanics to do the work.

The US beat them with logistics that included developing the atom bombs and effectively deploying them.

The atom bomb technology was war efficiency at its best.  Two bombs - Boom, Boom- war over.


----------



## Concerned American

Open Bolt said:


> The atomic bombs were already tested at that point. Trinity proved them.


The bomb had never been used on a human target.  They also did not know what configuration would be most effective, hence two bomb designs.  Re: surrender, Japan and the US had talked about surrender as early as July.  Japan wanted to retain Hirohito as emperor and wanted a negotiated surrender--the US wanted unconditional.  Seventy five years later we all have 20-20 hindsight but none of us in this discussion have any idea of the thought processes at the time given the technology that was available.  Instant communications did not exist.  American thoughts on the matter are generally colored with what our predecessors, as victors, have told us.  As in any conflict, there are two sides.


----------



## Concerned American

Flash said:


> The US beat them with logistics


There is a lot to be said for this.  The US had the Japanese blockaded for sometime and shortages were wide spread.  Japanese nationalism was a very real thing--still is for that matter.


----------



## Concerned American

Open Bolt said:


> This was already understood.


Wrong.


----------



## Concerned American

Open Bolt said:


> If that is a fact, it is an irrelevant one. Japan was still refusing to surrender, so we had every right to keep attacking them.


No one is disputing whether it was right or wrong.  The US was bombing the hell out of most major cities daily.  The war was still being waged.  The question was whether or not the atomic bomb was necessary.  I contend it was not.  I also have made clear that I believe there was a research angle to the dropping.  Given what we know now, I am convinced of it.  The tactics of war are barbaric and every war has what, in hindsight are atrocities in a civilian researcher's mind.  In the mind of a military commander or troop, war is hell and the quickest way to victory is preferable.  End of story.


----------



## Mac-7

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect. Japan did not contemplate surrendering until *after both* atomic bombs had already been dropped.


The japanese military high command never conceded

only after Hirohito himself expressed a desire to surrender did the weight of history overcome their objections


----------



## Open Bolt

Concerned American said:


> The bomb had never been used on a human target.


So what?  Someone has to be first.




Concerned American said:


> They also did not know what configuration would be most effective, hence two bomb designs.


That is incorrect.  The implosion design was by far the more effective design if it worked.  And they knew from Trinity that it worked.

There were two designs because Little Boy had already been built by that point, just in case Trinity had been a failure.




Concerned American said:


> Re: surrender, Japan and the US had talked about surrender as early as July.


No they didn't.  Japan and the US did not talk until August 10, by which time both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Concerned American said:


> Japan wanted to retain Hirohito as emperor and wanted a negotiated surrender--the US wanted unconditional.


The US backed off from unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which was a list of generous surrender terms.  Japan still refused to surrender.

Japan's offer to surrender with an additional condition came only on August 10, which was after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Concerned American said:


> Seventy five years later we all have 20-20 hindsight but none of us in this discussion have any idea of the thought processes at the time given the technology that was available.


Historians have done a pretty good job of laying it all out.




Concerned American said:


> Instant communications did not exist.


Once Japan actually decided to surrender it didn't take them very long to communicate that to us.

Communication was not instant by any means, but it only took a few hours at most.




Concerned American said:


> American thoughts on the matter are generally colored with what our predecessors, as victors, have told us.


There are plenty of decent history books that lay out the bare truth.




Concerned American said:


> As in any conflict, there are two sides.


The facts are on America's side.




Concerned American said:


> Wrong.


That is incorrect.  The dangers of radiation were understood ever since Hermann Joseph Muller delivered his paper "The Problem of Genetic Modification" in 1927.

It also didn't escape the notice of the scientific community when Marie Curie died of radiation poisoning in 1934.




Concerned American said:


> No one is disputing whether it was right or wrong.


Some people here are disputing it.




Concerned American said:


> The US was bombing the hell out of most major cities daily.  The war was still being waged.  The question was whether or not the atomic bomb was necessary.  I contend it was not.


What does "necessary" even mean?

Japan was still refusing to surrender, so we kept attacking them.




Concerned American said:


> I also have made clear that I believe there was a research angle to the dropping.  Given what we know now, I am convinced of it.


You are mistaken.  There was a "make Japan surrender" angle to the dropping.




Concerned American said:


> The tactics of war are barbaric and every war has what, in hindsight are atrocities in a civilian researcher's mind.  In the mind of a military commander or troop, war is hell and the quickest way to victory is preferable.  End of story.


The atomic bombs were certainly dropped with the goal of bringing us closer to victory, but I see no atrocities on the part of the US.


----------



## Concerned American

Open Bolt said:


> So what? Someone has to be first.


Please keep up, that has been my point all along if you have been following the thread.


----------



## Open Bolt

Concerned American said:


> Please keep up, that has been my point all along if you have been following the thread.


If there is a point here about Japan being the first to be nuked, I am having trouble perceiving it.


----------



## Concerned American

Open Bolt said:


> I am having trouble perceiving it.


That is clear.


----------



## Open Bolt

Concerned American said:


> That is clear.


There isn't any point here about the fact that Japan was first to be nuked.  It's just a meaningless factoid.


----------



## Concerned American

Open Bolt said:


> There isn't any point here about the fact that Japan was first to be nuked.  It's just a meaningless factoid.


And standing alone,  irrelevant to the thread


----------



## Open Bolt

Concerned American said:


> And standing alone, irrelevant to the thread


Well, let me know if you decide to post anything that is relevant to the thread.


----------



## Unkotare

"General Dwight Eisenhower, in his memoirs, recalled a visit from Secretary of War Henry Stimson in late July 1945: “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.’” Eisenhower reiterated the point years later in a _Newsweek _interview in 1963, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”1

In fact, seven out of eight top U.S. military commanders believed that it was unnecessary to use atomic bombs against Japan from a military-strategic vantage point, including Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, William Halsey, and William Leahy, and Generals Henry Arnold and Douglas MacArthur.2 According to Air Force historian Daniel Haulman, even General Curtis LeMay, the architect of the air war against Japan, believed “the new weapons were unnecessary, because his bombers were already destroying the Japanese cities.”3"










						Was There a Diplomatic Alternative? The Atomic Bombing and Japan's Surrender
					

Abstract: This article assesses the evidence for claims that the dropping of the atomic bombs were essential for securing Japan’s surrender and offers an alternative interpretation. Keywords: Ato




					apjjf.org
				





"
One day after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, General MacArthur’s pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary: “General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this ‘Frankenstein’ monster. I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa.”4

Admiral Halsey, Commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, testified before Congress in September 1949, “I believe that bombing – especially atomic bombing – of civilians, is morally indefensible. . . . I know that the extermination theory has no place in a properly conducted war.”5

Admiral Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote in his memoirs: “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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”6

That the Japanese were on the verge of defeat was made clear to the president in a top-secret memorandum from Secretary of War Henry Stimson on July 2, 1945. Stimson noted that Japan “has no allies,” its “navy is nearly destroyed,” she is vulnerable to an economic blockade depriving her “of sufficient food and supplies for her population,” she is “terribly vulnerable to our concentrated air attack upon her crowded cities, industrial, and food resources,” she “has against her not only the Anglo-American forces but the rising forces of China and the ominous threat of Russia,” and the United States has “inexhaustible and untouched industrial resources to bring to bear against her diminishing potential.” "


----------



## Unkotare

"The assertion that the atomic bombings forced Japan to surrender was not supported by a U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, published in July 1946, which noted that the decision of Japanese leaders “to abandon the war is tied up with other factors. The atomic bomb had more effect on the thinking of government leaders than on the morale of the rank and file of civilians outside the target areas. It cannot be said, however, that the atomic bomb convinced the leaders who effected the peace of the necessity of surrender.”17"

Admiral King, Commander in Chief of Naval Operations, stated in his memoirs that neither the atomic bombings nor a prospective U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary, as “an effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.”18"


----------



## Unkotare

"This was not why Hiroshima was chosen. Rather, the city was selected because it was “the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list,” according to the administration’s Target Committee.20 Hiroshima, in other words, did not have enough military production to justify an earlier conventional attack (as compared to other cities on the priority list), and the effects of the bomb had to be uncontaminated from previous bombings in order to properly assess their damage."


----------



## Unkotare

"Indeed, Japan had put out peace feelers. As reported in the _New York Times_ on July 26, 1945, “The Tokyo Radio, in an English-language broadcast to North America, has urged that the United States adopt a more lenient attitude toward Japan with regard to peace.” The broadcast quoted an ancient Aesop Fable in which a powerful wind could not force a man to give up his coat, but a gentle warming sun succeeded in doing so.25

Japan’s appeal fell on deaf ears in Washington."


----------



## Unkotare

http://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> "The assertion that the atomic bombings forced Japan to surrender was not supported by a U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, published in July 1946, which noted that the decision of Japanese leaders “to abandon the war is tied up with other factors. The atomic bomb had more effect on the thinking of government leaders than on the morale of the rank and file of civilians outside the target areas. It cannot be said, however, that the atomic bomb convinced the leaders who effected the peace of the necessity of surrender.”17"
> Admiral King, Commander in Chief of Naval Operations, stated in his memoirs that neither the atomic bombings nor a prospective U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary, as “an effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.”18"


So what?  All this pathetic whining is pretty tedious.

Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted.

Japan chose not to surrender, so we kept on attacking them.

If Japan didn't want us to keep on attacking them, then they should have surrendered earlier than they did.


----------



## Unkotare

"Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman."


----------



## Unkotare

__





						The Bomb Was Not Necessary |  History News         Network
					






					historynewsnetwork.org


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> "General Dwight Eisenhower, in his memoirs, recalled a visit from Secretary of War Henry Stimson in late July 1945: “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.’” Eisenhower reiterated the point years later in a _Newsweek _interview in 1963, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”1


More tedious whining.  Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted to.

It was their choice and their fault that they chose not to do so.




Unkotare said:


> That the Japanese were on the verge of defeat was made clear to the president in a top-secret memorandum from Secretary of War Henry Stimson on July 2, 1945. Stimson noted that Japan “has no allies,” its “navy is nearly destroyed,” she is vulnerable to an economic blockade depriving her “of sufficient food and supplies for her population,” she is “terribly vulnerable to our concentrated air attack upon her crowded cities, industrial, and food resources,” she “has against her not only the Anglo-American forces but the rising forces of China and the ominous threat of Russia,” and the United States has “inexhaustible and untouched industrial resources to bring to bear against her diminishing potential."


And yet Japan chose to not surrender.

Turned out to be a bad choice.  Dumb move on their part.




Unkotare said:


> "This was not why Hiroshima was chosen. Rather, the city was selected because it was “the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list,” according to the administration’s Target Committee.20 Hiroshima, in other words, did not have enough military production to justify an earlier conventional attack (as compared to other cities on the priority list), and the effects of the bomb had to be uncontaminated from previous bombings in order to properly assess their damage."


Are you quoting Gar Alperovitz there?

Whoever you are quoting is pretty disingenuous, because Hiroshima was selected as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign when only a handful of Japanese cities had been destroyed.




Unkotare said:


> "Indeed, Japan had put out peace feelers. As reported in the _New York Times_ on July 26, 1945, “The Tokyo Radio, in an English-language broadcast to North America, has urged that the United States adopt a more lenient attitude toward Japan with regard to peace.” The broadcast quoted an ancient Aesop Fable in which a powerful wind could not force a man to give up his coat, but a gentle warming sun succeeded in doing so.25
> Japan’s appeal fell on deaf ears in Washington."


They are the ones who waited until August 10 before deciding to surrender.




Unkotare said:


> http://wyso.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/9/0/22903824/trohan_article.pdf


Fake news.  Never happened.




Unkotare said:


> "Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman."


Fake news.  Never happened.




Unkotare said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bomb Was Not Necessary |  History News         Network
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> historynewsnetwork.org


More tedious whining.  Japan was still refusing to surrender so we had every right to continue attacking them.


----------



## Unkotare

"the city was selected because it was “the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list,” according to the administration’s Target Committee.20 Hiroshima, in other words, did not have enough military production to justify an earlier conventional attack"


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Never happened.
> ...



Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered. A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> "the city was selected because it was “the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list,” according to the administration’s Target Committee.20 Hiroshima, in other words, did not have enough military production to justify an earlier conventional attack"


Another quote from Gar Alperovitz??  Whoever it is sure is disingenuous.

Again, Hiroshima was selected as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign when only a handful of cities had been destroyed.




Unkotare said:


> Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered.


It's not like these falsehoods that you keep posting are shattering anything.

Or were you referring to your own reaction when I pointed out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and Japan was refusing to surrender?




Unkotare said:


> A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.


There is nothing weak minded about denouncing lies.

A real historian will always challenge lies.

Real historians care about the truth.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You have not once linked to any proposal for surrender by the Japanese Government.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing.   At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.
> 
> Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.
> 
> It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.



When at war, you do not experiment on civilian populations with devices we did know would slowly poison people with radiation.
Everyone in the US chain of command understood how radiation killed because many died making these bombs.

And no, "they" did not start it.
The US forced the Japanese into the war, with a constant series of restrictions, starting with the Treaty of 5-5-3, and included cutting off Japan from the oil, coal, steel, and food they needed from the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> When at war, you do not experiment on civilian populations with devices we did know would slowly poison people with radiation.
> Everyone in the US chain of command understood how radiation killed because many died making these bombs.
> 
> And no, "they" did not start it.
> The US forced the Japanese into the war, with a constant series of restrictions, starting with the Treaty of 5-5-3, and included cutting off Japan from the oil, coal, steel, and food they needed from the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.


SO we should have continued to supply Japan while they murdered millions of Chinese?


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> When at war, you do not experiment on civilian populations with devices we did know would slowly poison people with radiation.


It's a good thing that we never did anything like that.

Japan conducted horrific experiments on innocent civilians though.




Rigby5 said:


> Everyone in the US chain of command understood how radiation killed


Well, the scientists certainly knew.  Truman probably didn't.




Rigby5 said:


> because many died making these bombs.


Cite?




Rigby5 said:


> And no, "they" did not start it.


Yes they did.  They attacked us, and we were defending ourselves.




Rigby5 said:


> The US forced the Japanese into the war, with a constant series of restrictions, starting with the Treaty of 5-5-3, and included cutting off Japan from the oil, coal, steel, and food they needed from the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.


Japan forced the US into dropping atomic bombs on them, what with their unforgivable atrocities and their refusal to surrender.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Or were you referring to your own reaction when I pointed out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and Japan was refusing to surrender?



Totally untrue.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, like ALL urban, civilian cities, were NOT legal military targets for a weapon they KNEW from testing, would destroy whole cities.

And anyone claiming Japan was refusing to surrender, would have to be a liar.
Clearly the US was well aware Japan had been trying to negotiate a surrender for over half a year, and only wanted some response about retaining the emperor.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Concerned American said:


> Hiroshima was not a military target.  Ground zero was 60' above Hiroshima city hall, "The T bridge."  Pearl Harbor was a military base.  However, Pearl Harbor WAS a peace time sneak attack and was reprehensible.  Bombing a civilian population center with an atomic bomb was also reprehensible--War is hell.


Hiroshima was a major army and navy base.


----------



## Unkotare

People really should learn at least a basic level of information about the topics they get worked up about here. Just being insecure about long-held narratives that they have found comfortable since childhood is not serious discussion.


----------



## Rigby5

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have not once linked to any proposal for surrender by the Japanese Government.



{...
In Japan, the government was fractured into parties on either side of the war-peace divide. Those supporting a continuation of the war were determined to defend the Japanese homeland to the last man, in the hopes of bleeding the will to fight out of the Americans and their allies and eventually gain favorable terms for their eventual surrender. The peace party thought that national suicide was a bad idea, and that continuing the fight would only further anger the allies and reduce the likelihood that the imperial system would survive.

Under instructions from the Emperor, Japanese diplomats in Moscow approached the Soviet regime to begin discussing potential terms for a surrender. This contact was opened shortly before Potsdam. The Japanese understood the American demand for an “unconditional surrender” as the end of their imperial system; the goal was to work through Stalin to try preserve the emperor after the surrender.

The Americans intercepted these instructions and were well aware of the ongoing diplomacy in Moscow, but did not overtly tip their hand to the Soviets. Furthermore, it remains unknown if Stalin knew that Truman knew of the negotiations.

At Potsdam, Stalin was expecting to receive an invitation to sign the declaration insisting on Japanese capitulation. Once invited, Stalin would have the pretext for over-riding the neutrality pact with the Japanese. However, no invitation was forthcoming. Once the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Truman was well aware that the Allies did not need the Soviets to enter the war in the Pacific. Truman, in fact, seemed determined to keep Stalin out of the war. Moreover, there are interesting details from behind the scenes at (and before) Potsdam that Dr. Hasegawa has interpreted as having much greater significance than previously recognized.

First, it was known before Potsdam that Japanese hesitation over surrender was motivated primarily by the desire to retain the imperial system. Were the Allies to ensure the continuation of the monarchy, Japan might have agreed to terms on a surrender sooner. In spite of this knowledge, Truman insisted on including the term “unconditional surrender” in the Potsdam Declaration, knowing that the Japanese would reject it. Coupled with military communications indicating the preparations for dropping the A-bomb on Japan had begun before Truman departed for Potsdam, Hasegawa believes it is not unreasonable to conclude that Truman intended for, and expected, the rejection of the Potsdam Declaration, to justify the use of the atomic bomb.
...}








						Classic Articles ~ A Different Theory of Japan’s Surrender in WW2
					

Did the Soviet Union’s actions influence Truman’s decision-making? ~ Brant Guillory, 8 August 2020 On #TBT, we bring you the occasional classic article – an older review or analys…




					www.armchairdragoons.com
				




Truman was well aware the Japanese were desperate to surrender, as we had cut off their food from China, and the population was starving to death.


----------



## Rigby5

AZrailwhale said:


> Hiroshima was a major army and navy base.



We did not attack the army or navy bases, but instead targeted the population center.
The military objectives were not even touched.


----------



## Rigby5

RetiredGySgt said:


> SO we should have continued to supply Japan while they murdered millions of Chinese?



The Japanese were NOT murdering anyone by then, and were more than willing to surrender.
In fact, in many places like Burma, after the Japanese did surrender, we ASKED them to continue ruling and keeping order for over a year, before they could finally be relieved of command.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> {...
> In Japan, the government was fractured into parties on either side of the war-peace divide. Those supporting a continuation of the war were determined to defend the Japanese homeland to the last man, in the hopes of bleeding the will to fight out of the Americans and their allies and eventually gain favorable terms for their eventual surrender. The peace party thought that national suicide was a bad idea, and that continuing the fight would only further anger the allies and reduce the likelihood that the imperial system would survive.
> 
> Under instructions from the Emperor, Japanese diplomats in Moscow approached the Soviet regime to begin discussing potential terms for a surrender. This contact was opened shortly before Potsdam. The Japanese understood the American demand for an “unconditional surrender” as the end of their imperial system; the goal was to work through Stalin to try preserve the emperor after the surrender.
> 
> The Americans intercepted these instructions and were well aware of the ongoing diplomacy in Moscow, but did not overtly tip their hand to the Soviets. Furthermore, it remains unknown if Stalin knew that Truman knew of the negotiations.
> 
> At Potsdam, Stalin was expecting to receive an invitation to sign the declaration insisting on Japanese capitulation. Once invited, Stalin would have the pretext for over-riding the neutrality pact with the Japanese. However, no invitation was forthcoming. Once the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Truman was well aware that the Allies did not need the Soviets to enter the war in the Pacific. Truman, in fact, seemed determined to keep Stalin out of the war. Moreover, there are interesting details from behind the scenes at (and before) Potsdam that Dr. Hasegawa has interpreted as having much greater significance than previously recognized.
> 
> First, it was known before Potsdam that Japanese hesitation over surrender was motivated primarily by the desire to retain the imperial system. Were the Allies to ensure the continuation of the monarchy, Japan might have agreed to terms on a surrender sooner. In spite of this knowledge, Truman insisted on including the term “unconditional surrender” in the Potsdam Declaration, knowing that the Japanese would reject it. Coupled with military communications indicating the preparations for dropping the A-bomb on Japan had begun before Truman departed for Potsdam, Hasegawa believes it is not unreasonable to conclude that Truman intended for, and expected, the rejection of the Potsdam Declaration, to justify the use of the atomic bomb.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Articles ~ A Different Theory of Japan’s Surrender in WW2
> 
> 
> Did the Soviet Union’s actions influence Truman’s decision-making? ~ Brant Guillory, 8 August 2020 On #TBT, we bring you the occasional classic article – an older review or analys…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.armchairdragoons.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman was well aware the Japanese were desperate to surrender, as we had cut off their food from China, and the population was starving to death.


I asked for a proposal for surrender by the Japanese Government you have not provided one, as for the Soviet overture we have the intercepts what Japan offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> The Japanese were NOT murdering anyone by then, and were more than willing to surrender.
> In fact, in many places like Burma, after the Japanese did surrender, we ASKED them to continue ruling and keeping order for over a year, before they could finally be relieved of command.


In 41 the Japanese were most definately waging war on China.


----------



## Esdraelon

rightwinger said:


> While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?)


It was a legitimate military target and had been spared the firebombing raids that so many other cities had suffered.  BTW, all the whining about bad old America and its atomic bombs is sickening.  In the grand scheme, those nukes were more merciful than what LeMay had ALREADY done to 67 Japanese cities.  








						The Tokyo Firebombing Was Deadlier Than Hiroshima — So Why Haven't You Heard Of It?
					

The Americans planned the firebombing of Tokyo — which was then largely made up of wooden structures — for a dry and windy night to ensure maximum destruction.




					allthatsinteresting.com
				




I guess we should be ashamed of those raids as well?  They killed FAR MORE people and destroyed more property.  War, especially the TOTAL war that was waged in WWII, leads to horrific outcomes and it wasn't the U.S. that started it.
A curious thing though, even after Tokyo was incinerated, Tojo, Suzuki, and friends still refused to surrender.  If it makes you lot feel any better, don't worry, at the present pace of our government, America will almost certainly be struck by a nuke or nukes in the not too distant future.


----------



## Esdraelon

rightwinger said:


> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next


67 Japanese cities had already been mostly turned to ashes.  As for Tokyo, it was mostly incinerated in March of that same year with over 100,000 dead and a million homeless and they STILL refused to surrender:








						The Tokyo Firebombing Was Deadlier Than Hiroshima — So Why Haven't You Heard Of It?
					

The Americans planned the firebombing of Tokyo — which was then largely made up of wooden structures — for a dry and windy night to ensure maximum destruction.




					allthatsinteresting.com


----------



## Esdraelon

sparky said:


> Actually Truman's own cabinet publicly stated the bomb would put us on par with the German genocide at the time,  and the dept of defense stifled all Truman's top generals , insisting all comments be vetted first
> 
> Further, the _'it would have saved millions_' canard started out far less in #'s, grew due to historic revisionists who supported Truman , as opposed to all his generals
> 
> ~S~


My dad fought in that war and he and his peers were DAMNED GLAD they didn't have to experience the hell that waited on those islands.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> It's a good thing that we never did anything like that.
> 
> Japan conducted horrific experiments on innocent civilians though.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the scientists certainly knew.  Truman probably didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Cite?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did.  They attacked us, and we were defending ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan forced the US into dropping atomic bombs on them, what with their unforgivable atrocities and their refusal to surrender.



Yes the nuclear weapons were entire used on Japan in order to experiment with them.
We did one uranium bomb and one plutonium bomb, and were determined to drop them both, no matter what the Japanese did, so we could compare the results.
We did NOT target anything remotely military, but instead the very center of the population.
Even the Germans never did anything so crude, and during the London Blitz, NEVER attacked the civilian population centers.

Madam Currie had died of radiation poisoning in 1934, so scientist and Truman were well aware of radiation dangers,   In fact, that is the main value of nuclear weapons, as the explosion is not that significant.

{...
The *Demon Core* was a spherical 6.2-kilogram (14 lb) subcritical mass of plutonium 89 millimetres (3.5 in) in diameter, manufactured during World War II by the United States nuclear weapon development effort, the Manhattan Project, as a fissile core for an early atomic bomb. 
...
The device briefly went supercritical when it was accidentally placed in supercritical configurations during two separate experiments intended to guarantee the core was close to the critical point. The incidents happened at the Los Alamos Laboratory, resulting in the acute radiation poisoning and subsequent deaths of scientists Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin. After these incidents the spherical plutonium core was referred to as the "Demon Core".
...}

What we did to Japan before WWII amounted to a declaration of war, so we started it, not Japan.
Atrocities like Nanking were not justification for anything.
First of all Japan took Nanking in 1937 and we did nothing then, and second is that it is illegal to reply to an atrocity with another atrocity against innocent civilians.


----------



## Rigby5

Esdraelon said:


> 67 Japanese cities had already been mostly turned to ashes.  As for Tokyo, it was mostly incinerated in March of that same year with over 100,000 dead and a million homeless and they STILL refused to surrender:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tokyo Firebombing Was Deadlier Than Hiroshima — So Why Haven't You Heard Of It?
> 
> 
> The Americans planned the firebombing of Tokyo — which was then largely made up of wooden structures — for a dry and windy night to ensure maximum destruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allthatsinteresting.com



WRONG!
Japan had desperately been TRYING to surrender and we refused to communicate with them directly, and pretended confusion with the surrender attempts through the Soviets.


----------



## Rigby5

Esdraelon said:


> My dad fought in that war and he and his peers were DAMNED GLAD they didn't have to experience the hell that waited on those islands.



In no way would anyone have ever tried or needed to invade any island.
Without ships, oil, or food, these islands were death camps where we were murdering tens of thousands.


----------



## Rigby5

RetiredGySgt said:


> I asked for a proposal for surrender by the Japanese Government you have not provided one, as for the Soviet overture we have the intercepts what Japan offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.



That simply is a lie.
Japan continually offered complete surrender, with the slight condition that the Emperor not be publicly humiliated, since he held an important religious position.

The exact wording can be found in the "Potsdam Diaries".


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> People really should learn at least a basic level of information about the topics they get worked up about here.


Indeed.  If you learned something about this subject you would not present so many falsehoods.




Unkotare said:


> Just being insecure about long-held narratives that they have found comfortable since childhood is not serious discussion.


It is worth correcting your falsehoods regardless of how serious you are.


----------



## Open Bolt

RetiredGySgt said:


> as for the Soviet overture we have the intercepts what Japan offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.


That's what Japan planned to offer if given a chance.  But note that nothing had progressed far enough for Japan to even talk to the Soviets about their plans.  Japan was still trying to arrange for their diplomat to enter the Soviet Union when the Soviets declared war.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> Totally untrue.
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, like ALL urban, civilian cities, were NOT legal military targets for a weapon they KNEW from testing, would destroy whole cities.


Yes they were.  Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, and was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.

Nagasaki was a major industrial center that built some of Japan's largest warships.




Rigby5 said:


> And anyone claiming Japan was refusing to surrender, would have to be a liar.


Not given the fact that Japan was refusing to surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> Clearly the US was well aware Japan had been trying to negotiate a surrender for over half a year, and only wanted some response about retaining the emperor.


Japan was doing no such thing, and the US was not suffering from any delusions that they were.

Japan only offered to surrender after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> Under instructions from the Emperor, Japanese diplomats in Moscow approached the Soviet regime to begin discussing potential terms for a surrender. This contact was opened shortly before Potsdam. The Japanese understood the American demand for an “unconditional surrender” as the end of their imperial system; the goal was to work through Stalin to try preserve the emperor after the surrender.


That is incorrect.  Japanese diplomats never even began discussing terms with the Soviets.

Had they done so, however, the terms would not have involved surrender, but rather how to convince the US to end the war in a draw without making Japan surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> First, it was known before Potsdam that Japanese hesitation over surrender was motivated primarily by the desire to retain the imperial system.


No such falsehood was "known".

Japanese hesitation over surrender was motivated primarily by a desire to not surrender at all.




Rigby5 said:


> Were the Allies to ensure the continuation of the monarchy, Japan might have agreed to terms on a surrender sooner.


Little chance of that, given their intentions to not surrender at all if they could manage it.




Rigby5 said:


> In spite of this knowledge, Truman insisted on including the term “unconditional surrender” in the Potsdam Declaration, knowing that the Japanese would reject it.


The Potsdam Proclamation was actually a list of generous surrender terms.




Rigby5 said:


> Truman was well aware the Japanese were desperate to surrender, as we had cut off their food from China, and the population was starving to death.


Truman knew no such falsehood.  Japan was trying to escape the war without surrendering.




Rigby5 said:


> We did not attack the army or navy bases, but instead targeted the population center.


That is incorrect.  Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of soldiers and was the headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion.

Nagasaki was an industrial center with large weapons factories.




Rigby5 said:


> The military objectives were not even touched.


That is incorrect.  The headquarters was flattened and 20,000 soldiers were killed.  The factory that designed and built specialized torpedoes for defeating Pearl Harbor's defenses was smashed.




Rigby5 said:


> The Japanese were NOT murdering anyone by then,


The 100,000 or more civilians who were dying every month under the tender mercies of Japanese occupation would beg to differ.

And then there were the two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invasion.




Rigby5 said:


> and were more than willing to surrender.


Their steadfast refusal to surrender says otherwise.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> Yes the nuclear weapons were entire used on Japan in order to experiment with them.


That is incorrect.  They were used on Japan in order to force Japan to surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> We did one uranium bomb and one plutonium bomb, and were determined to drop them both, no matter what the Japanese did, so we could compare the results.


That is incorrect.  We nuked them until they surrendered, then we stopped nuking them.

There was no desire to compare the results between the two bombs.




Rigby5 said:


> We did NOT target anything remotely military, but instead the very center of the population.


That is incorrect.  Hiroshima was a major military center with tens of thousands of soldiers, and was the headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion.

Nagasaki was an industrial center with large weapons factories.




Rigby5 said:


> Even the Germans never did anything so crude, and during the London Blitz, NEVER attacked the civilian population centers.


Nonsense.




Rigby5 said:


> Madam Currie had died of radiation poisoning in 1934, so scientist and Truman were well aware of radiation dangers,


Not likely that Truman was aware, not that it matters.




Rigby5 said:


> In fact, that is the main value of nuclear weapons, as the explosion is not that significant.


Nuclear explosions flatten entire cities.  Most people consider that to be significant.




Rigby5 said:


> The *Demon Core* was a spherical 6.2-kilogram (14 lb) subcritical mass of plutonium 89 millimetres (3.5 in) in diameter, manufactured during World War II by the United States nuclear weapon development effort, the Manhattan Project, as a fissile core for an early atomic bomb.
> ...
> The device briefly went supercritical when it was accidentally placed in supercritical configurations during two separate experiments intended to guarantee the core was close to the critical point. The incidents happened at the Los Alamos Laboratory, resulting in the acute radiation poisoning and subsequent deaths of scientists Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin. After these incidents the spherical plutonium core was referred to as the "Demon Core".


The United States did not have time travel in 1945.  Accidents that occurred after the end of WWII would not have been known to people during the war.




Rigby5 said:


> What we did to Japan before WWII amounted to a declaration of war, so we started it, not Japan.


That is incorrect.  Embargoes are not acts of war.




Rigby5 said:


> Atrocities like Nanking were not justification for anything.


They certainly justify sanctions and an embargo.




Rigby5 said:


> First of all Japan took Nanking in 1937 and we did nothing then, and second is that it is illegal to reply to an atrocity with another atrocity against innocent civilians.


We didn't attack civilians.  The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> WRONG!
> Japan had desperately been TRYING to surrender and we refused to communicate with them directly, and pretended confusion with the surrender attempts through the Soviets.


That is incorrect.  Japan made no attempt to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> In no way would anyone have ever tried or needed to invade any island.
> Without ships, oil, or food, these islands were death camps where we were murdering tens of thousands.


Had Japan continued to refuse to surrender, we would have invaded.




Rigby5 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for a proposal for surrender by the Japanese Government you have not provided one, as for the Soviet overture we have the intercepts what Japan offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.
> 
> 
> 
> That simply is a lie.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.  That was what Japan wanted to do up until August 10.




Rigby5 said:


> Japan continually offered complete surrender,


No they didn't.  Japan only offered to surrender after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> with the slight condition that the Emperor not be publicly humiliated, since he held an important religious position.


You are referring to their offer from after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

The condition was more than slight.  They asked that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.  We were right to refuse.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> Indeed.  If you learned something about this subject ....


Sorry Junior, but your ignorance is on you.


----------



## there4eyeM

Criticizing something is hardly denying it. It isn't "leftist" or "rightist" to criticize. 
It is difficult to understand the humanity of those harping on how justified incinerating women and children was, or is. Man up and just say you don't care.
There are any number of scenarios for alternative use of the bombs. There are any number of arguments as to what would have been better. No one can deny that there were alternatives. The fact is, not enough thought went into the enormous ramifications of this technology and its use. As stated before, the bombs were used tactically, not strategically, given the place of the U.S. at the time. Just getting some Japanese officials to sit down and formalize the realities on the ground did not change the fact that the war was over and Japan lay supine, defenseless and defeated. 
No one here is going to change his mind now; it's all been said. Some don't care about the inhumanity of war, some may misunderstand it. Some of us see the use of the bombs this way as poor use at best and leave the humanitarian aspects apart. The total inability to even admit that any other path was open begs the question of intellectual honesty.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> That simply is a lie.
> Japan continually offered complete surrender, with the slight condition that the Emperor not be publicly humiliated, since he held an important religious position.
> 
> The exact wording can be found in the "Potsdam Diaries".


The lie is yours we HAVE the intercepts we have the records we know what they said and offered.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Yes they were.  Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers, and was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.
> 
> Nagasaki was a major industrial center that built some of Japan's largest warships.
> 
> 
> 
> Not given the fact that Japan was refusing to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was doing no such thing, and the US was not suffering from any delusions that they were.
> 
> Japan only offered to surrender after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Japanese diplomats never even began discussing terms with the Soviets.
> 
> Had they done so, however, the terms would not have involved surrender, but rather how to convince the US to end the war in a draw without making Japan surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> No such falsehood was "known".
> 
> Japanese hesitation over surrender was motivated primarily by a desire to not surrender at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Little chance of that, given their intentions to not surrender at all if they could manage it.
> 
> 
> 
> The Potsdam Proclamation was actually a list of generous surrender terms.
> 
> 
> 
> Truman knew no such falsehood.  Japan was trying to escape the war without surrendering.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of soldiers and was the headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion.
> 
> Nagasaki was an industrial center with large weapons factories.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  The headquarters was flattened and 20,000 soldiers were killed.  The factory that designed and built specialized torpedoes for defeating Pearl Harbor's defenses was smashed.
> 
> 
> 
> The 100,000 or more civilians who were dying every month under the tender mercies of Japanese occupation would beg to differ.
> 
> And then there were the two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Their steadfast refusal to surrender says otherwise.



Frankly, those responses by you were all deliberate lies.

We know the Japanese were trying to surrender for over half a year, because the Soviets were the only one with an embassy, and were telling us all the details.  We did also intercept all the communications, but did not need to.
We already knew that all the Japanese wanted was some sort of assurances for the Emperor, and we could have provided that at any time.
We were the ones who would not let the Japanese surrender, since we wanted to compare the 2 different atomic bombs on real people.

And no, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT at all military or industrial centers.
Otherwise they would already have been destroyed, since our carpet bombing and firestorms had destroyed all the real military and industrial centers.
That is obvious since we did not target any industry or military base with out atomic bombs, but instead selected the population center as ground zero.
And all industrial work had been moved underground, so was not effected at all, nor were any soldier killed.

And the claim the Japanese had "10,000 kamakazi" planes is just ridiculous.
The reality is they had exactly 109 planes left, but almost all of those were commercial, with fewer than half a dozen military planes.  And even those had no fuel or pilots.  Why do you think we could send in a slow, solitary bomber to drop these atomic bombs, if they had any aircraft interceptors left at all?  The entire country of Japan was entirely at our mercy and we knew it perfectly.  The actual means of defeating the Japanese was by sinking all their shipping with mines dropped from bombers.  They were starving to death, without any defenses left at all, and we were deliberately drawing it out so we could use them as bomb test sites.  The claim anyone was dying anymore under Japanese occupation is also a lie.  Our deliberate lies about the Japanese are one of the worst war crimes on all history.

The Japanese NEVER refused to surrender, and had done everything in their power to surrender months earlier.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect. Embargoes are not acts of war.




WRONG!
Economic sanctions ARE most definitely illegal war crimes.
It was ratified by the US in the 1906 Geneva Conventions.
Civilian economic warfare is totally illegal.
Economic sanctions are not just acts of war, but criminal.


----------



## there4eyeM

Given what was done, what position to criticize would the U.S. be in if Russia were to use such weapons to 'win' their current 'war'?


----------



## Rigby5

RetiredGySgt said:


> The lie is yours we HAVE the intercepts we have the records we know what they said and offered.



That is wrong because the Japanese has Soviet embassies and talked to Soviets face to face when trying to surrender.
Sure were have intercepts, but it is clear from what Truman wrote in the "Potsdam Diaries", that Stalin told him outright that Japan was desperate to surrender, and Truman told him to play dumb and not respond quickly.
None of the details would have been in "intercepts" and anyone bringing up "intercepts" really has no idea at all what was really going on.


----------



## Rigby5

there4eyeM said:


> Given what was done, what position to criticize would the U.S. be in if Russia were to use such weapons to 'win' their current 'war'?



Doesn't matter to the US.
For example, we gave Saddam chemical weapons to use on the Iranians, and then later invaded Iraq on the claim we knew Saddam had illegal chemical weapons.
The US will lie, cheat, steal, and murder whenever we think we can get away with it and make a profit.


----------



## there4eyeM

Rigby5 said:


> Doesn't matter to the US.
> For example, we gave Saddam chemical weapons to use on the Iranians, and then later invaded Iraq on the claim we knew Saddam had illegal chemical weapons.
> The US will lie, cheat, steal, and murder whenever we think we can get away with it and make a profit.


It would be wonderful if this could honestly be denied.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Nuclear explosions flatten entire cities. Most people consider that to be significant.



Wrong.
The blast radius of the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan was less than 3 miles.
So the explosive shock wave is not the main effect.
Most of the people are killed by radiation.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Had Japan continued to refuse to surrender, we would have invaded.



That is a lie.
The whole "Operation Olympic" was fake, entirely designed to head off criticism for our deliberate war crimes.
Japan was an isolated island, incapable of escape, so essentially was a penal colony, slowly starving to death.
Invasion was totally unnecessary, useless, and never seriously considered.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> Frankly, those responses by you were all deliberate lies.


Everything that I've said is true.




Rigby5 said:


> We know the Japanese were trying to surrender for over half a year, because the Soviets were the only one with an embassy, and were telling us all the details.  We did also intercept all the communications, but did not need to.


Fake news.  Never happened.




Rigby5 said:


> We already knew that all the Japanese wanted was some sort of assurances for the Emperor, and we could have provided that at any time.


We "knew" no such falsehood.  What Japan wanted was to end the war in a draw without surrendering.




Rigby5 said:


> We were the ones who would not let the Japanese surrender,


We had no control over whether Japan surrendered.

Had we such control, we would have had Japan surrender to us in 1941.




Rigby5 said:


> since we wanted to compare the 2 different atomic bombs on real people.


We had no such interest.




Rigby5 said:


> And no, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT at all military or industrial centers.


Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.  It was Japan's primary military port, and the port that launched all their invasions of neighboring countries.

Hiroshima had more soldiers than any Japanese city other than Tokyo (which was much much larger).  Hiroshima had the highest soldier/civilian ratio of any of Japan's major cities.

Hiroshima was also the headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion.

The second atomic bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, which was a massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) factory complex that built all of Japan's light machine guns, heavy machine guns, 20mm antiaircraft guns, and the ammo for all those guns.

Unfortunately due to a lot of bad luck the second atomic bomb was diverted to the secondary target, Nagasaki, which was a shipbuilding town that made some of Japan's largest warships.

At Nagasaki, the second atomic bomb destroyed the torpedo factory that had made the specialized torpedoes designed for defeating Pearl Harbor's natural defenses.




Rigby5 said:


> Otherwise they would already have been destroyed, since our carpet bombing and firestorms had destroyed all the real military and industrial centers.


Hiroshima was chosen as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign when only a handful of cities had been destroyed.  Thereafter it was off limits to conventional bombing.

Nagasaki had a natural immunity to conventional bombing because it was hard to locate on the radar that was used to guide our massive nighttime incendiary raids.




Rigby5 said:


> That is obvious since we did not target any industry or military base with out atomic bombs, but instead selected the population center as ground zero.


Circular logic is bad logic.

We did target military bases and weapons factories.




Rigby5 said:


> And all industrial work had been moved underground, so was not effected at all, nor were any soldier killed.


The destruction of the torpedo factory was quite thorough.  The destruction of the military headquarters was as well.

20,000 Japanese soldiers were killed at Hiroshima.




Rigby5 said:


> And the claim the Japanese had "10,000 kamakazi" planes is just ridiculous.


Not given that actual fact that Japan had ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invasion.




Rigby5 said:


> The reality is they had exactly 109 planes left, but almost all of those were commercial, with fewer than half a dozen military planes.


No reality there.  Japan had ten thousand kamikazes ready to pounce on our invading forces.




Rigby5 said:


> And even those had no fuel or pilots.


The ten thousand kamikaze planes had enough fuel for a single one-way flight.  They were training people to pilot them and target troop transports.




Rigby5 said:


> Why do you think we could send in a slow, solitary bomber to drop these atomic bombs, if they had any aircraft interceptors left at all?


The state of their interceptor fleet is no reflection on the ten thousand kamikazes that they had waiting for us.




Rigby5 said:


> The entire country of Japan was entirely at our mercy and we knew it perfectly.


Actually we knew about the two million soldiers they had waiting to repel our invasion.




Rigby5 said:


> The actual means of defeating the Japanese was by sinking all their shipping with mines dropped from bombers.  They were starving to death, without any defenses left at all,


If that is what defeated them, it's funny how they didn't surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> we were deliberately drawing it out so we could use them as bomb test sites.


We were not the ones who were drawing it out.  We had no control over Japan's refusal to surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> The claim anyone was dying anymore under Japanese occupation is also a lie.


Your holocaust denial is repugnant and despicable.

A minimum of 100,000 people every month were dying under Japanese occupation.




Rigby5 said:


> Our deliberate lies about the Japanese are one of the worst war crimes on all history.


No such lies.

And you might want to consider some of the various genocides before you start loosely throwing around accusations about the worst war crimes in history.




Rigby5 said:


> The Japanese NEVER refused to surrender,


Yes they did.  Their first surrender offer came only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> and had done everything in their power to surrender months earlier.


Fake news.  Never happened.




Rigby5 said:


> WRONG!
> Economic sanctions ARE most definitely illegal war crimes.
> It was ratified by the US in the 1906 Geneva Conventions.
> Civilian economic warfare is totally illegal.
> Economic sanctions are not just acts of war, but criminal.


That is preposterous nonsense.

If economic sanctions were war crimes, we could have lawfully reacted to the 1970s oil embargoes by invading the Middle East and taking their oil by force.




Rigby5 said:


> Open Bolt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear explosions flatten entire cities.  Most people consider that to be significant.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...

This is silly.  The ability to flatten an entire city is one of the most notable properties of a nuclear explosion.




Rigby5 said:


> The blast radius of the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan was less than 3 miles.


That was a lot farther than the lethal radiation extended.




Rigby5 said:


> So the explosive shock wave is not the main effect.


That is incorrect.  Explosive shock is the main effect.




Rigby5 said:


> Most of the people are killed by radiation.


I've never seen a breakdown of radiation deaths versus non-radiation deaths.




Rigby5 said:


> Open Bolt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had Japan continued to refuse to surrender, we would have invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> The whole "Operation Olympic" was fake, entirely designed to head off criticism for our deliberate war crimes.
> Japan was an isolated island, incapable of escape, so essentially was a penal colony, slowly starving to death.
> Invasion was totally unnecessary, useless, and never seriously considered.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect.  We were planning to invade in a few months if Japan had kept refusing to surrender.


----------



## Rigby5

Until the Soviets declared war on Japan on August 8th, there no lack of communications between Japan and the Soviet Union, since the Soviets had not yet withdrawn their embassies, as the US had.
So all attempts by Japan to surrender had to go through the Soviet ambassador.
And we know from the "Potsdam Diaries" that Truman knew the Japanese were desperate to surrender, but only wanted some assurances for the Emperor, since he was a religious leader.
So anyone claiming Japan was not trying to do a full surrender months before the use of nuclear weapons, is lying.
Truman wrote in his diaries that he told Stalin to deliberately stall the Japanese surrender.
Anyone claiming we would have had to intercept radio messages is lying, because the Soviet ambassador had face to face contact with the Japanese leaders.
We knew that the only condition to full surrender was to preserve the Emperor, which we also realized was necessary and later agreed to anyway.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> WRONG!
> Economic sanctions ARE most definitely illegal war crimes.
> It was ratified by the US in the 1906 Geneva Conventions.
> Civilian economic warfare is totally illegal.
> Economic sanctions are not just acts of war, but criminal.


So answer the question? We should have kept supply the Japanese so they could murder millions of Chinese?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> That is wrong because the Japanese has Soviet embassies and talked to Soviets face to face when trying to surrender.
> Sure were have intercepts, but it is clear from what Truman wrote in the "Potsdam Diaries", that Stalin told him outright that Japan was desperate to surrender, and Truman told him to play dumb and not respond quickly.
> None of the details would have been in "intercepts" and anyone bringing up "intercepts" really has no idea at all what was really going on.


LOL right according to you the Embassy somehow knew what the Government wanted and its positions with absolutely no communications between them.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Sorry Junior, but your ignorance is on you.


You certainly have a big mouth, but you can't back up any of your boastful talking by pointing out a single untrue statement in anything that I've said.

I, on the other hand, am able to point out untrue statements in your posts over and over and over again.


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> It is difficult to understand the humanity of those harping on how justified incinerating women and children was, or is.


As logical fallacies go, appeals to melodrama are often the silliest.

Note, again, the factual reality that the atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.




there4eyeM said:


> There are any number of scenarios for alternative use of the bombs.


You mean the silly proposals that we do something other than bomb military targets in the country that we were actually at war with?




there4eyeM said:


> There are any number of arguments as to what would have been better.


No good ones.

The human race would be extinct right now (or at the very least, back in the stone age again) if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.




there4eyeM said:


> No one can deny that there were alternatives.


Like the silly proposals that we attack a country other than the one that we were actually at war with?




there4eyeM said:


> The fact is, not enough thought went into the enormous ramifications of this technology and its use.


That isn't a fact.  They put enormous effort into doing just that.




there4eyeM said:


> As stated before, the bombs were used tactically, not strategically, given the place of the U.S. at the time.


No.  Tactical bombing would have been when we saved up a bunch of atomic bombs and used them to clear the beaches ahead of our invasion.




there4eyeM said:


> Just getting some Japanese officials to sit down and formalize the realities on the ground did not change the fact that the war was over and Japan lay supine, defenseless and defeated.


That as well is not a fact.

Japan was still refusing to surrender, and they had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading forces.




there4eyeM said:


> No one here is going to change his mind now; it's all been said. Some don't care about the inhumanity of war, some may misunderstand it. Some of us see the use of the bombs this way as poor use at best and leave the humanitarian aspects apart. The total inability to even admit that any other path was open begs the question of intellectual honesty.


We all know that there were other paths open.

Yes, it would have been possible for us to bomb our own cities instead of bombing Japanese cities.

Doing such a thing would have been quite preposterous, but it is certainly possible that we could have done it.

All sorts of different paths could have been followed.

But we chose to follow the path of attacking military targets in the country that we were actually at war with.

Good for us.




there4eyeM said:


> Given what was done, what position to criticize would the U.S. be in if Russia were to use such weapons to 'win' their current 'war'?


There is now a global taboo against the use of nuclear weapons.  There is an even stronger global taboo against the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapons state.

We would have no trouble condemning it and leading the rest of the world in a harsh response against Russia.




there4eyeM said:


> It would be wonderful if this could honestly be denied.


Doing so is quite easy, but it is a bit off topic for this thread.

I realize that for those who hate freedom and democracy, one lie about America is little different from another.  But really, it's only atomic bomb based lies about America that are on topic here.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> That is wrong because the Japanese has Soviet embassies and talked to Soviets face to face when trying to surrender.
> Sure were have intercepts, but it is clear from what Truman wrote in the "Potsdam Diaries", that Stalin told him outright that Japan was desperate to surrender, and Truman told him to play dumb and not respond quickly.
> None of the details would have been in "intercepts" and anyone bringing up "intercepts" really has no idea at all what was really going on.


Fake news.  Never happened.

All Japan did was ask the Soviets for permission to let Prince Konoye come and talk to them.

Since permission was never granted, Prince Konoye never went and talked to them, and the Soviets never even heard what Prince Konoye had to say to them.

But since at the time Japan was trying to escape the war without surrendering, if Prince Konoye had actually gone and talked to them, he would have talked about helping Japan to end the war in a draw (much like the Korean War later ended).




Rigby5 said:


> Until the Soviets declared war on Japan on August 8th, there no lack of communications between Japan and the Soviet Union, since the Soviets had not yet withdrawn their embassies, as the US had.
> So all attempts by Japan to surrender had to go through the Soviet ambassador.


Japan was free to send their surrender requests through neutral embassies like those of Switzerland and Sweden.




Rigby5 said:


> And we know from the "Potsdam Diaries" that Truman knew the Japanese were desperate to surrender, but only wanted some assurances for the Emperor, since he was a religious leader.


Truman knew no such falsehood.  Japan was trying to escape the war by ending it in a draw instead of surrendering.




Rigby5 said:


> So anyone claiming Japan was not trying to do a full surrender months before the use of nuclear weapons, is lying.


Not given the fact that Japan refused to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> Truman wrote in his diaries that he told Stalin to deliberately stall the Japanese surrender.


Truman did not say any such thing.  Neither did he write in his diary about saying such a thing.




Rigby5 said:


> Anyone claiming we would have had to intercept radio messages is lying, because the Soviet ambassador had face to face contact with the Japanese leaders.


It's not like we had access to private discussions between the Soviet Ambassador and the Japanese government.

Not that it matters.  The only thing that the Japanese government was saying to the Soviet Ambassador is: "Please let Prince Konoye come to the USSR and talk to your government."




Rigby5 said:


> We knew that the only condition to full surrender was to preserve the Emperor, which we also realized was necessary and later agreed to anyway.


This as well is untrue.  We never agreed to Japan's condition.

Japan's condition was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.  We naturally refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Concerned American said:


> No sense in getting testy, gunny.  Again--the target was not the military base, it was the T-bridge at city hall.  That was a civilian target.  The point of the matter remains, it was an overkill that gave great insight to the use of the bomb.  It doesn't remove the fact that it was unnecessary.  As I said in a previous post, second guessing 75 years later does no good for anyone.  War sucks, there are winners and losers in any conflict.  It sucked to be Japan in Aug. 1945.


That wasn't a target, it was an AIMING POINT.  That is a structure, or natural feature that is readily identifiable from the air.  When you are dropping a bomb or bombs that have a destruction radius measured in hundreds of yards you aren't picky.  In WWII "precision bombing" was a myth, bombers were lucky to hit within a mile of their aiming point from high altitude, especially over Japan with the jet stream to contend with.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> "the city was selected because it was “the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list,” according to the administration’s Target Committee.20 Hiroshima, in other words, did not have enough military production to justify an earlier conventional attack"


Those are your words.  Hiroshima was a major naval base and army command center.  Both, or either, made it a legitimate target.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Rigby5 said:


> WRONG!
> Japan had desperately been TRYING to surrender and we refused to communicate with them directly, and pretended confusion with the surrender attempts through the Soviets.


The Japanese GOVERNMENT wasn't trying to surrender.  Individuals with no official position, power, or permission from the government were trying to arrange surrender terms that were completely unacceptable to the Allies. The government's OFFICIAL position was a return to status quo ante December 6th, 1941, no war crimes trials, any disarmament to be conducted by the Japanese, under Japanese supervision and decided upon by the Japanese.  The only territory the Japanese government was willing to give up was what was already controlled by the Allies.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> Those are your words.  ...


NO. Did you see the quotation marks you used?


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> The Japanese GOVERNMENT wasn't trying to surrender. ...


Wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered. A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.


^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> People really should learn at least a basic level of information about the topics they get worked up about here. Just being insecure about long-held narratives that they have found comfortable since childhood is not serious discussion.


^^^^^^


----------



## Flash

Open Bolt said:


> Japan's condition was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.  We naturally refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.


We should have strung up Hirohito and left his body hanging until it rotted.

However, the US knew that would not make reconstruction of the country any easier.  Wiser heads prevailed.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Everything that I've said is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> We "knew" no such falsehood.  What Japan wanted was to end the war in a draw without surrendering.
> 
> 
> 
> We had no control over whether Japan surrendered.
> 
> Had we such control, we would have had Japan surrender to us in 1941.
> 
> 
> 
> We had no such interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.  It was Japan's primary military port, and the port that launched all their invasions of neighboring countries.
> 
> Hiroshima had more soldiers than any Japanese city other than Tokyo (which was much much larger).  Hiroshima had the highest soldier/civilian ratio of any of Japan's major cities.
> 
> Hiroshima was also the headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion.
> 
> The second atomic bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, which was a massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) factory complex that built all of Japan's light machine guns, heavy machine guns, 20mm antiaircraft guns, and the ammo for all those guns.
> 
> Unfortunately due to a lot of bad luck the second atomic bomb was diverted to the secondary target, Nagasaki, which was a shipbuilding town that made some of Japan's largest warships.
> 
> At Nagasaki, the second atomic bomb destroyed the torpedo factory that had made the specialized torpedoes designed for defeating Pearl Harbor's natural defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima was chosen as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign when only a handful of cities had been destroyed.  Thereafter it was off limits to conventional bombing.
> 
> Nagasaki had a natural immunity to conventional bombing because it was hard to locate on the radar that was used to guide our massive nighttime incendiary raids.
> 
> 
> 
> Circular logic is bad logic.
> 
> We did target military bases and weapons factories.
> 
> 
> 
> The destruction of the torpedo factory was quite thorough.  The destruction of the military headquarters was as well.
> 
> 20,000 Japanese soldiers were killed at Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> Not given that actual fact that Japan had ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> No reality there.  Japan had ten thousand kamikazes ready to pounce on our invading forces.
> 
> 
> 
> The ten thousand kamikaze planes had enough fuel for a single one-way flight.  They were training people to pilot them and target troop transports.
> 
> 
> 
> The state of their interceptor fleet is no reflection on the ten thousand kamikazes that they had waiting for us.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we knew about the two million soldiers they had waiting to repel our invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> If that is what defeated them, it's funny how they didn't surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> We were not the ones who were drawing it out.  We had no control over Japan's refusal to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Your holocaust denial is repugnant and despicable.
> 
> A minimum of 100,000 people every month were dying under Japanese occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> No such lies.
> 
> And you might want to consider some of the various genocides before you start loosely throwing around accusations about the worst war crimes in history.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did.  Their first surrender offer came only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> That is preposterous nonsense.
> 
> If economic sanctions were war crimes, we could have lawfully reacted to the 1970s oil embargoes by invading the Middle East and taking their oil by force.
> 
> 
> 
> This is silly.  The ability to flatten an entire city is one of the most notable properties of a nuclear explosion.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a lot farther than the lethal radiation extended.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  Explosive shock is the main effect.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a breakdown of radiation deaths versus non-radiation deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  We were planning to invade in a few months if Japan had kept refusing to surrender.



Everything you said was wrong.
Clearly the Japanese did not want to surrender in 1941 because they still had food, fuel, and ability to fight.
But that quickly ended after 1943 when we mined the waters between Japan and Asia.
From then on, Japan was desperate to surrender, and it was only our reluctance to let them surrender, that kept the war going.

The atomic bombs had essentially no effect at all on the Japanese desire to surrender, and they were insignificant.
We killed far more with every conventional air attack than we did with any atomic attack.

What cause the Japanese to end the war was the mining of the waters to Asia in 1943.
{...
U.S. MINES INDOCHINA WATERS​TODAY
*Honolulu, Hawaii · October 29, 1943*

In World War II’s Pacific Theater, sea mines—explosive underwater devices that damaged, sank, or deterred Japanese warships, submarines, and maritime commerce—were weapons that had difficulty gaining the same respect as guns, bombs, and torpedoes enjoyed in the U.S. arsenal. Over time, however, a small number of mining advocates in both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army Air Forces influenced their service bosses enough to ensure the growth of offensive mine-laying, equipment development, and combat experience.
On this date in 1943 U.S. submarines began mining the waters off French Indochina. The following March the U.S. Navy mounted a direct aerial mining attack on Japanese shipping on Palau Island in the Western Pacific, which stopped 32 Japanese ships from escaping Palau’s harbor. Combined with bombing and strafing attacks, the operation sank or damaged 36 ships.
The most successful mining operations were those conducted by the Allied air forces laying aerial minefields. Beginning with a very successful attack on the Yangon River in Burma (Myanmar) in February 1943, B‑24 Liberators, PBY Catalinas, and other available bomber aircraft took part in localized mining operations in the China Burma India (CBI) Theater and in the Southwest Pacific (Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, Borneo, New Guinea, and the western Solomon Islands). British and Royal Australian air forces carried out 60 percent of the sorties and the U.S. Army Air Forces and U.S. Navy carried out the balance. U.S. Adm. Thomas C. Kinkaid, who directed nearly all RAAF mining operations in the CBI, wrote in July 1944 that “aerial mining operations were of the order of 100 times as destructive to the enemy as an equal number of bombing missions against land targets.”
The U.S. mining effort against the Japanese Home Islands proved very successful, closing major ports like Hiroshima on Western Honshū, the largest Home Island, for days. At best, the Japanese succeeded in sweeping only about 50 percent of American acoustic mines (they measured sound of certain frequencies). Pressure mines, the most commonly used against Japan near the end of the war, were even more difficult to sweep. By war’s end, more than 25,000 U.S.-laid sea mines were still in place. Over the next 30 years, more than 500 minesweepers were damaged or sunk in continuing clearance efforts.
...}

It is downright silly to claim there were military objectives in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, because there really were no more military objectives anywhere in Japan, as they had all already been obliterated,
There were NO Japanese aircraft capable of trying to intercept a single bomber.
We had total free will to the air, anyway or place we wanted.

And trying to be deliberately obtuse does not make you seem very smart.
When OPEC sets prices, that is NOT "economic sanctions".
Economic sanctions are when you prohibit trade with others by the use of force, like we did to Iraq in 2002, to Cuba, or recently to Russia.
The US is prohibiting others from civilian trade, and that is a totally illegal war crime.
It was illegal to sink Japanese ships carrying civilian food back to Japan during WWII.

Your claim that there was constant deaths from Japanese occupation is totally false.
The main cause of death near the end of the war was the US destruction of shipping.

It does not take a physicist to understand that 95% of atomic bomb deaths are from radiation.
Almost no one dies instantly.
It is essentially illegal chemical warfare, since they die in agony, months later, from radiation poisoning.
However, I do have a degree in Physics, so you should take my word for it.


----------



## Unkotare

Rigby5 said:


> ...
> Clearly the Japanese did not want to surrender in 1941 because they still had food, fuel, and ability to fight.
> .


..
They didn't have any of that by then.


----------



## Unkotare

Rigby5 said:


> ...
> 
> It does not take a physicist to understand that 95% of atomic bomb deaths are from radiation.
> Almost no one dies instantly.
> ....


In Hiroshima, 80,000 people died instantly.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Japan's condition was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity. We naturally refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.



That is a lie.
Since Hirohito was the religious leader for most of Japan, they just did not want him on trial or executed.
And really he did nothing illegal.
So the US totally agreed, and could have agreed a year earlier and ended the war then.


----------



## Rigby5

Unkotare said:


> In Hiroshima, 80,000 people died instantly.



The radiation probably still took seconds to kill, if not minutes or hours.
The point being that it was not the explosive shock wave that killed the majority.
It was a horrific death that violated the Geneva conventions.


----------



## Concerned American

T


AZrailwhale said:


> That wasn't a target, it was an AIMING POINT.  That is a structure, or natural feature that is readily identifiable from the air.  When you are dropping a bomb or bombs that have a destruction radius measured in hundreds of yards you aren't picky.  In WWII "precision bombing" was a myth, bombers were lucky to hit within a mile of their aiming point from high altitude, especially over Japan with the jet stream to contend with.


That bomb was within 25 yards of "aiming point"


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese GOVERNMENT wasn't trying to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...

Not wrong.

Japan made no attempt to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Unkotare said:


> Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered.


It's not like these falsehoods that you keep posting are shattering anything.

Or were you referring to your own reaction when I pointed out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and Japan was refusing to surrender?




Unkotare said:


> A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.


There is nothing weak minded about denouncing lies.

A real historian will always challenge lies.

Real historians care about the truth.




Unkotare said:


> People really should learn at least a basic level of information about the topics they get worked up about here.


Indeed.  If you learned something about this subject you would not present so many falsehoods.




Unkotare said:


> Just being insecure about long-held narratives that they have found comfortable since childhood is not serious discussion.


It is worth correcting your falsehoods regardless of how serious you are.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> Open Bolt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's condition was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.  We naturally refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.  We refused Japan's request and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




Rigby5 said:


> Since Hirohito was the religious leader for most of Japan, they just did not want him on trial or executed.


Yet what Japan asked was for Hirohito to retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.




Rigby5 said:


> And really he did nothing illegal.


Genocide and murder are generally regarded as being illegal.




Rigby5 said:


> So the US totally agreed,


No we didn't.  We flatly refused their request and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




Rigby5 said:


> and could have agreed a year earlier and ended the war then.


We were not interested in guaranteeing that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power a year earlier either.

But if we had done so, it would not have ended the war.  August 10, 1945 was the first day that Japan was willing to contemplate surrender.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> Everything you said was wrong.


That is incorrect.  Everything that I said is true.




Rigby5 said:


> Clearly the Japanese did not want to surrender in 1941 because they still had food, fuel, and ability to fight.


So much for the theory about the US having magical control over when Japan decided to surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> From then on, Japan was desperate to surrender,


That is incorrect.  Japan only decided to surrender after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> and it was only our reluctance to let them surrender, that kept the war going.


We did not have any magical control over when Japan decided to surrender.  That decision was entirely up to Japan.




Rigby5 said:


> The atomic bombs had essentially no effect at all on the Japanese desire to surrender, and they were insignificant.
> We killed far more with every conventional air attack than we did with any atomic attack.
> 
> What cause the Japanese to end the war was the mining of the waters to Asia in 1943.
> {...
> U.S. MINES INDOCHINA WATERS​TODAY
> *Honolulu, Hawaii · October 29, 1943*
> 
> In World War II’s Pacific Theater, sea mines—explosive underwater devices that damaged, sank, or deterred Japanese warships, submarines, and maritime commerce—were weapons that had difficulty gaining the same respect as guns, bombs, and torpedoes enjoyed in the U.S. arsenal. Over time, however, a small number of mining advocates in both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army Air Forces influenced their service bosses enough to ensure the growth of offensive mine-laying, equipment development, and combat experience.
> On this date in 1943 U.S. submarines began mining the waters off French Indochina. The following March the U.S. Navy mounted a direct aerial mining attack on Japanese shipping on Palau Island in the Western Pacific, which stopped 32 Japanese ships from escaping Palau’s harbor. Combined with bombing and strafing attacks, the operation sank or damaged 36 ships.
> The most successful mining operations were those conducted by the Allied air forces laying aerial minefields. Beginning with a very successful attack on the Yangon River in Burma (Myanmar) in February 1943, B‑24 Liberators, PBY Catalinas, and other available bomber aircraft took part in localized mining operations in the China Burma India (CBI) Theater and in the Southwest Pacific (Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, Borneo, New Guinea, and the western Solomon Islands). British and Royal Australian air forces carried out 60 percent of the sorties and the U.S. Army Air Forces and U.S. Navy carried out the balance. U.S. Adm. Thomas C. Kinkaid, who directed nearly all RAAF mining operations in the CBI, wrote in July 1944 that “aerial mining operations were of the order of 100 times as destructive to the enemy as an equal number of bombing missions against land targets.”
> The U.S. mining effort against the Japanese Home Islands proved very successful, closing major ports like Hiroshima on Western Honshū, the largest Home Island, for days. At best, the Japanese succeeded in sweeping only about 50 percent of American acoustic mines (they measured sound of certain frequencies). Pressure mines, the most commonly used against Japan near the end of the war, were even more difficult to sweep. By war’s end, more than 25,000 U.S.-laid sea mines were still in place. Over the next 30 years, more than 500 minesweepers were damaged or sunk in continuing clearance efforts.
> ...}


Yet Japan chose to wait until August 10, 1945 before offering to surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> It is downright silly to claim there were military objectives in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, because there really were no more military objectives anywhere in Japan,


Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.  It was Japan's primary military port, and the port that launched all their invasions of neighboring countries.

Hiroshima had more soldiers than any Japanese city other than Tokyo (which was much much larger).  Hiroshima had the highest soldier/civilian ratio of any of Japan's major cities.

Hiroshima was also the headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion.

The second atomic bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, which was a massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) factory complex that built all of Japan's light machine guns, heavy machine guns, 20mm antiaircraft guns, and the ammo for all those guns.

Unfortunately due to a lot of bad luck the second atomic bomb was diverted to the secondary target, Nagasaki, which was a shipbuilding town that made some of Japan's largest warships.

At Nagasaki, the second atomic bomb destroyed the torpedo factory that had made the specialized torpedoes designed for defeating Pearl Harbor's natural defenses.




Rigby5 said:


> as they had all already been obliterated,


Hiroshima had not been obliterated.

Kokura Arsenal had not been obliterated.

The Mitsubishi Shipyards had not been obliterated.




Rigby5 said:


> There were NO Japanese aircraft capable of trying to intercept a single bomber.
> We had total free will to the air, anyway or place we wanted.


The state of their interceptor fleet is no reflection on the ten thousand kamikazes that they had waiting for us.




Rigby5 said:


> And trying to be deliberately obtuse does not make you seem very smart.
> When OPEC sets prices, that is NOT "economic sanctions".
> Economic sanctions are when you prohibit trade with others by the use of force,


That is incorrect.  Sanctions are when you cut economic ties and stop selling and/or buying from whoever you are placing sanctions on.




Rigby5 said:


> like we did to Iraq in 2002, to Cuba, or recently to Russia.


We did no such thing.




Rigby5 said:


> The US is prohibiting others from civilian trade,


No we aren't.




Rigby5 said:


> and that is a totally illegal war crime.


It would be an act of war certainly.  But not a crime in any way.




Rigby5 said:


> It was illegal to sink Japanese ships carrying civilian food back to Japan during WWII.


Not once war was declared it wasn't.




Rigby5 said:


> Your claim that there was constant deaths from Japanese occupation is totally false.


Your holocaust denial is repugnant and despicable.

A minimum of 100,000 people every month were dying under Japanese occupation.




Rigby5 said:


> It does not take a physicist to understand that 95% of atomic bomb deaths are from radiation.


But a physicist would know that it isn't true.

The blast effects were more extensive than the radiation effects.




Rigby5 said:


> It is essentially illegal chemical warfare, since they die in agony, months later, from radiation poisoning.


Nuclear weapons are not chemical weapons.  They are two different things.




Rigby5 said:


> The point being that it was not the explosive shock wave that killed the majority.


The point is untrue.  The shockwave was the primary means of damage.




Rigby5 said:


> It was a horrific death that violated the Geneva conventions.


No such violation.  Atomic bombs are lawful weapons.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Not wrong.
> 
> Japan made no attempt to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like these falsehoods that you keep posting are shattering anything.
> 
> Or were you referring to your own reaction when I pointed out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and Japan was refusing to surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing weak minded about denouncing lies.
> 
> A real historian will always challenge lies.
> 
> Real historians care about the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  If you learned something about this subject you would not present so many falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> It is worth correcting your falsehoods regardless of how serious you are.



Its obvious you are lying.
It is obvious Japan was starving to death since 1943, and desperate to surrender.
They continually tried, and the US would not respond.

Anything remotely military at Hiroshima or Nagasaki had been removed long ago, and there was zero justifiable targets there.

It is obvious that Japan was already trying to surrender because the atomic bombs killed FEWER people than a typical firestorm or conventional bombing attack on Japan.

{...
Japan's military and civil defenses were unable to stop the Allied attacks. The number of fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft guns assigned to defensive duties in the home islands was inadequate, and most of these aircraft and guns had difficulty reaching the high altitudes at which B-29s often operated. Fuel shortages, inadequate pilot training, and a lack of coordination between units also constrained the effectiveness of the fighter force. Despite the vulnerability of Japanese cities to firebombing attacks, the firefighting services lacked training and equipment, and few air raid shelters were constructed for civilians. As a result, the B-29s were able to inflict severe damage on urban areas while suffering few losses.

The Allied bombing campaign was one of the main factors which influenced the Japanese government's decision to surrender in mid-August 1945. However, there has been a long-running debate over the morality of the attacks on Japanese cities, and the use of atomic weapons is particularly controversial. The most commonly cited estimate of Japanese casualties from the raids is 333,000 killed and 473,000 wounded. There are a number of other estimates of total fatalities, however, which range from 241,000 to 900,000. In addition to the loss of mostly civilian life, the raids contributed to a large decline in industrial production.
...
By the end of these raids just over half (50.8 percent) of Tokyo had been destroyed and the city was removed from XXI Bomber Command's target list.[135]
...
During May and June the bombers had destroyed much of the country's six largest cities, killing between 112,000 and 126,762 people and rendering millions homeless. The widespread destruction and high number of casualties from these raids caused many Japanese to realize that their country's military was no longer able to defend the home islands. American losses were low compared to Japanese casualties; 136 B-29s were downed during the campaign.[141][142][143] In Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohama, Kobe, and Kawasaki, "over 126,762 people were killed ... and a million and a half dwellings and over 105 square miles (270 km2) of urban space were destroyed."[144] In Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, "the areas leveled (almost 100 square miles (260 km2)) exceeded the areas destroyed in all German cities by both the American and British air forces (approximately 79 square miles (200 km2))."[144]
...}








						Air raids on Japan - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Clearly there was no one left in Japan who did not want to surrender before the atomics were dropped.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> We did no such thing.



Yes we did.
We threatened and used military force to prevent trade with Iraq, Cuba, and now Russia.
Finally after many years of an illegal economic blockade of Iraq, we allowed the OFF (Oil For Food) program in Iraq because so many counties were complaining about our illegal economic sanctions.  We starved Iraq from 1991 to 1995.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> No such violation. Atomic bombs are lawful weapons.



No nuclear weapons are not legal.
They clearly violate the existing Geneva conventions against weapons of mass destruction.

{...
After World War II, a new set of treaties concerning the laws of war—the Geneva Conventions—established the standards of international humanitarian law (IHL). Under Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, the nuclear bombing of Japan would have violated IHL. In fact, using nuclear weapons in any situation would likely violate international law. Due to its potential for utter destruction, nuclear weapons should not exist in our current world and should not be used in any circumstance.
...}


			https://www.law.georgetown.edu/international-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/05/48-3-The-Legality-of-Nuclear-Weapons-for-Use-and-Deterrence.pdf#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20using%20nuclear%20weapons%20in%20any%20situation,interna%C2%AD%20tional%20law%20does%20not%20ban%20nuclear%20weapons.


----------



## GWV5903

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


Truman made the right decision, WW II had 82MM+ casualties, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 226,000 and ultimately saved 2MM + more casualties from occurring. As harsh as this sounds, this was the best decision.


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL right according to you the Embassy somehow knew what the Government wanted and its positions with absolutely no communications between them.



Oh, we actually know what was said between them because of MAGIC.

Naotake Sato was the Ambassador to the Soviet Union, and he himself was frustrated with what Japan was proposing to the Soviets.  That is was not a surrender, but an ante bellium armistice, that he knew the Allies would never accept, and the Soviets would never pass along.  The thing is, we were reading all of their transmissions to their own Ambassador, and he had his hands completely tied.  The Japanese wanted no less than a return to the lines of December 1941.  The Allies leave all Japanese territory prior to 1941 (Including Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa), and all territory be "demilitarized" under Japanese supervision.

That is what Japan wanted, and that is the farthest thing from a "surrender" than is possible.

But notice, not a single person screaming ad nauseum that the bombs were not needed will ever say that is what Japan proposed.  Even their own Ambassador to the Soviet Union knew they had no interest in surrender, they only wanted to stall for time.  Sure that the "Divine Wind" would save them as it had in the past.


----------



## Mushroom

GWV5903 said:


> Truman made the right decision, WW II had 82MM+ casualties, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 226,000 and ultimately saved 2MM + more casualties from occurring. As harsh as this sounds, this was the best decision.



Even more.

The Shockley Report estimated over 10 million Japanese fatalities, and up to 800,000 fatalities (among 1.7 million Allied casualties).


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered. A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.


^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "General Dwight Eisenhower, in his memoirs, recalled a visit from Secretary of War Henry Stimson in late July 1945: “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.’” Eisenhower reiterated the point years later in a _Newsweek _interview in 1963, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”1
> 
> In fact, seven out of eight top U.S. military commanders believed that it was unnecessary to use atomic bombs against Japan from a military-strategic vantage point, including Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, William Halsey, and William Leahy, and Generals Henry Arnold and Douglas MacArthur.2 According to Air Force historian Daniel Haulman, even General Curtis LeMay, the architect of the air war against Japan, believed “the new weapons were unnecessary, because his bombers were already destroying the Japanese cities.”3"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was There a Diplomatic Alternative? The Atomic Bombing and Japan's Surrender
> 
> 
> Abstract: This article assesses the evidence for claims that the dropping of the atomic bombs were essential for securing Japan’s surrender and offers an alternative interpretation. Keywords: Ato
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apjjf.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> One day after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, General MacArthur’s pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary: “General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this ‘Frankenstein’ monster. I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa.”4
> 
> Admiral Halsey, Commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, testified before Congress in September 1949, “I believe that bombing – especially atomic bombing – of civilians, is morally indefensible. . . . I know that the extermination theory has no place in a properly conducted war.”5
> 
> Admiral Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote in his memoirs: “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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”6
> 
> That the Japanese were on the verge of defeat was made clear to the president in a top-secret memorandum from Secretary of War Henry Stimson on July 2, 1945. Stimson noted that Japan “has no allies,” its “navy is nearly destroyed,” she is vulnerable to an economic blockade depriving her “of sufficient food and supplies for her population,” she is “terribly vulnerable to our concentrated air attack upon her crowded cities, industrial, and food resources,” she “has against her not only the Anglo-American forces but the rising forces of China and the ominous threat of Russia,” and the United States has “inexhaustible and untouched industrial resources to bring to bear against her diminishing potential.” "


^^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "The assertion that the atomic bombings forced Japan to surrender was not supported by a U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, published in July 1946, which noted that the decision of Japanese leaders “to abandon the war is tied up with other factors. The atomic bomb had more effect on the thinking of government leaders than on the morale of the rank and file of civilians outside the target areas. It cannot be said, however, that the atomic bomb convinced the leaders who effected the peace of the necessity of surrender.”17"
> 
> Admiral King, Commander in Chief of Naval Operations, stated in his memoirs that neither the atomic bombings nor a prospective U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary, as “an effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.”18"


^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bomb Was Not Necessary |  History News         Network
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> historynewsnetwork.org


^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer_* identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman."*_


^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "Indeed, Japan had put out peace feelers. As reported in the _New York Times_ on July 26, 1945, “The Tokyo Radio, in an English-language broadcast to North America, has urged that the United States adopt a more lenient attitude toward Japan with regard to peace.” The broadcast quoted an ancient Aesop Fable in which a powerful wind could not force a man to give up his coat, but a gentle warming sun succeeded in doing so.25
> 
> Japan’s appeal fell on deaf ears in Washington."


^^^^^^


----------



## Moonglow

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


War is immoral yet humans have spent the majority of their time on the planet engaged in war.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "This was not why Hiroshima was chosen. Rather, the city was selected because it was “the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list,” according to the administration’s Target Committee.20 Hiroshima, in other words, did not have enough military production to justify an earlier conventional attack (as compared to other cities on the priority list), and the effects of the bomb had to be uncontaminated from previous bombings in order to properly assess their damage."


^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "The assertion that the atomic bombings forced Japan to surrender was not supported by a U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, published in July 1946, which noted that the decision of Japanese leaders “to abandon the war is tied up with other factors. The atomic bomb had more effect on the thinking of government leaders than on the morale of the rank and file of civilians outside the target areas. It cannot be said, however, that the atomic bomb convinced the leaders who effected the peace of the necessity of surrender.”17"
> 
> Admiral King, Commander in Chief of Naval Operations, stated in his memoirs that neither the atomic bombings nor a prospective U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary, as “an effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.”18"


^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "General Dwight Eisenhower, in his memoirs, recalled a visit from Secretary of War Henry Stimson in late July 1945: “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.’” Eisenhower reiterated the point years later in a _Newsweek _interview in 1963, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”1
> 
> In fact, seven out of eight top U.S. military commanders believed that it was unnecessary to use atomic bombs against Japan from a military-strategic vantage point, including Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, William Halsey, and William Leahy, and Generals Henry Arnold and Douglas MacArthur.2 According to Air Force historian Daniel Haulman, even General Curtis LeMay, the architect of the air war against Japan, believed “the new weapons were unnecessary, because his bombers were already destroying the Japanese cities.”3"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was There a Diplomatic Alternative? The Atomic Bombing and Japan's Surrender
> 
> 
> Abstract: This article assesses the evidence for claims that the dropping of the atomic bombs were essential for securing Japan’s surrender and offers an alternative interpretation. Keywords: Ato
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apjjf.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> One day after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, General MacArthur’s pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary: “General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this ‘Frankenstein’ monster. I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa.”4
> 
> Admiral Halsey, Commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, testified before Congress in September 1949, “I believe that bombing – especially atomic bombing – of civilians, is morally indefensible. . . . I know that the extermination theory has no place in a properly conducted war.”5
> 
> Admiral Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote in his memoirs: “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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”6
> 
> That the Japanese were on the verge of defeat was made clear to the president in a top-secret memorandum from Secretary of War Henry Stimson on July 2, 1945. Stimson noted that Japan “has no allies,” its “navy is nearly destroyed,” she is vulnerable to an economic blockade depriving her “of sufficient food and supplies for her population,” she is “terribly vulnerable to our concentrated air attack upon her crowded cities, industrial, and food resources,” she “has against her not only the Anglo-American forces but the rising forces of China and the ominous threat of Russia,” and the United States has “inexhaustible and untouched industrial resources to bring to bear against her diminishing potential.” "


^^^^^^^^


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> ^^^^^^^^


Padding your post count by replying to ignorant posts already debunked is stupid


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered.


It's not like these falsehoods that you keep posting are shattering anything.

Or were you referring to your own reaction when I pointed out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and Japan was refusing to surrender?




Unkotare said:


> A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.


There is nothing weak minded about denouncing lies.

A real historian will always challenge lies.

Real historians care about the truth.




Unkotare said:


> Admiral King, Commander in Chief of Naval Operations, stated in his memoirs that neither the atomic bombings nor a prospective U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland was necessary, as “an effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.”18"


So what?  All this pathetic whining is pretty tedious.

Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted.

Japan chose not to surrender, so we kept on attacking them.

If Japan didn't want us to keep on attacking them, then they should have surrendered earlier than they did.




Unkotare said:


> "General Dwight Eisenhower, in his memoirs, recalled a visit from Secretary of War Henry Stimson in late July 1945: “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.’” Eisenhower reiterated the point years later in a _Newsweek _interview in 1963, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”1


More tedious whining.  Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted to.

It was their choice and their fault that they chose not to do so.




Unkotare said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bomb Was Not Necessary |  History News         Network
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> historynewsnetwork.org


More tedious whining.  Japan was still refusing to surrender so we had every right to continue attacking them.




Unkotare said:


> "Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman."


Fake news.  Never happened.




Unkotare said:


> "Indeed, Japan had put out peace feelers. As reported in the _New York Times_ on July 26, 1945, “The Tokyo Radio, in an English-language broadcast to North America, has urged that the United States adopt a more lenient attitude toward Japan with regard to peace.” The broadcast quoted an ancient Aesop Fable in which a powerful wind could not force a man to give up his coat, but a gentle warming sun succeeded in doing so.25
> Japan’s appeal fell on deaf ears in Washington."


They are the ones who waited until August 10 before deciding to surrender.




Unkotare said:


> "This was not why Hiroshima was chosen. Rather, the city was selected because it was “the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list,” according to the administration’s Target Committee.20 Hiroshima, in other words, did not have enough military production to justify an earlier conventional attack (as compared to other cities on the priority list), and the effects of the bomb had to be uncontaminated from previous bombings in order to properly assess their damage."


Are you quoting Gar Alperovitz there?

Whoever you are quoting is pretty disingenuous, because Hiroshima was selected as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign when only a handful of Japanese cities had been destroyed.




Unkotare said:


> "The assertion that the atomic bombings forced Japan to surrender was not supported by a U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, published in July 1946, which noted that the decision of Japanese leaders “to abandon the war is tied up with other factors. The atomic bomb had more effect on the thinking of government leaders than on the morale of the rank and file of civilians outside the target areas. It cannot be said, however, that the atomic bomb convinced the leaders who effected the peace of the necessity of surrender.”17"


Who cares?  Japan refused to surrender so we kept bombing them.

We stopped bombing them once they surrendered.




Unkotare said:


> That the Japanese were on the verge of defeat was made clear to the president in a top-secret memorandum from Secretary of War Henry Stimson on July 2, 1945. Stimson noted that Japan “has no allies,” its “navy is nearly destroyed,” she is vulnerable to an economic blockade depriving her “of sufficient food and supplies for her population,” she is “terribly vulnerable to our concentrated air attack upon her crowded cities, industrial, and food resources,” she “has against her not only the Anglo-American forces but the rising forces of China and the ominous threat of Russia,” and the United States has “inexhaustible and untouched industrial resources to bring to bear against her diminishing potential."


And yet Japan chose to not surrender.

Turned out to be a bad choice.  Dumb move on their part.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> Its obvious you are lying.


Everything that I've said is true.




Rigby5 said:


> It is obvious Japan was starving to death since 1943, and desperate to surrender.


Japan's refusal to surrender until August 10, 1945 says otherwise.




Rigby5 said:


> They continually tried, and the US would not respond.


Japan's first surrender attempt came on August 10, 1945, and the US responded the next day.




Rigby5 said:


> Anything remotely military at Hiroshima or Nagasaki had been removed long ago, and there was zero justifiable targets there.


The military headquarters that was responsible for repelling our invasion of Japan was still at Hiroshima.

43,000 Japanese soldiers were still at Hiroshima.

The massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) factory complex that made all of Japan's light machine guns, heavy machine guns, 20mm antiaircraft guns, and the ammo for all those weapons was still at Kokura Arsenal.

The shipyards that built many of Japan's largest warships were still at Nagasaki.

The torpedo factory that designed and built special torpedoes to defeat Pearl Harbor's defenses was still at Nagasaki.

All were valid military targets.




Rigby5 said:


> It is obvious that Japan was already trying to surrender because the atomic bombs killed FEWER people than a typical firestorm or conventional bombing attack on Japan.


That's bad logic.

And Japan did not try to surrender until August 10, 1945.




Rigby5 said:


> {...
> Japan's military and civil defenses were unable to stop the Allied attacks. The number of fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft guns assigned to defensive duties in the home islands was inadequate, and most of these aircraft and guns had difficulty reaching the high altitudes at which B-29s often operated. Fuel shortages, inadequate pilot training, and a lack of coordination between units also constrained the effectiveness of the fighter force. Despite the vulnerability of Japanese cities to firebombing attacks, the firefighting services lacked training and equipment, and few air raid shelters were constructed for civilians. As a result, the B-29s were able to inflict severe damage on urban areas while suffering few losses.
> 
> The Allied bombing campaign was one of the main factors which influenced the Japanese government's decision to surrender in mid-August 1945. However, there has been a long-running debate over the morality of the attacks on Japanese cities, and the use of atomic weapons is particularly controversial. The most commonly cited estimate of Japanese casualties from the raids is 333,000 killed and 473,000 wounded. There are a number of other estimates of total fatalities, however, which range from 241,000 to 900,000. In addition to the loss of mostly civilian life, the raids contributed to a large decline in industrial production.
> ...
> By the end of these raids just over half (50.8 percent) of Tokyo had been destroyed and the city was removed from XXI Bomber Command's target list.[135]
> ...
> During May and June the bombers had destroyed much of the country's six largest cities, killing between 112,000 and 126,762 people and rendering millions homeless. The widespread destruction and high number of casualties from these raids caused many Japanese to realize that their country's military was no longer able to defend the home islands. American losses were low compared to Japanese casualties; 136 B-29s were downed during the campaign.[141][142][143] In Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohama, Kobe, and Kawasaki, "over 126,762 people were killed ... and a million and a half dwellings and over 105 square miles (270 km2) of urban space were destroyed."[144] In Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, "the areas leveled (almost 100 square miles (260 km2)) exceeded the areas destroyed in all German cities by both the American and British air forces (approximately 79 square miles (200 km2))."[144]
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air raids on Japan - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly there was no one left in Japan who did not want to surrender before the atomics were dropped.


Clearly not, because Japan refused to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Japan did decide to surrender before the third atomic bomb was dropped on them though, so there's that.




Rigby5 said:


> Open Bolt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you prohibit trade with others by the use of force, like we did to Iraq in 2002, to Cuba, or recently to Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> We did no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we did.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect.  We have not used military force to prevent trade with those countries.




Rigby5 said:


> We threatened and used military force to prevent trade with Iraq, Cuba, and now Russia.


No we didn't.




Rigby5 said:


> Finally after many years of an illegal economic blockade of Iraq, we allowed the OFF (Oil For Food) program


We did not blockade Iraq.

But if we had blockaded Iraq, it would not have been illegal in any way.




Rigby5 said:


> we allowed the OFF (Oil For Food) program in Iraq because so many countries were complaining about our illegal economic sanctions.


Economic sanctions are not illegal in any way.




Rigby5 said:


> No nuclear weapons are not legal.


Yes they are.




Rigby5 said:


> They clearly violate the existing Geneva conventions against weapons of mass destruction.


No such violation.




Rigby5 said:


> {...
> After World War II, a new set of treaties concerning the laws of war—the Geneva Conventions—established the standards of international humanitarian law (IHL). Under Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, the nuclear bombing of Japan would have violated IHL. In fact, using nuclear weapons in any situation would likely violate international law. Due to its potential for utter destruction, nuclear weapons should not exist in our current world and should not be used in any circumstance.
> ...}
> 
> 
> https://www.law.georgetown.edu/international-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/05/48-3-The-Legality-of-Nuclear-Weapons-for-Use-and-Deterrence.pdf#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20using%20nuclear%20weapons%20in%20any%20situation,interna%C2%AD%20tional%20law%20does%20not%20ban%20nuclear%20weapons.


That article is pretty goofy.  They claim that radiation rendered Hiroshima and Nagasaki inaccessible.  That's just bizarre.

Their understanding of "superfluous injury" is also lacking.  They seem to think that it refers to collateral damage.  It does not.

They do comprehend the notion of an "indiscriminate weapon" at least.  But they are wrong to say that nuclear weapons cannot be used discriminately.

Nuclear weapons certainly destroy a wider area than a lesser explosion would destroy.  But some military targets are large, or are so well armored that lesser explosions will not harm them.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered. A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.


^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Many people react badly when a comfortable narrative is shattered.


That begs the question of why you found anti-American lies to be so comforting in the first place.

If you mature some more you will not react so badly to the truth.




Unkotare said:


> A real historian isn't so defensive and weak-minded.


Real historians will tell you that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, and that Japan didn't surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.


----------



## Vegasgiants

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


I have quotes from every major US military of the time that says we did not need to use nuclear weapons in the war with japan


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> That begs the question of why you found anti-American lies to be so comforting in the first place.
> 
> If you mature some more you will not react so badly to the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Real historians will tell you that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, and that Japan didn't surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.


Why did all the generals after the war say the bomb was not needed?


----------



## Vegasgiants

miketx said:


> Sez the habitual America hating liar. Strange how the Japs surrendered very shortly after we set them on fire,


We could win every war if we just drop nukes now.


But that's a bad idea


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> That begs the question of why you found anti-American lies to be so comforting i....


What "anti-American lies"?


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> What "anti-American lies"?


All your lies about Japan trying to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped, and all your lies about the bombs not being dropped on military targets.

America bombed military targets in a country that was refusing to surrender.  That was entirely legitimate, and we did nothing wrong.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> I have quotes from every major US military of the time that says we did not need to use nuclear weapons in the war with japan


We've already been bombarded with all the generals' pathetic whining.




Vegasgiants said:


> Why did all the generals after the war say the bomb was not needed?


I neither know nor care.  I just wish they didn't whine so much.

Japan was the one who chose to wait until after we had nuked them twice before surrendering.  If the generals were upset that Japan didn't surrender earlier, the generals' whining should have been directed at Japan.




Vegasgiants said:


> We could win every war if we just drop nukes now.
> But that's a bad idea


How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> All your lies about Japan trying to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped, and all your lies about the bombs not being dropped on military targets.
> 
> America bombed military targets in a country that was refusing to surrender.  That was entirely legitimate, and we did nothing wrong.


General Bombs Away Lemay said the war would have been over in 2 weeks.  He later said probably even earlier


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> We've already been bombarded with all the generals' pathetic whining.
> 
> 
> 
> I neither know nor care.  I just wish they didn't whine so much.
> 
> Japan was the one who chose to wait until after we had nuked them twice before surrendering.  If the generals really wanted Japan to have surrendered earlier, the generals should have directed their whining at Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


What you call pathetic whining I call military analysis from some of the greatest military minds this world has ever known


But then you have an opinion.   Lol


----------



## Turtlesoup

rightwinger said:


> I agree
> There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.
> 
> While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary


They were both necessary------Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima was bombed...they did after nagasaki was though.


----------



## Turtlesoup

mikegriffith1 said:


> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.


Japan was invading other countries--raping and murdering civilians even before they attacked us at Pearl Harbor.  They deserved and should have been sanctioned hun.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> They were both necessary------Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima was bombed...they did after nagasaki was though.


The military generals disagreed


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> General Bombs Away Lemay said the war would have been over in 2 weeks.  He later said probably even earlier


So what?  Who cares?

The war certainly wasn't over when the atomic bombs were dropped.




Vegasgiants said:


> What you call pathetic whining I call military analysis from some of the greatest military minds this world has ever known
> But then you have an opinion.   Lol


Appeals to authority are still a logical fallacy even when the authority is whining.




Vegasgiants said:


> The military generals disagreed


How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> I have quotes from every major US military of the time that says we did not need to use nuclear weapons in the war with japan


Facts say that we needed to...dropping the bombs ended the war..PERIOD.   Ending the war saved hundreds of thousands of our troops and stop Japan from terrorizing others.   

Dropping the bombs was the right and moral thing to do...only idiots don't realize and only idiots or liars claim otherwise.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> The military generals disagreed


Japan surrendered completely after the first bomb?   Am I wrong?

Say NO Vegas....

I don't care what anyone says---I care only about the facts.

AGAIN for you slow marxist people out there...

The bombs ended the war--------ending the war was a good thing as it saved thousands if not millions of lives doing so. 

Idiots upset about dropping the bombs would have preferred to see more people.  These are the only two choices...drop the bombs and end the war, or continue to fight the war and lose more lives.  Binary choice here hun.


----------



## rightwinger

Turtlesoup said:


> They were both necessary------Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima was bombed...they did after nagasaki was though.


We only gave them two days to decide

What would have happened if we gave them a week?


----------



## rightwinger

Turtlesoup said:


> The bombs ended the war--------ending the war was a good thing as it saved thousands if not millions of lives doing so.



The war was over once we successfully tested the bomb at Alamogordo.

From that point on, we had the bomb and nobody else did. An invasion of Japan was no longer necessary

The question was how best to demonstrate our nuclear weapon. 

Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki better options than bombing a purely military target?

Would Japan have surrendered if we had bombed military targets to demonstrate the weapon?

We Will never know
We didn’t give them the chance


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ....
> Real historians will tell you that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, and that Japan didn't surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.



I'm getting the impression that you haven't cracked a history book in decades, Junior.


----------



## Unkotare

When children are told stories that they grow comfortable with, they are resistant to letting them go - ever. Some people never grow up.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> Japan surrendered completely after the first bomb?   Am I wrong?
> 
> Say NO Vegas....
> 
> I don't care what anyone says---I care only about the facts.
> 
> AGAIN for you slow marxist people out there...
> 
> The bombs ended the war--------ending the war was a good thing as it saved thousands if not millions of lives doing so.
> 
> Idiots upset about dropping the bombs would have preferred to see more people.  These are the only two choices...drop the bombs and end the war, or continue to fight the war and lose more lives.  Binary choice here hun.


But we didnt need the bombs to end the war


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> All your lies about Japan trying to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped, and all your lies about the bombs not being dropped on military targets.
> ....


And all of the many, many direct quotes from the top US military leaders of the day are all "lies" too? All of those US military leaders are "anti-American"? Come on, Junior.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> Facts say that we needed to...dropping the bombs ended the war..PERIOD.   Ending the war saved hundreds of thousands of our troops and stop Japan from terrorizing others.
> 
> Dropping the bombs was the right and moral thing to do...only idiots don't realize and only idiots or liars claim otherwise.


Well the fact is the generals said we didnt need the bomb to end the war


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> We only gave them two days to decide


So what?




rightwinger said:


> What would have happened if we gave them a week?


What would have happened if we gave them five seconds between each bombing?




rightwinger said:


> The war was over once we successfully tested the bomb at Alamogordo.
> From that point on, we had the bomb and nobody else did. An invasion of Japan was no longer necessary


We were going to invade Japan if they had kept refusing to surrender.




rightwinger said:


> The question was how best to demonstrate our nuclear weapon.
> Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki better options than bombing a purely military target?


It's hard to think of a target more military than Hiroshima was.




rightwinger said:


> Would Japan have surrendered if we had bombed military targets to demonstrate the weapon?
> We Will never know
> We didn’t give them the chance


That is incorrect.  We did bomb military targets.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> I'm getting the impression that you haven't cracked a history book in decades, Junior.


That's because you are extremely ignorant and you don't know anything about this subject.

I've read more history books on this subject than you've read books.

That's why it is always so easy for me to correct all your untrue statements.




Unkotare said:


> When children are told stories that they grow comfortable with, they are resistant to letting them go - ever. Some people never grow up.


That begs the question of why you find anti-American lies so comforting that you refuse to let go in the face of the truth.




Unkotare said:


> And all of the many, many direct quotes from the top US military leaders of the day are all "lies" too?


I would characterize the quotes as being extra whiny.

The lies are when you claim that Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bombs, or that we didn't attack military targets.




Unkotare said:


> All of those US military leaders are "anti-American"?


No.  Just really really whiny.




Unkotare said:


> Come on, Junior.


You have a big mouth for someone who doesn't know anything about the subject.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> What would have happened if we gave them five seconds between each bombing?
> 
> 
> 
> We were going to invade Japan if they had kept refusing to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to think of a target more military than Hiroshima was.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  We did bomb military targets.


Actually the generals were pretty unanimous that we didnt need to invade either


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> But we didnt need the bombs to end the war


Who cares?




Vegasgiants said:


> Well the fact is the generals said we didnt need the bomb to end the war


It's a shame no one taught them not to whine so loudly.




Vegasgiants said:


> Actually the generals were pretty unanimous that we didnt need to invade either


Had Japan kept refusing to surrender, we would have invaded.

How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame no one taught them not to whine so loudly.
> 
> 
> 
> Had Japan kept refusing to surrender, we would have invaded.
> 
> How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


I care


I think your posts are really whiny


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> I care


That's your prerogative I guess.

I certainly don't care though.




Vegasgiants said:


> I think your posts are really whiny


That shows you have poor judgement.  Perhaps that's why you care so much about irrelevant trivia.

How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> That's because you are extremely ignorant and you don't know anything about this subject.
> ....


Very, very incorrect.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> That's your prerogative I guess.
> 
> I certainly don't care though.
> 
> 
> 
> That shows you have poor judgement.  Perhaps that's why you care so much about irrelevant trivia.


Yeah you got nothing 


Dismissed


----------



## Vegasgiants

Unkotare said:


> Very, very incorrect.


He doesnt want debate


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Yeah you got nothing
> Dismissed


I have more than you have.  All you have is irrelevant trivia.




Vegasgiants said:


> He doesnt want debate


That depends.  I'll be happy to debunk any untrue statements if you want to make any.

If all you are going to do is post irrelevant trivia though, the only response I have is "So what?"

How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> I have more than you have.  All you have is irrelevant trivia.
> 
> 
> 
> That depends.  I'll be happy to debunk any untrue statements if you want to make any.
> 
> If all you are going to do is post irrelevant trivia though, the only response I have is "So what?"
> 
> How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


I dont care


Hey....that works really well. Lol


Dismissed


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Very, very incorrect.


Not even remotely incorrect.  You know nothing about this subject.

That's why you keep making untrue claims that you can't back up.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Not even remotely incorrect.  You know nothing about this subject.
> 
> That's why you keep making untrue claims that you can't back up.


That sounds really whiny


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont care
> Hey....that works really well. Lol
> Dismissed


Feel free to try again if you ever come up with a relevant point to make.




Vegasgiants said:


> That sounds really whiny


No it doesn't.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Feel free to try again if you ever come up with a relevant point to make.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.


We can move on without you.   You are mot here for debate with comments like I dont care


You are dismissed


----------



## rightwinger

Open Bolt said:


> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> What would have happened if we gave them five seconds between each bombing?
> 
> 
> 
> We were going to invade Japan if they had kept refusing to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to think of a target more military than Hiroshima was.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  We did bomb military targets.


Once we tested the bomb there was no longer a need to invade. 
We could bomb them into submission any time we chose

We had three bombs, one to test, two to drop 
We could also continue to produce as many as we needed

There was no rush, Japan was at our mercy

No need to bomb civilians


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ....
> 
> I've read more history books on this subject than you've read books.
> ....


I really, really, really doubt that, Junior. I've been _teaching_ history for over 28 years. How about you?


----------



## Vegasgiants

rightwinger said:


> Once we tested the bomb there was no longer a need to invade.
> We could bomb them into submission any time we chose
> 
> We had three bombs, one to test, two to drop
> We could also continue to produce as many as we needed
> 
> There was no rush, Japan was at our mercy
> 
> No need to bomb civilians


Japan was defeated.  That wanted one thing to surrender and we gave that to them anyway


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> .....
> 
> 
> I would characterize the quotes as being extra whiny.
> ...


The men who fought and won WWII were "whiny"?  

You want to stick to that position, Junior?


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> Not even remotely incorrect.  You know nothing about this subject.
> 
> That's why you keep making untrue claims that you can't back up.


Unlike you, I HAVE backed up everything I've said about the topic. You're just having a tantrum like a small child now.


----------



## miketx

mikegriffith1 said:


> True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.


So you've been fed.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> We can move on without you.


You'd like to be able to move on without me.  But you won't be able to.  I'll still be here to point out all your falsehoods and irrelevancies.




Vegasgiants said:


> You are not here for debate with comments like I dont care


Wrong.  That is a perfectly appropriate response to your irrelevant trivia.




Vegasgiants said:


> You are dismissed


Wrong again.  I'm still here.




Vegasgiants said:


> Japan was defeated.


Then Japan really goofed by refusing to surrender didn't they?




Vegasgiants said:


> That wanted one thing to surrender and we gave that to them anyway


Wrong.  Japan was not willing to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

See?  I told you I'd still be here to correct any falsehoods you spewed.

How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> Once we tested the bomb there was no longer a need to invade.
> We could bomb them into submission any time we chose
> 
> We had three bombs, one to test, two to drop
> We could also continue to produce as many as we needed
> 
> There was no rush, Japan was at our mercy


If Japan had refused to submit despite us bombing them, we would have invaded.




rightwinger said:


> No need to bomb civilians


That's why we dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> I really, really, really doubt that, Junior.


That's because you don't know anything about this subject.




Unkotare said:


> I've been _teaching_ history for over 28 years.


That's scary considering how many falsehoods you post.




Unkotare said:


> How about you?


My private life is my business.




Unkotare said:


> The men who fought and won WWII were "whiny"?


The men who fought and won WWII say that the atomic bombs saved their lives.




Unkotare said:


> You want to stick to that position, Junior?


Your lack of knowledge makes you the junior here.




Unkotare said:


> Unlike you, I HAVE backed up everything I've said about the topic.


Linking to lies on the internet is not backing up your statements.

But feel free to request a cite for any of my facts.  I'm pretty sure you won't (no one ever does).  But the option is open if you want to ask for a cite.




Unkotare said:


> You're just having a tantrum like a small child now.


No I'm not.  You are the only person here who is acting that way.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> You'd like to be able to move on without me.  But you won't be able to.  I'll still be here to point out all your falsehoods and irrelevancies.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  That is a perfectly appropriate response to your irrelevant trivia.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm still here.
> 
> 
> 
> Then Japan really goofed by refusing to surrender didn't they?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Japan was not willing to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> See?  I told you I'd still be here to correct any falsehoods you spewed.
> 
> How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


I dont care


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont care


I know.  But I corrected your falsehood anyway.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> I know.  But I corrected your falsehood anyway.


Assistant Secretary Bard was convinced that a standard bombardment and naval blockade would be enough to force Japan into surrendering. Even more, he had seen signs for weeks that the Japanese were actually already looking for a way out of the war. His idea was for the United States to tell the Japanese about the bomb, the impending Soviet entry into the war, and the fair treatment that citizens and the Emperor would receive at the coming Big Three conference. Before the bombing occurred, Bard pleaded with Truman to neither drop the bombs (at least not without warning the population first) nor to invade the entire country, proposing to stop the bloodshed.[1









						Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> My private life is my business.
> ...



In other words, you're full of shit, Junior. Yeah, all the adults already knew that. Run along now little fella.


----------



## Unkotare

Vegasgiants said:


> Assistant Secretary Bard was convinced that a standard bombardment and naval blockade would be enough to force Japan into surrendering. Even more, he had seen signs for weeks that the Japanese were actually already looking for a way out of the war. His idea was for the United States to tell the Japanese about the bomb, the impending Soviet entry into the war, and the fair treatment that citizens and the Emperor would receive at the coming Big Three conference. Before the bombing occurred, Bard pleaded with Truman to neither drop the bombs (at least not without warning the population first) nor to invade the entire country, proposing to stop the bloodshed.[1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


Many people, like our unfortunately misinformed and limited of mind and character friend posting here, are not aware of the extent of starvation and crumbling morale in Japan towards the end of the war.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Unkotare said:


> Many people, like our unfortunately misinformed and limited of mind and character friend posting here, are not aware of the extent of starvation and crumbling moral in Japan towards the end of the war.


It's a good debate.  Too bad he is not up for it


----------



## miketx

Vegasgiants said:


> Assistant Secretary Bard was convinced that a standard bombardment and naval blockade would be enough to force Japan into surrendering. Even more, he had seen signs for weeks that the Japanese were actually already looking for a way out of the war. His idea was for the United States to tell the Japanese about the bomb, the impending Soviet entry into the war, and the fair treatment that citizens and the Emperor would receive at the coming Big Three conference. Before the bombing occurred, Bard pleaded with Truman to neither drop the bombs (at least not without warning the population first) nor to invade the entire country, proposing to stop the bloodshed.[1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


So what do you think? Are we gonna nuke them?


----------



## Lastamender

Unkotare said:


> In other words, you're full of shit, Junior. Yeah, all the adults already knew that. Run along now little fella.


His private life is very much his own business.


----------



## Vegasgiants

miketx said:


> So what do you think? Are we gonna nuke them?


Who?


----------



## miketx

Vegasgiants said:


> Who?


That's it douche, play dumb.


----------



## Vegasgiants

miketx said:


> That's it douche, play dumb.


Flippitty bippitty!!!!!!


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ......
> The men who fought and won WWII say that the atomic bombs saved their lives.
> ...


"the overwhelming historical evidence from American and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered that August, even if atomic bombs had not been used — and documents prove that President Truman and his closest advisors knew it."









						Op-Ed: U.S. leaders knew we didn't have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway
					

We've been taught that the U.S. had to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. Historical evidence shows Japan would have surrendered anyway.




					www.latimes.com
				




"Truman knew that the Japanese were searching for a way to end the war; he had referred to Togo’s intercepted July 12 cable as the “telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.”"


"MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. "


"Before the bombings, Eisenhower had urged at Potsdam, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
> 
> Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
> Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
> 
> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next



You apparently don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Why do you think the atomic bombs were such a factor in Japan's surrender? 

It is not what you think.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "the overwhelming historical evidence from American and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered that August, even if atomic bombs had not been used — and documents prove that President Truman and his closest advisors knew it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Op-Ed: U.S. leaders knew we didn't have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway
> 
> 
> We've been taught that the U.S. had to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. Historical evidence shows Japan would have surrendered anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Truman knew that the Japanese were searching for a way to end the war; he had referred to Togo’s intercepted July 12 cable as the “telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.”"
> 
> 
> "MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. "
> 
> 
> "Before the bombings, Eisenhower had urged at Potsdam, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"


And yet after 2 atomic bombs and soviet invasion the government of Japan voted NOT to surrender it took the direct intervention of the Emperor and then the Army staged a coup to stop that.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet after 2 atomic bombs and soviet invasion the government of Japan voted NOT to surrender it took the direct intervention of the Emperor and then the Army staged a coup to stop that.


Surrender was inevitable


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Surrender was inevitable


And yet they did NOT do so even after 2 atomic bombs and the Soviet Invasion. With out the Emperor's direct intervention the war would have continued.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet they did NOT do so even after 2 atomic bombs and the Soviet Invasion. With out the Emperor's direct intervention the war would have continued.


ONLY the emperor could surrender.   It was ONLY his call


----------



## miketx

Vegasgiants said:


> Surrender was inevitable


Of course it was, they had to surrender after they pumped two nukes up the jap ass! Duh!


----------



## Vegasgiants

miketx said:


> Of course it was, they had to surrender after they pumped two nukes up the jap ass! Duh!


Buh bye


----------



## Vegasgiants

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:



> There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
> 
> 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.[90][91]











						Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> In other words, you're full of shit,


You talk big.  But you're a fraud.  You can't back up your empty talking by pointing out anything untrue in any of my statements.




Unkotare said:


> Junior.


Your enormous ignorance of this subject makes you the only junior here.




Unkotare said:


> Yeah, all the adults already knew that.


You don't speak for any adults.




Unkotare said:


> Run along now little fella.


You engage in personal attacks because you don't know anything about the actual subject here.




Unkotare said:


> our unfortunately misinformed and limited of mind and character friend posting here,


You engage in personal attacks because you don't know anything about the actual subject here.




Unkotare said:


> are not aware of the extent of starvation and crumbling morale in Japan towards the end of the war.


Wrong.  I do not share your complete ignorance of this subject.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> You talk big.  But you're a fraud.  You can't back up your empty talking by pointing out anything untrue in any of my statements.
> 
> 
> 
> Your enormous ignorance of this subject makes you the only junior here.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for any adults.
> 
> 
> 
> You engage in personal attacks because you don't know anything about the actual subject here.
> 
> 
> 
> You engage in personal attacks because you don't know anything about the actual subject here.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  I do not share your complete ignorance of this subject.


Dismissed


----------



## Open Bolt

Lastamender said:


> His private life is very much his own business.


Unkotare isn't capable of making intelligent arguments so he makes personal attacks against people instead.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Unkotare isn't capable of making intelligent arguments so he makes personal attacks against people instead.


You have nothing to add to this debate


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Dismissed


You certainly are.  Come back when you have something relevant to say.




Vegasgiants said:


> You have nothing to add to this debate


Wrong again.  I debunk all the falsehoods that you spew.




Vegasgiants said:


> Assistant Secretary Bard was convinced that a standard bombardment and naval blockade would be enough to force Japan into surrendering. Even more, he had seen signs for weeks that the Japanese were actually already looking for a way out of the war. His idea was for the United States to tell the Japanese about the bomb, the impending Soviet entry into the war, and the fair treatment that citizens and the Emperor would receive at the coming Big Three conference. Before the bombing occurred, Bard pleaded with Truman to neither drop the bombs (at least not without warning the population first) nor to invade the entire country, proposing to stop the bloodshed.


Bard's ideas resulted in the Potsdam Proclamation being issued.




Vegasgiants said:


> Too bad he is not up for it


You engage in personal attacks against me because you aren't capable of contradicting my position.




Vegasgiants said:


> Surrender was inevitable


And our attacks against Japan continued until Japan surrendered.




Vegasgiants said:


> ONLY the emperor could surrender.   It was ONLY his call


Then, if you are unhappy about the timing of the surrender, maybe direct your complaints to the Emperor instead of bashing the US.




Vegasgiants said:


> The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:


So what?

More of your irrelevant trivia I guess?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> You certainly are.  Come back when you have something relevant to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I debunk all the falsehoods that you spew.


I dont care


----------



## Vegasgiants

Navy.[95][96][97]

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir _The White House Years_:



> In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his 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.[98]











						Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont care


I know.  But I debunk your falsehoods anyway.




Vegasgiants said:


> Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir _The White House Years_:


Ike sure did whine a lot.


----------



## Vegasgiants

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


----------



## miketx

Open Bolt said:


> Unkotare isn't capable of making intelligent arguments so he makes personal attacks against people instead.


I make personal attacks too but only to treasonous leftist scum. It's not possible to have an honest debate with filthy liars, so I gave up decades ago.


----------



## miketx

Vegasgiants said:


> Buh bye


Taking your ball and going home so soon?


----------



## rightwinger

Open Bolt said:


> If Japan had refused to submit despite us bombing them, we would have invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we dropped the atomic bombs on military targets.


For Christ sake…we gave them two days to decide

We had all the time on our side
Deciding to kill an extra 400,000 was not necessary


----------



## Vegasgiants

miketx said:


> Taking your ball and going home so soon?


Yawn


----------



## rightwinger

Dayton3 said:


> You apparently don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
> 
> Why do you think the atomic bombs were such a factor in Japan's surrender?
> 
> It is not what you think.


Yes


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
> — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


Nimitz was pretty goofy.  Japan didn't sue for peace until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> For Christ sake…we gave them two days to decide


Two days too many.  Three seconds was more than enough time.

Japan should be glad that I wasn't in charge of planning the bombing.  




rightwinger said:


> We had all the time on our side


We weren't interested in waiting.




rightwinger said:


> Deciding to kill an extra 400,000 was not necessary


If that is supposed to be the Nagasaki death toll, you accidentally added a zero.

If that is supposed to be the number of Americans killed in the invasion, like I said, we were not interested in waiting.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Nimitz was pretty goofy.  Japan didn't sue for peace until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.


It's fun to.post things and not have to.prove them


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> "the overwhelming historical evidence from American and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered that August, even if atomic bombs had not been used — and documents prove that President Truman and his closest advisors knew it."


Wrong again.  No such documents exist,




Unkotare said:


> Op-Ed: U.S. leaders knew we didn't have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway
> 
> 
> We've been taught that the U.S. had to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. Historical evidence shows Japan would have surrendered anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com


The fact that we expected the Soviet entry into the war to be a blow to Japanese morale is in no way evidence that we could see into the future and know that the war would end at that moment.

We had no idea what it would take to make Japan surrender.

Gar Alperovitz is a known fraud by the way.  So not exactly a credible source.




Unkotare said:


> "Truman knew that the Japanese were searching for a way to end the war; he had referred to Togo’s intercepted July 12 cable as the “telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.”"
> "MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. "
> "Before the bombings, Eisenhower had urged at Potsdam, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"


More pathetic whining.

If Japan wanted out of the war, they were free to surrender at any time.

Japan was the one who chose to wait until after both atomic bombs had been dropped before surrendering.


----------



## rightwinger

Open Bolt said:


> Two days too many.  Three seconds was more than enough time.
> 
> Japan should be glad that I wasn't in charge of planning the bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> We weren't interested in waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> If that is supposed to be the Nagasaki death toll, you accidentally added a zero.
> 
> If that is supposed to be the number of Americans killed in the invasion, like I said, we were not interested in waiting.


We had a bomb
Nobody on earth had any

Time was on our side
 No need to slaughter additional civilians


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong again.  No such documents exist,
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we expected the Soviet entry into the war to be a blow to Japanese morale is in no way evidence that we could see into the future and know that the war would end at that moment.
> 
> We had no idea what it would take to make Japan surrender.
> 
> Gar Alperovitz is a known fraud by the way.  So not exactly a credible source.
> 
> 
> 
> More pathetic whining.
> 
> If Japan wanted out of the war, they were free to surrender at any time.
> 
> Japan was the one who chose to wait until after both atomic bombs had been dropped before surrendering.


Oh look you posted just empty claims again


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> We had a bomb
> Nobody on earth had any
> 
> Time was on our side
> No need to slaughter additional civilians


We were not interested in giving Japan a break to rest up and recover between blows.  We were going to keep pounding them until they surrendered.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> It's fun to.post things and not have to.prove them
> HAHAHAHAHA


Do calendars really confuse you that much?

August 6: Hiroshima

August 9: Nagasaki

August 10: Japan's first attempt to surrender.

You can't tell what the order of events was?




Vegasgiants said:


> Oh look you posted just empty claims again
> HAHAHAHAHA


You cannot point out any empty claims in any of my posts.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Do calendars really confuse you that much?
> 
> August 6: Hiroshima
> 
> August 9: Nagasaki
> 
> August 10: Japan's first attempt to surrender.
> 
> You can't tell what the order of events was?
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot point out any empty claims in any of my posts.


Did you say something?

I dont care


----------



## rightwinger

Open Bolt said:


> We were not interested in giving Japan a break to rest up and recover between blows.  We were going to keep pounding them until they surrendered.



Very true
We were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians

Doesn’t make it right


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Do calendars really confuse you that much?
> 
> August 6: Hiroshima
> 
> August 9: Nagasaki
> 
> August 10: Japan's first attempt to surrender.
> 
> You





Open Bolt said:


> We were not interested in giving Japan a break to rest up and recover between blows.  We were going to keep pounding them until they surrendered.


Yeah they were gonna pounce back with a vengeance 


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


They did? Link to the official document meeting or memorandum from the Japanese Government.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> They did? Link to the official document meeting or memorandum from the Japanese Government.


You think nimitz was lying?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> You think nimitz was lying?


I ask for a link to an actual document if you dont have one admit it and accept that you are wrong.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> I ask for a link to an actual document if you dont have one admit it and accept that you are wrong.


I don't have one.  Perhaps they kept no such document to keep the meeting secret.  Can you answer my question now?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I don't have one.  Perhaps they kept no such document to keep the meeting secret.  Can you answer my question now?


He was wrong as evidenced by the fact there is NO record in Japan or the US Soviet Union or anywhere else that Japan offered to surrender BEFORE August 10.


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> Very true
> We were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians
> Doesn’t make it right


The laws of war make it right.  We had every right to keep attacking Japan until they surrendered.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Did you say something?


Your childishness sure is a poor substitute for an informed argument.

I know it's not your fault that you don't have an informed argument, but still.




Vegasgiants said:


> I dont care


I know.  But I corrected your falsehood anyway.




Vegasgiants said:


> You think nimitz was lying?


More likely he was just babbling ignorantly.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> He was wrong as evidenced by the fact there is NO record in Japan or the US Soviet Union or anywhere else that Japan offered to surrender BEFORE August 10.


Hmmmm.  You can prove they did not have such meetings and intentionally did not keep notes?


RetiredGySgt said:


> He was wrong as evidenced by the fact there is NO record in Japan or the US Soviet Union or anywhere else that Japan offered to surrender BEFORE August 10.


----------



## Vegasgiants

The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Hmmmm.  You can prove they did not have such meetings and intentionally did not keep notes?


It is YOUR responsibility to prove a meeting happened not mine to prove something did not happen.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Hmmmm.  You can prove they did not have such meetings and intentionally did not keep notes?


If you ever decide to learn about the subject, you will find that Japan did not make any surrender offers until August 10.




Vegasgiants said:


> The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]


More pathetic whining from Leahy.

If Japan was ready to surrender, it was a pretty bad move on their part to not surrender.

How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is YOUR responsibility to prove a meeting happened not mine to prove something did not happen.


What do you think about what Leahy said.


I posted his quote


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> What do you think about what Leahy said.
> 
> 
> I posted his quote


He is wrong. Pretty damn simply if an offer was made then it would have appeared in the Japanese Government files and the US Government files. Again making a claim with no evidence is stupid.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> He is wrong. Pretty damn simply if an offer was made then it would have appeared in the Japanese Government files and the US Government files. Again making a claim with no evidence is stupid.


Hmmm


How about Bombs Away Lemay

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


all these quotes can be found here










						Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Hmmm
> 
> 
> How about Bombs Away Lemay
> 
> The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]
> 
> 
> all these quotes can be found here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


They are wrong the fact is that even after 2 bombs and an invasion by the Soviets the Government of Japan voted to continue the war and after the Emperor overruled them the Army members staged a Coup to stop the Emperor from surrendering. So much for your claim Japan was trying to surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> They are wrong the fact is that even after 2 bombs and an invasion by the Soviets the Government of Japan voted to continue the war and after the Emperor overruled them the Army members staged a Coup to stop the Emperor from surrendering. So much for your claim Japan was trying to surrender.


Yet they did surrender.   So surrender was definitely an option.

How about Halsey?

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. 

— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [103]


----------



## rightwinger

Open Bolt said:


> The laws of war make it right.  We had every right to keep attacking Japan until they surrendered.



We had control of the seas and the airspace around Japan
We had all the time in the world

We were the only nation on earth who had THE BOMB

We could end it in two days or two months, it didn’t matter 
It was OVER 

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians wasn’t necessary


----------



## Vegasgiants

rightwinger said:


> We had control of the seas and the airspace around Japan
> We had all the time in the world
> 
> We were the only nation on earth who had THE BOMB
> 
> We could end it in two days or two months, it didn’t matter
> It was OVER
> 
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians wasn’t necessary


Japan had almost no ability to do anything.   We could have sat on our ships in the sea of japan and waited.  It would have been over in a few weeks


----------



## rightwinger

Vegasgiants said:


> Japan had almost no ability to do anything.   We could have sat on our ships in the sea of japan and waited.  It would have been over in a few weeks


We had the BOMB
Nobody else did

We had all the time in the world


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> We had control of the seas and the airspace around Japan
> We had all the time in the world
> We were the only nation on earth who had THE BOMB
> We could end it in two days or two months, it didn’t matter
> It was OVER
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians wasn’t necessary


We were going to keep attacking Japan until they surrendered.

And if they were still refusing to surrender when we were ready to invade, we were going to invade.




rightwinger said:


> We had the BOMB
> Nobody else did
> We had all the time in the world


We were not interested in waiting.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> How about Bombs Away Lemay
> The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


So what?

I mean, maybe that would be useful information in a game of Trivial Pursuit.  But otherwise who cares?




Vegasgiants said:


> How about Halsey?
> The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
> — Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [103]


I see the name Alperovitz in that cite note, so there is no reason to think that Halsey actually said that.

Alperovitz is known for editing quotes to make them sound like the opposite of what people really said.

It makes it sound like Halsey is a goofy nut who doesn't understand why we bomb countries when we are at war with them.

But knowing Alperovitz, that's probably not what the guy actually said.




Vegasgiants said:


> Japan had almost no ability to do anything.   We could have sat on our ships in the sea of japan and waited.  It would have been over in a few weeks


So what?

How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> We had a bomb
> Nobody on earth had any
> 
> Time was on our side
> No need to slaughter additional civilians



Why not? 

It was Japanese civilians that started the war with the U.S.


----------



## rightwinger

Dayton3 said:


> Why not?
> 
> It was Japanese civilians that started the war with the U.S.


No, it wasn’t 

It was the Japanese militarists


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> No, it wasn’t
> 
> It was the Japanese militarists



And who were the leaders of Japan?      Who built the weapons?    Who grew the food that fed the military?

Civilians


----------



## rightwinger

Dayton3 said:


> And who were the leaders of Japan?      Who built the weapons?    Who grew the food that fed the military?
> 
> Civilians


The leaders were the Emperor and the military complex

The citizens had no input


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> The leaders were the Emperor and the military complex
> 
> The citizens had no input


It was the citizens that built the weapons and grew the food was it not?


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...You can't back up your empty talking.


....


I have backed up everything I've said with direct quotes from those involved at the time.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> I have backed up everything I've said with direct quotes from those involved at the time.


You can't back up your claim about Japan trying to surrender before the atomic bombs, because Japan never tried to do any such thing.

And your most recent failure to back up your claims was in reference to your personal attacks against me.  You can't back up anything that you said about me.  Quotes from historical figures certainly won't help you do that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> ....
> 
> 
> I have backed up everything I've said with direct quotes from those involved at the time.


No you have not.... link to the 40 pages of surrender offers? Link to an actual offer from the Japanese Government?


----------



## Vegasgiants

rightwinger said:


> The leaders were the Emperor and the military complex
> 
> The citizens had no input


It's like you have to dumb everything down for these guys


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> It's like you have to dumb everything down for these guys


Its like you guys think that a small group of "militarists" magically manufacture the weapons and munitions for a multi million man army and that this same group magically grows the food to feed that army.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> No you have not.... link to the 40 pages of surrender offers? Link to an actual offer from the Japanese Government?


Do you honestly think that all these brillant military leaders were wrong in their military assessment?


I am just asking your honest military opinion


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> Its like you guys think that a small group of "militarists" magically manufacture the weapons and munitions for a multi million man army and that this same group magically grows the food to feed that army.


You know this based on your long history of military service?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Do you honestly think that all these brillant military leaders were wrong in their military assessment?
> 
> 
> I am just asking your honest military opinion


Yes IF and it is a big if they actually said the things in the quotes then they were dead wrong.  The simple fact that after 2 atomic bombs and the soviet invasion the Japanese Government VOTED to continue the war PROVES they were wrong.


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> You know this based on your long history of military service?


Unlike you apparently I can read.


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> Do you honestly think that all these brillant military leaders were wrong in their military assessment?
> 
> 
> I am just asking your honest military opinion


Military leaders have their own biases.    You would know that if you knew anything about the military you  claimed to have served in but obviously never did.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes IF and it is a big if they actually said the things in the quotes then they were dead wrong.  The simple fact that after 2 atomic bombs and the soviet invasion the Japanese Government VOTED to continue the war PROVES they were wrong.


There is no denying they said it.  It has multiple references 

That is like saying we should have dropped atomic weapons in every war we have been in....because then they would surrendered right away


We dont even need a army


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> Unlike you apparently I can read.


But unlike you I can  serve my country


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> Military leaders have their own biases.    You would know that if you knew anything about the military you  claimed to have served in but obviously never did.


Settle down son


----------



## Vegasgiants

Japan was reaching out to Russia to sue for peace.  But when Russia invaded manchuria on the day between the two bombings Japan knew it was over.  That was what led Japan to surrender

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.[105] Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the Potsdam Declaration signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.[106] As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[107] Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:



> His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative to fight on with all its strength for the honour and existence of the Motherland ... It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoe to Moscow as a Special Envoy ...[108]


Hasegawa's view is, when the Soviet Union declared war on 8 August,[109] it crushed all hope in Japan's leading circles that the Soviets could be kept out of the war and also that reinforcements from Asia to the Japanese islands would be possible for the expected invasion.[11


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> But unlike you I can  serve my country


Why didn't you then?   If you did,  then prove it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> Why didn't you then?   If you did,  then prove it.


Sure.  Hang on


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> Settle down son



Drop dead traitor and coward.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> Drop dead traitor and coward.


Yeah.  But I'm sure you are fun at parties


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> You can't back up your claim ...


I have backed up every claim. YOU have not,  Junior.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Unkotare said:


> I have backed up every claim. YOU have not,  Junior.


He doesnt even try.  I asked him.  He says I dont care


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> Yeah.  But I'm sure you are fun at parties



I rarely go to parties.   You're the traitor and coward.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> I rarely go to parties.   You're the traitor and coward.


Get em ranger


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> Get em ranger


Where is the proof you served in the military that you promised to provide?

And note,  I'll freely admit to never having served in the military so I don't have to provide anything.


----------



## AZrailwhale

If the Japanese had wanted to surrender, all the government had to do was have the minister of state pick up the phone and call the Swiss embassy.  They would have passed the message on to the Swiss embassy in DC which would have had the Ambassador walk it into the Secretary of State’s office who would have notified FDR who would have issued orders to cease fighting and sent occupation forces into Japan.  The war would have been over within days of the Japanese telephoning the Swiss ambassador.  That’s how easy it would have been for the Japanese to surrender.


----------



## AZrailwhale

rightwinger said:


> Once we tested the bomb there was no longer a need to invade.
> We could bomb them into submission any time we chose
> 
> We had three bombs, one to test, two to drop
> We could also continue to produce as many as we needed
> 
> There was no rush, Japan was at our mercy
> 
> No need to bomb civilians


No rush, right, pull the other one it’s got bells on it.  Thousands of civilians were being killed in the Greater East Asian CoOrosperity Sphere every day and hundreds of Allied POWs were dying or being murdered by Japanese guards every week.  The Japanese were murdering captured aviators right up until and even after the surrender.  Several Royal Navy Pilots were captured in the last attack on the DEI and were tortured and murdered AFTER Japan signed the surrender documents.  Yes there was a rush to defeat Japan.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


The strategic bombing survey was a product of the bomber mafia.  It also concluded that Nazi Germany would have been defeated by aerial bombing despite the evidence of four years of war that proved otherwise.


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> General Bombs Away Lemay said the war would have been over in 2 weeks. He later said probably even earlier



You mean the guy that also predicted that the bombs would not be needed, and they could crush Japan by firebombing the top 100 major cities into ashes?

That by the 1960s, air forces would be so powerful that there would no longer be a need for an army?

That the best way to win WWIII was to launch a pre-emptive strike ourselves?

And you are actually taking his claims seriously?  And no, he actually predicted 4 months of firebombing.  Which would not have been nuclear, but would have killed far more people.


----------



## Mushroom

AZrailwhale said:


> If the Japanese had wanted to surrender, all the government had to do was have the minister of state pick up the phone and call the Swiss embassy. They would have passed the message on to the Swiss embassy in DC which would have had the Ambassador walk it into the Secretary of State’s office who would have notified FDR who would have issued orders to cease fighting and sent occupation forces into Japan. The war would have been over within days of the Japanese telephoning the Swiss ambassador. That’s how easy it would have been for the Japanese to surrender.



The Japanese actually did try to go through the Swiss.  And the Swedes.  And when both of them refused to present their proposal for an armistice (not a surrender - there is a huge difference between the two) they both refused.

Japan then went to their last hope, the Soviets.  Their own ambassador told them they had to get serious, and the Soviets knew that their proposal never had a chance of being accepted.  So they simply strung them along until they themselves declared war against them.

All anybody has to do is look at the meetings of the Imperial Cabinet prior to, the days of the bombings, and afterwards.  Those were the only people in the nation with the power to surrender.  And until after the second bomb and the invasion of the Soviet Union, they were still determined to continue no matter what the cost.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> I have backed up every claim.


You have backed up none of your personal attacks against me.

You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.




Unkotare said:


> Junior.


Given your vast and total ignorance of this subject, you are the only junior here.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Do you honestly think that all these brillant military leaders were wrong in their military assessment?
> I am just asking your honest military opinion


If they said that Japan offered to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped, then yes they were wrong.

If you are merely talking about them whining about the atomic bombs, then who knows and who cares.




Vegasgiants said:


> when Russia invaded manchuria on the day between the two bombings Japan knew it was over.  That was what led Japan to surrender


Now look at the date of that surrender offer.

_After_ both atomic bombs had already been dropped, right?




Vegasgiants said:


> He doesnt even try.


You rely on personal attacks because you can't support your position with facts or logic.

How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> ....
> 
> 
> I have backed up everything I've said with direct quotes from those involved at the time.


^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> I have backed up every claim. YOU have not,  Junior.


^^^^^^^^


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> I have backed up everything I've said with direct quotes from those involved at the time.





Unkotare said:


> I have backed up every claim.


You have backed up none of your personal attacks against me.

You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.




Unkotare said:


> Junior.


Given your vast and total ignorance of this subject, you are the only junior here.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> I have backed up every claim. YOU have not,  Junior.


^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> I have backed up every claim.


Liar.




Unkotare said:


> Junior.


Given your vast and total ignorance of this subject, you are the only junior here.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> I have backed up every claim. YOU have not,  Junior.


It's unfortunate that some people come to the history forum, but are clearly unwilling if not unable to actually discuss history. The study of history involves more than just repeating comfortable narratives like some kind of tribal chant. Those without the courage to look directly at the facts of history really should go somewhere else for empty self-affirmation. Leave it to the adults to actually discuss history.


----------



## Flash

AZrailwhale said:


> If the Japanese had wanted to surrender, all the government had to do was have the minister of state pick up the phone and call the Swiss embassy.  They would have passed the message on to the Swiss embassy in DC which would have had the Ambassador walk it into the Secretary of State’s office who would have notified FDR who would have issued orders to cease fighting and sent occupation forces into Japan.  The war would have been over within days of the Japanese telephoning the Swiss ambassador.  That’s how easy it would have been for the Japanese to surrender.


The sonofabitches resisted so much on Okinawa and inflicted such horrendous casualties on the Americans that they thought we would just let them get by without an unconditional surrender to prevent further casualties.

If they had surrendered either before or after Okinawa they never would have got nuked.

Like you said, all it took would have been a phone call.

They didn't make the phone call and they paid the price.   Sorry about that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> ^^^^^^^


You have done no such thing, where is the link to all the supposed Japanese offers to surrender BEFORE Aug 10?


----------



## rightwinger

AZrailwhale said:


> No rush, right, pull the other one it’s got bells on it.  Thousands of civilians were being killed in the Greater East Asian CoOrosperity Sphere every day and hundreds of Allied POWs were dying or being murdered by Japanese guards every week.  The Japanese were murdering captured aviators right up until and even after the surrender.  Several Royal Navy Pilots were captured in the last attack on the DEI and were tortured and murdered AFTER Japan signed the surrender documents.  Yes there was a rush to defeat Japan.


Japan was contained
Their Navy was neutralized and they lacked the pilots to challenge our air superiority

But we had THE BOMB

The ability to end the war under our terms.

The question is……did those terms need to be three days between bombs


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> If they said that Japan offered to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped, then yes they were wrong.
> 
> If you are merely talking about them whining about the atomic bombs, then who knows and who cares.
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the date of that surrender offer.
> 
> _After_ both atomic bombs had already been dropped, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You rely on personal attacks because you can't support your position with facts or logic.
> 
> How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


I dont care


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> The Japanese actually did try to go through the Swiss.  And the Swedes.  And when both of them refused to present their proposal for an armistice (not a surrender - there is a huge difference between the two) they both refused.
> 
> Japan then went to their last hope, the Soviets.  Their own ambassador told them they had to get serious, and the Soviets knew that their proposal never had a chance of being accepted.  So they simply strung them along until they themselves declared war against them.
> 
> All anybody has to do is look at the meetings of the Imperial Cabinet prior to, the days of the bombings, and afterwards.  Those were the only people in the nation with the power to surrender.  And until after the second bomb and the invasion of the Soviet Union, they were still determined to continue no matter what the cost.


Actually only the emperor could surrender.   And he only wanted one thing....no trials for the imperial family.    We could have easily given them that.....because that is exactly what we did after the war.


But truman did not want a quick surrender.   He had a message he wanted to give russia....that the US was now the biggest dog on the block

So he used the bombs


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> The strategic bombing survey was a product of the bomber mafia.  It also concluded that Nazi Germany would have been defeated by aerial bombing despite the evidence of four years of war that proved otherwise.


I see.  And I suppose all the quotes of the military generals that said the bomb was not needed was also a product of this mafia?


This is quite a conspiracy


----------



## there4eyeM

It is not an entire condemnation of America to suggest that the use of the atomic bombs was excessive. As stated, given the thinking of the time, using these weapons was a simple extension of thought and policy. That thinking, itself, was shortsighted. The real significance of developing such instruments was not understood. 
It is surprising how sensitive posters are about discussing something so far in the past.


----------



## there4eyeM

Vegasgiants said:


> Actually only the emperor could surrender.   And he only wanted one thing....no trials for the imperial family.    We could have easily given them that.....because that is exactly what we did after the war.
> 
> 
> But truman did not want a quick surrender.   He had a message he wanted to give russia....that the US was now the biggest dog on the block
> 
> So he used the bombs


In that case, it would have been much more impressive to have bombed Japanese military bases in Manchuria, close enough for "Joe" to see from his back porch.


----------



## Vegasgiants

there4eyeM said:


> In that case, it would have been much more impressive to have bombed Japanese military bases in Manchuria, close enough for "Joe" to see from his back porch.


I think Russia got the message

Those bombs were the first attack of the cold war


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> It's unfortunate that some people come to the history forum, but are clearly unwilling if not unable to actually discuss history.


Your tendency to do this is indeed unfortunate.

Even worse is your resort to personal attacks whenever the real historians challenge your falsehoods.




Unkotare said:


> The study of history involves more than just repeating comfortable narratives like some kind of tribal chant.


If you refer to your use of personal attacks in addition to repeating your falsehoods, then no.  Your personal attacks are not history either.




Unkotare said:


> Those without the courage to look directly at the facts of history really should go somewhere else for empty self-affirmation. Leave it to the adults to actually discuss history.


So when are you leaving?


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> Japan was contained
> Their Navy was neutralized and they lacked the pilots to challenge our air superiority
> But we had THE BOMB
> The ability to end the war under our terms.
> The question is……did those terms need to be three days between bombs


No.  They didn't need to be three days apart.

The wait between bombs should have been much less than three days.

What we should have done is never made Little Boy, and instead made a bunch of composite implosion cores with that uranium.

Then we should have started off by nuking Hiroshima.  Then a day later Kyoto (let Stimson whine).  Then a day later Kokura Arsenal.  Then a day later Yokohama (which we should have spared conventional bombing).  Then a day later we should have topped it off by simultaneously bombing Nagasaki and Niigata at the same moment.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> So when are you leaving?


Why would I leave, Junior? You never did tell me how many years you've been teaching History. Oh, and did you notice all the many, many references, links, and direct quotes I have posted on this topic?


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> It is not an entire condemnation of America to suggest that the use of the atomic bombs was excessive.


It doesn't have to be an entire condemnation of America.  It is still wrong to falsely accuse America of imaginary wrongdoing.

The atomic bombs were not excessive in any way whatsoever.




there4eyeM said:


> As stated, given the thinking of the time, using these weapons was a simple extension of thought and policy. That thinking, itself, was shortsighted.


No it wasn't.  They put lots of thought into how to use the atomic bombs.




there4eyeM said:


> The real significance of developing such instruments was not understood.


Yes it was.  Why do you think they insisted on destroying an entire city in the very first use, without giving the world any warning that such an attack was coming?

They wanted to be sure that everyone immediately understood the power of these weapons so that the world would take them seriously.




there4eyeM said:


> It is surprising how sensitive posters are about discussing something so far in the past.


Americans don't like it when people lie about America.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Why would I leave,


Because you said that hacks who know nothing about history should leave, and you are a hack who knows nothing of history.




Unkotare said:


> Junior?


Given your vast and total ignorance of this subject, you are the only junior here.




Unkotare said:


> You never did tell me how many years you've been teaching History.


You lack the intelligence to understand this, but other people's private lives are none of your business.




Unkotare said:


> Oh, and did you notice all the many, many references, links, and direct quotes I have posted on this topic?


You have backed up none of your personal attacks against me.

You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont care


Everyone knows.

It's why you lie about the end of the war all the time.




Vegasgiants said:


> Actually only the emperor could surrender.   And he only wanted one thing....no trials for the imperial family.    We could have easily given them that.....because that is exactly what we did after the war.


Wrong again.

What the Emperor wanted was to end the war in a draw (much like the Korean War later ended).

We never gave them any such thing.




Vegasgiants said:


> But truman did not want a quick surrender.


Yes he did.




Vegasgiants said:


> He had a message he wanted to give russia....that the US was now the biggest dog on the block


The US was not depending on Japan to deliver that message.  We would have been willing to wait and use nukes in the next war.

But in retrospect it is a very good thing that we got to nuke Japan.  Had we waited until we had more nukes and Russia had their own nukes, once all the nukes started flying it would have been the end of humanity.




Vegasgiants said:


> So he used the bombs


The reason why Japan was nuked was because of Japan.  They were still refusing to surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Everyone knows.
> 
> It's why you lie about the end of the war all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> What the Emperor wanted was to end the war in a draw (much like the Korean War later ended).
> 
> We never gave them any such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did.
> 
> 
> 
> The US was not depending on Japan to deliver that message.  We would have been willing to wait and use nukes in the next war.
> 
> But in retrospect it is a very good thing that we got to nuke Japan.  Had we waited until we had more nukes and Russia had their own nukes, once all the nukes started flying it would have been the end of humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why Japan was nuked was because of Japan.  They were still refusing to surrender.


Still dont care


----------



## gipper

Vegasgiants said:


> Actually only the emperor could surrender.   And he only wanted one thing....no trials for the imperial family.    We could have easily given them that.....because that is exactly what we did after the war.
> 
> 
> But truman did not want a quick surrender.   He had a message he wanted to give russia....that the US was now the biggest dog on the block
> 
> So he used the bombs


Nice guy that old dirty Harry Truman. No doubt he’s burning in Hell for eternity.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Unkotare said:


> Why would I leave, Junior? You never did tell me how many years you've been teaching History. Oh, and did you notice all the many, many references, links, and direct quotes I have posted on this topic?


He has no evidence....just empty claims


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Still dont care


Everyone knows.

It's why you lie all the time.




Vegasgiants said:


> He has no evidence....just empty claims


Liar.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Nice guy that old dirty Harry Truman. No doubt he’s burning in Hell for eternity.


There is considerable doubt.  War is horrible, but bombing military targets during a war is entirely legitimate.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Anyone hear that?  Lol


----------



## Vegasgiants

gipper said:


> Nice guy that old dirty Harry Truman. No doubt he’s burning in Hell for eternity.


He was kept out of the loop for most of the war.  He finally gets up to the plate and he whiffs it


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> Anyone hear that?  Lol


I did. What about it?


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Anyone hear that?  Lol


In addition to lying all the time, you are also pretty childish.

But what you don't realize is that your childish antics only further undermine your position.




Vegasgiants said:


> He finally gets up to the plate and he whiffs it


Wrong again.  Mr. Truman did a perfect job.

How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Its like a buzzing sound


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Its like a buzzing sound


It's the sound of your credibility vanishing.


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> Its like a buzzing sound


No, it is more like a whiny troll not realizing he has lost the argument.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Lastamender said:


> No, it is more like a whiny troll not realizing he has lost the argument.


He lost as soon as his only argument was I dont care


He has nothing to add to the debate


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> He lost


Another lie on your part.  You are the one who has lost.




Vegasgiants said:


> as soon as his only argument was I dont care


Another lie on your part.  That is hardly my only argument.

That was merely my response to you posting irrelevant whining from long-dead whiners.

In addition to not caring about irrelevant whining, I also routinely debunk your many lies about the end of WWII.




Vegasgiants said:


> He has nothing to add to the debate


Liar.

(Hypocrite too, given that you really do have nothing to add.)


----------



## Vegasgiants

Buzz buzz.  Lol


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Buzz buzz.  Lol


The sound of your vanishing credibility.


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> He lost as soon as his only argument was I dont care
> 
> 
> He has nothing to add to the debate


He has been the debate. You are the one with little or no substance. You don't seem to be getting any better, either.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Lastamender said:


> He has been the debate. You are the one with little or no substance. You don't seem to be getting any better, either.


Do you have anything to challenge the facts I have presented?


His response was I dont care


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> Do you have anything to challenge the facts I have presented?
> 
> 
> His response was I dont care


If he does not care, chances are they are not relative to the subject. This guy knows what he is talking about. You do not.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Lastamender said:


> If he does not care, chances are they are not relative to the subject. This guy knows what he is talking about. You do not.


I accept that you have nothing to add to the debate


Dismissed


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> In addition to lying all the time, you are also pretty childish.
> 
> But what you don't realize is that your childish antics only further undermine your position.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Mr. Truman did a perfect job.
> 
> How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from launching a nuclear war?


Truman is a war criminal by any definition. He should have been hung. Nazis were hung for much less.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> His response was I dont care


That's a lie.  My "I don't care" was a response to you quoting some irrelevant whining from long-dead whiners.

You have posted no facts.  But you have made some untrue claims.

My response to your untrue claims was not "I don't care".  Rather, what I did was point out how your claims are entirely untrue.


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> I accept that you have nothing to add to the debate
> 
> 
> Dismissed


I accept that your dismissal has as much nothing behind it as the rest of the garbage you post.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Lastamender said:


> I accept that your dismissal has as much nothing behind it as the rest of the garbage you post.


Still nothing to add I see.  Lol


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> Still nothing to add I see.  Lol


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Do you have anything to challenge the facts I have presented?
> 
> 
> His response was I dont care


What facts?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> That's a lie.  My "I don't care" was a response to you quoting some irrelevant whining from long-dead whiners.
> 
> You have posted no facts.  But you have made some untrue claims.
> 
> My response to your untrue claims was not "I don't care".  Rather, what I did was point out how your claims are entirely untrue.


Were the post I quoted facts?


Yes or no.  Last chance


----------



## Vegasgiants

Lastamender said:


>


My kid loves emojis


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> What facts?


We could start with the quotes I posted


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> My kid loves emojis


Your kid should probably post for you.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Lastamender said:


> Your kid should probably post for you.


What?


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> What?


Reread it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Lastamender said:


> Reread it.


Huh?


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> Huh?


----------



## rightwinger

Open Bolt said:


> No.  They didn't need to be three days apart.
> 
> The wait between bombs should have been much less than three days.
> 
> What we should have done is never made Little Boy, and instead made a bunch of composite implosion cores with that uranium.
> 
> Then we should have started off by nuking Hiroshima.  Then a day later Kyoto (let Stimson whine).  Then a day later Kokura Arsenal.  Then a day later Yokohama (which we should have spared conventional bombing).  Then a day later we should have topped it off by simultaneously bombing Nagasaki and Niigata at the same moment.


I know…I know
The only good Jap is a dead Jap
Let God sort them out


----------



## Lastamender

rightwinger said:


> I know…I know
> The only good Jap is a dead Jap
> Let God sort them out


He never said that. Trolling again?


----------



## rightwinger

Lastamender said:


> He never said that. Trolling again?


He said exactly that


----------



## Vegasgiants

rightwinger said:


> I know…I know
> The only good Jap is a dead Jap
> Let God sort them out


HAHAHAHA


----------



## Frankeneinstein

mikegriffith1 said:


> On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:


hmmm, do you know how long after the dropping of the second bomb it was before Japan surrendered? did they have enough time to "process that bomb"? 

And how many soviet lives were lost in manchuria?


----------



## rightwinger

Frankeneinstein said:


> hmmm, do you know how long after the dropping of the second bomb it was before Japan surrendered? did they have enough time to "process that bomb"?
> 
> And how many soviet lives were lost in manchuria?


Would they have surrendered without a second bomb?
We Will never know


----------



## Open Bolt

Lastamender said:


> If he does not care, chances are they are not relative to the subject.


He was quoting some people whining that Japan was secretly willing to surrender and just wasn't telling us, and the atomic bombs were therefore unnecessary.

That is possible, but if Japan was secretly willing to surrender but chose to hold back and not tell us, that was a catastrophic blunder on Japan's part.

We are certainly not to blame for continuing to attack when they were not surrendering.

So anyway, he kept quoting all this whining about Japan secretly being willing to surrender and not telling us, as if I was supposed to attach any sort of significance to that, and I just said something like "So what?"


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Truman is a war criminal by any definition.


That is incorrect.  Mr. Truman never did anything wrong.




gipper said:


> He should have been hung.


That would be murder.  Murder is wrong.




gipper said:


> Nazis were hung for much less.


No they weren't.  The Nazis committed real crimes.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Were the post I quoted facts?
> Yes or no.  Last chance


I assume that you are referring to the post where you quoted all that hysterical whining from Ike and Leahy and the like?  If not you'll need to clarify what post of yours you mean.

It is impossible to know with 100% certainty if it is true that Japan was secretly willing to surrender and just decided to wait and let the war drag out without telling us.

But it is certainly possible that it is true.

It was a really bad move on Japan's part if that's what they did.

And again, even if it is true, so what?

By the way, in my original post when I declined to say it was false, and merely said "so what", you could have inferred my acceptance that it could be true.

Had I thought that it was definitely not true, I would have challenged it as not being true.


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> He said exactly that


Well, I would halt the bombing as soon as they surrendered.

If they surrendered.


----------



## Vegasgiants

rightwinger said:


> Would they have surrendered without a second bomb?
> We Will never know


I think clearly they would have.  Without the first one either.  Once the Soviets invaded japan knew it was over.  Truman knew the exact date of that invasion and rushed to get the bomb dropped.   He beat them by one day


----------



## Frankeneinstein

rightwinger said:


> Would they have surrendered without a second bomb?


no, and we have proof, the first bomb


rightwinger said:


> We Will never know


we know they did not surrender after one but did after two
would you happen to have the answers to my questions? [as an honest answer would alleviate your confusion]...
 seeing that your above response is obviously just an attempt to run from the actual questions I asked and instead answer the question you wish I had asked


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> I assume that you are referring to the post where you quoted all that hysterical whining from Ike and Leahy and the like?  If not you'll need to clarify what post of yours you mean.
> 
> It is impossible to know with 100% certainty if it is true that Japan was secretly willing to surrender and just decided to wait and let the war drag out without telling us.
> 
> But it is certainly possible that it is true.
> 
> It was a really bad move on Japan's part if that's what they did.
> 
> And again, even if it is true, so what?
> 
> By the way, in my original post when I declined to say it was false, and merely said "so what", you could have inferred my acceptance that it could be true.
> 
> Had I thought that it was definitely not true, I would have challenged it as not being true.


So I did post facts then....correct?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I think clearly they would have.  Without the first one either.  Once the Soviets invaded japan knew it was over.  Truman knew the exact date of that invasion and rushed to get the bomb dropped.   He beat them by one day


Simply not true the Government of Japan REFUSED to surrender after 2 atomic bombs and Soviet entry. It took the Emperor to override the Government and surrender and THEN the Army staged a Coup to stop that.


----------



## Mac-7

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not true the Government of Japan REFUSED to surrender after 2 atomic bombs and Soviet entry. It took the Emperor to override the Government and surrender and THEN the Army staged a Coup to stop that.


You know history

the libs on this forum do not


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not true the Government of Japan REFUSED to surrender after 2 atomic bombs and Soviet entry. It took the Emperor to override the Government and surrender and THEN the Army staged a Coup to stop that.


Which he only did AFTER Russia invaded.

That was the final straw. We could have just waited for that invasion....but Truman wanted to send a message to stalin.


The bombs were not forJapan .....they were for russia


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Which he only did AFTER Russia invaded.
> 
> That was the final straw. We could have just waited for that invasion....but Truman wanted to send a message to stalin.
> 
> 
> The bombs were not forJapan .....they were for russia


Simply NOT supported by the FACTS. We were going to invade in November which would have seen hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and probably several million Japanese.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply NOT supported by the FACTS. We were going to invade in November which would have seen hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and probably several million Japanese.


We knew the date of the Russian invasion.  Stalin told everyone 


Japan did not surrender until after the Russian invasion. 


We could have simply waited for that to happen


----------



## rightwinger

Frankeneinstein said:


> no, and we have proof, the first bomb
> 
> we know they did not surrender after one but did after two
> would you happen to have the answers to my questions? [as an honest answer would alleviate your confusion]...
> seeing that your above response is obviously just an attempt to run from the actual questions I asked and instead answer the question you wish I had asked



Three days s not much proof

Dropping a bomb and then offering terms would be proof


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> We knew the date of the Russian invasion.  Stalin told everyone
> 
> 
> Japan did not surrender until after the Russian invasion.
> 
> 
> We could have simply waited for that to happen


The Japanese Government run by the Army did NOT surrender after the Soviets invaded nor after  2 atomic bombs. And when the Emperor forced the Issue the Army staged a coup to prevent the surrender. So much for all the claims Japan was on the verge of surrender and tried before Aug 10.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply NOT supported by the FACTS. We were going to invade in November which would have seen hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and probably several million Japanese.


In July 1945, once we had a bomb, there was no longer a need to invade


----------



## Vegasgiants

rightwinger said:


> Three days s not much proof
> 
> Dropping a bomb and then offering terms would be proof


They only wanted one term....no war crimes for the imperial family. 


And we gave them that anyway.


We should have just offered it to them 


rightwinger said:


> Three days s not much proof
> 
> Dropping a bomb and then offering terms would be proof


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> In July 1945, once we had a bomb, there was no longer a need to invade


Not true if the Emperor had not surrendered his Government intended to fight to the bitter end.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Japanese Government run by the Army did NOT surrender after the Soviets invaded nor after  2 atomic bombs. And when the Emperor forced the Issue the Army staged a coup to prevent the surrender. So much for all the claims Japan was on the verge of surrender and tried before Aug 10.


What is it you are missing?  Only the emperor could surrender 

It was not up to the army or the government


----------



## Frankeneinstein

rightwinger said:


> Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next


what if we just them sent them a film of a nuke going off?


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Not true if the Emperor had not surrendered his Government intended to fight to the bitter end.


Yet he did surrender.   It was always only up to him


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> What is it you are missing?  Only the emperor could surrender
> 
> It was not up to the army or the government


Simply NOT true you keep spouting that like it means something, even after he agreed to surrender his Army staged a Coup to stop him. Further we know from seized documents that the Japanese planned to offer to side with the Soviets if Stalin would convince the US to a ceasefire.


----------



## JoeBlow

mikegriffith1 said:


> Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
> 
> On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​​On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​
> "It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right."  (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​​The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
> 
> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


We should have nuked Tokyo as well.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply NOT true you keep spouting that like it means something, even after he agreed to surrender his Army staged a Coup to stop him. Further we know from seized documents that the Japanese planned to offer to side with the Soviets if Stalin would convince the US to a ceasefire.


Yes they staged a unsuccessful coup.  So what?  It was limited to a few junior officers and quickly put down.

You are making my case.  The war was over when Russia attacked manchuria.   Japan knew it could not rely on help from russia anymore


Only the emperor can surrender and he did not do so until Russia invaded


That is a fact


----------



## Open Bolt

rightwinger said:


> Three days s not much proof


Japan had our claim that it was an atomic bomb (broadcast to the entire world) immediately after Hiroshima.

They already knew what an atomic bomb was from their own atomic program.

They knew one day later that our claim was true, because they had a reliable report from their own people on August 7 that the entire city was destroyed by a single bomb.




rightwinger said:


> Dropping a bomb and then offering terms would be proof


We already gave them terms before the atomic bombs were dropped.  That's what the Potsdam Proclamation was.




rightwinger said:


> In July 1945, once we had a bomb, there was no longer a need to invade


Had Japan kept refusing to surrender, we were going to invade.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> So I did post facts then....correct?


You are referring to the whining from Ike and Leahy and the like?

It is plausible that the claims that "the atomic bombs were not necessary to secure Japan's early surrender" are true.

I don't know how to be 100% certain without going back in time and replaying history.  But I'll agree that it is plausible that it is true.

What I don't see is why it matters.  If Japan was secretly willing to surrender and just didn't tell us, that was their mistake, not our mistake.




Vegasgiants said:


> Truman knew the exact date of that invasion


Truman knew the date that the Soviets were supposed to invade, but Stalin didn't rush to meet the promised date until he found out that the atomic bombs were a success.




Vegasgiants said:


> and rushed to get the bomb dropped.


Just the opposite.  It was Stalin who rushed to try to beat the atomic bomb.  He'd been planning on invading one week later than he originally promised.

It was only when he found out that the atomic bombs were a success that Stalin tried to invade on the promised date.




Vegasgiants said:


> We could have just waited for that invasion....


Why would we have done that?  We had no idea what it would take to make Japan surrender.  Letting up the pressure on them would hardly have helped.




Vegasgiants said:


> but Truman wanted to send a message to stalin.


No.  Truman wanted to send a message to Japan.




Vegasgiants said:


> The bombs were not forJapan .....they were for russia


Completely untrue.  The bombs were for Japan, who was still refusing to surrender when they were dropped.




Vegasgiants said:


> Japan did not surrender until after the Russian invasion.
> We could have simply waited for that to happen


Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.

Decision making wasn't so easy during the war when people had no idea what it would take to make Japan surrender.




Vegasgiants said:


> They only wanted one term....no war crimes for the imperial family.


That is incorrect.  Japan only wanted one term on August 10.

Japan was not willing to surrender at all before August 10.

And the term that they wanted on August 10 was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.




Vegasgiants said:


> And we gave them that anyway.


We did not.  We told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




Vegasgiants said:


> We should have just offered it to them


Never!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

__





						The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II | National Security Archive
					

To mark the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the National Security Archive is updating and reposting one of its most popular e-books of the past 25 years.




					nsarchive.gwu.edu
				




Try reading REAL history for a change.


----------



## Lastamender

rightwinger said:


> He said exactly that


Please quote him, award winning troll.


----------



## Lastamender

rightwinger said:


> In July 1945, once we had a bomb, there was no longer a need to invade


Do you think Pearl Harbor was a mostly peaceful protest?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Lastamender said:


> Do you think Pearl Harbor was a mostly peaceful protest?


Neither was the bombing of Tokyo


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> Neither was the bombing of Tokyo


I did not ask you, grapehead.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II | National Security Archive
> 
> 
> To mark the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the National Security Archive is updating and reposting one of its most popular e-books of the past 25 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nsarchive.gwu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading REAL history for a change.


You should read Gar Alperovitz


Lastamender said:


> I did not ask you, grapehead.


HAHAHAHA


----------



## Frankeneinstein

rightwinger said:


> Three days s not much proof


It was more than enough after the second bomb


rightwinger said:


> Dropping a bomb and then offering terms would be proof


a second bomb is the proof, and no processing time necessary...how long do you think it would have taken to process the terms?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Frankeneinstein said:


> It was more than enough after the second bomb
> 
> a second bomb is the proof, and no processing time necessary...how long do you think it would have taken to process the terms?


One day given the right terms


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> You should read Gar Alperovitz


No one should ever read Gar Alperovitz.

He is known to misquote people and make it sound like they said the opposite of what they really said.




Vegasgiants said:


> One day given the right terms


We had no intention of ever letting Japan end the war in a draw without surrendering (like the Korean War later ended).


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> No one should ever read Gar Alperovitz.
> 
> He is known to misquote people and make it sound like they said the opposite of what they really said.
> 
> 
> 
> We had no intention of ever letting Japan end the war in a draw without surrendering (like the Korean War later ended).


Oh look another empty claim without evidence 


Terms of surrender einstein


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  Mr. Truman never did anything wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be murder.  Murder is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't.  The Nazis committed real crimes.


Only an ignoramus would think there’s nothing wrong with mass murdering defenseless women and children. Are you a Nazi or a Commie?


----------



## gipper

Vegasgiants said:


> He was kept out of the loop for most of the war.  He finally gets up to the plate and he whiffs it


Worst than whiffs. He chose mass murder of defenseless women and children to impress Uncle Joe. Only a warmongering fool would think he did the right thing.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Terms of surrender einstein


Before the Soviets went to war against him, Hirohito was plotting to get the Soviets to assist him in ending the war in a draw without surrendering (like the Korean War later ended).

It was only after the Soviet war declaration ended the possibility of their helping him to do this that Hirohito shifted gears and contemplated surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Before the Soviets went to war against him, Hirohito was plotting to get the Soviets to assist him in ending the war in a draw without surrendering (like the Korean War later ended).
> 
> It was only after the Soviet war declaration ended the possibility of their helping him to do this that Hirohito shifted gears and contemplated surrender.


Exactly.   We could have just waited for the Soviets to enter the war and it's over


No bombs needed

I agree completely


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Exactly.   We could have just waited for the Soviets to enter the war and it's over
> No bombs needed
> I agree completely


Hindsight is always easy.

But what happens when we get to the Cuban Missile Crisis without the example of Hiroshima to restrain the US and USSR from nuclear war?


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Only an ignoramus would think there’s nothing wrong with mass murdering defenseless women and children. Are you a Nazi or a Commie?





gipper said:


> Worst than whiffs. He chose mass murder of defenseless women and children


Don't be silly.  Wartime strikes against military targets are not murder.

For an example of mass murder, look to the peacetime attack against Pearl Harbor.




gipper said:


> to impress Uncle Joe.


No.  The reason why we bomb countries that we are at war with is to try to make them surrender.




gipper said:


> Only a warmongering fool would think he did the right thing.


There is nothing foolish about warmongering.

War is how we protect ourselves from the bad guys.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Hindsight is always easy.
> 
> But what happens when we get to the Cuban Missile Crisis without the example of Hiroshima to restrain the US and USSR from nuclear war?


Cuba has nothing to do with this.


Why the rush to drop the bomb?  WAIT THREE DAYS!!!!


Because Truman did not want a surrender until he got to show Russia his new toy


The bombs were not for Japan .....they were for russia


----------



## Lastamender

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh look another empty claim without evidence
> 
> 
> Terms of surrender einstein


This is probably evidence to you.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Lastamender said:


> This is probably evidence to you.


What?


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> Don't be silly.  Wartime strikes against military targets are not murder.
> 
> For an example of mass murder, look to the peacetime attack against Pearl Harbor.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The reason why we bomb countries that we are at war with is to try to make them surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing foolish about warmongering.
> 
> War is how we protect ourselves from the bad guys.


All wrong. Killing defenseless civilians is ALWAYS a war crime except in the minds of duped Americans, who excuse their government of heinous acts but would never excuse any other nation’s government.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> All wrong. Killing defenseless civilians is ALWAYS a war crime except in the minds of duped Americans, who excuse their government of heinous acts but would never excuse any other nation’s government.


Well then every participant in WW2 was guilty.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well then every participant in WW2 was guilty.


I disagree with him that targeting areas that could contain civilians is wrong in war.

It is a disgusting necessity sometimes 


But doing it needlessly is always wrong


----------



## Leo123

gipper said:


> All wrong. Killing defenseless civilians is ALWAYS a war crime except in the minds of duped Americans, who excuse their government of heinous acts but would never excuse any other nation’s government.


The Japanese did some of the most heinous warcrimes.  Meanwhile Hirohito cowardly tried to claim he had little power and walked.

"The issue of Emperor Hirohito's war responsibility is a controversial matter.[4] There is no consensus among scholars. During wartime the allies frequently depicted Hirohito to equate with Hitler and Mussolini as the three Axis dictators.[51] The apologist thesis, which argues that Hirohito had been a "powerless figurehead" without any implication in wartime policies, was the dominant postwar narrative until 1989.[52][53]  After Hirohito's death, critical historians[54] say that Hirohito wielded more power than previously believed,[51][54][55] and he was actively involved in the decision to launch the war as well as in other political and military decisions before.[56] Moderates argue that Hirohito had some involvement, but his power was limited by cabinet members, ministers and other people of the military oligarchy.[57]"








						Hirohito - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> All wrong.


Not wrong.

Wartime strikes against military targets are not murder.

Peacetime attacks like Pearl Harbor are murder.

The reason why we bomb countries that we are at war with is to try to make them surrender.

War is how we protect ourselves from the bad guys.




gipper said:


> Killing defenseless civilians is ALWAYS a war crime except in the minds of duped Americans, who excuse their government of heinous acts but would never excuse any other nation’s government.


Military targets are hardly defenseless civilians.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Cuba has nothing to do with this.


That is incorrect.  Hiroshima was key to restraining the US and USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

You and I (and everyone else) would be dead right now if Hiroshima had never been bombed.




Vegasgiants said:


> Why the rush to drop the bomb?


Because we were at war.




Vegasgiants said:


> WAIT THREE DAYS!!!!


No.  We were going to pound Japan as hard as we could until they surrendered.




Vegasgiants said:


> Because Truman did not want a surrender until he got to show Russia his new toy


Truman just wanted Japan to surrender period.




Vegasgiants said:


> The bombs were not for Japan


Yes they were.  There is a reason why we attack countries when we are at war with them.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> The Japanese did some of the most heinous warcrimes.  Meanwhile Hirohito cowardly tried to claim he had little power and walked.
> 
> "The issue of Emperor Hirohito's war responsibility is a controversial matter.[4] There is no consensus among scholars. During wartime the allies frequently depicted Hirohito to equate with Hitler and Mussolini as the three Axis dictators.[51] The apologist thesis, which argues that Hirohito had been a "powerless figurehead" without any implication in wartime policies, was the dominant postwar narrative until 1989.[52][53]  After Hirohito's death, critical historians[54] say that Hirohito wielded more power than previously believed,[51][54][55] and he was actively involved in the decision to launch the war as well as in other political and military decisions before.[56] Moderates argue that Hirohito had some involvement, but his power was limited by cabinet members, ministers and other people of the military oligarchy.[57]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hirohito - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


He was mostly likely kept unaware of atrocities but ultimately he was responsible


----------



## gipper

Leo123 said:


> The Japanese did some of the most heinous warcrimes.  Meanwhile Hirohito cowardly tried to claim he had little power and walked.
> 
> "The issue of Emperor Hirohito's war responsibility is a controversial matter.[4] There is no consensus among scholars. During wartime the allies frequently depicted Hirohito to equate with Hitler and Mussolini as the three Axis dictators.[51] The apologist thesis, which argues that Hirohito had been a "powerless figurehead" without any implication in wartime policies, was the dominant postwar narrative until 1989.[52][53]  After Hirohito's death, critical historians[54] say that Hirohito wielded more power than previously believed,[51][54][55] and he was actively involved in the decision to launch the war as well as in other political and military decisions before.[56] Moderates argue that Hirohito had some involvement, but his power was limited by cabinet members, ministers and other people of the military oligarchy.[57]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hirohito - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Is that an effort to excuse  Truman’s war crime?  They did it so we can too. Nanananana….The argument of the feeble minded.


----------



## there4eyeM

None of my posts lied.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  Hiroshima was key to restraining the US and USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
> 
> You and I (and everyone else) would be dead right now if Hiroshima had never been bombed.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we were at war.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  We were going to pound Japan as hard as we could until they surrendered.
> 
> 
> 
> Truman just wanted Japan to surrender period.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.  There is a reason why we attack countries when we are at war with them.


None of what you posted means as anything


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well then every participant in WW2 was guilty.


Your first post I agree with, after all these years. Does it surprise you all committed war crimes?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Why would I leave, Junior? You never did tell me how many years you've been teaching History. Oh, and did you notice all the many, many references, links, and direct quotes I have posted on this topic?


^^^^^^


----------



## Leo123

gipper said:


> Is that an effort to excuse  Truman’s war crime?  They did it so we can too. Nanananana….The argument of the feeble minded.


Just telling the truth.  Make of it what you wish.   Study the Japanese atrocities during WWII.  Try to understand the atmosphere at the time.   One can actually disagree with what Truman did but understand the circumstances at the time.  It takes more intellect than you posses I guess.


----------



## there4eyeM

They didn't drop it on Tokyo.


----------



## Vegasgiants

there4eyeM said:


> They didn't drop it on Tokyo.


Do you wish they dropped it on Tokyo?


----------



## Leo123

there4eyeM said:


> They didn't drop it on Tokyo.


Someone actually said that?  Oh God, we are in trouble.


----------



## gipper

Leo123 said:


> Just telling the truth.  Make of it what you wish.   Study the Japanese atrocities during WWII.  Try to understand the atmosphere at the time.   One can actually disagree with what Truman did but understand the circumstances at the time.  It takes more intellect than you posses I guess.


No. Wrong. Just because the Japanese commit atrocities does not excuse American atrocities. Truman should have been executed.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Is that an effort to excuse  Truman’s war crime?


No such war crime.




gipper said:


> Just because the Japanese commit atrocities does not excuse American atrocities.


America didn't commit atrocities.




gipper said:


> Truman should have been executed.


That would be murder.


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> None of my posts lied.


I don't think you were lying, but you did make a number of untrue statements.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> None of what you posted means as anything


My post corrected some of your numerous untrue statements.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Why would I leave,


Because you said that hacks who know nothing about history should leave, and you are a hack who knows nothing of history.




Unkotare said:


> Junior?


Given your vast and total ignorance of this subject, you are the only junior here.




Unkotare said:


> You never did tell me how many years you've been teaching History.


You lack the intelligence to understand this, but other people's private lives are none of your business.




Unkotare said:


> Oh, and did you notice all the many, many references, links, and direct quotes I have posted on this topic?


You have backed up none of your personal attacks against me.

You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> My post corrected some of your numerous untrue statements.


Nope


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Nope


Liar.


----------



## Rigby5

GWV5903 said:


> Truman made the right decision, WW II had 82MM+ casualties, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 226,000 and ultimately saved 2MM + more casualties from occurring. As harsh as this sounds, this was the best decision.



Wrong.
Japan had no more planes, ships, fuel, pilots, food, steel, coal, etc.
Their islands had turned into prison camps they could no longer escape from.
They were dying by the tens of thousands.
Anyone claiming we ever had to invade, is just lying.


----------



## Rigby5

RetiredGySgt said:


> Padding your post count by replying to ignorant posts already debunked is stupid



When no one gets the truth the first time around, you have to repeat yourself.


----------



## Rigby5

there4eyeM said:


> They didn't drop it on Tokyo.



They did not drop an atomic bomb on Tokyo because very little of Tokyo was left, and it would have been wasted.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> No such war crime.
> 
> 
> 
> America didn't commit atrocities.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be murder.



The US committed dozens of atrocities and war crimes.
Do you realize it was a war crime for US subs and mines to blow up and since civilian food freighters?


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.



This has been verified by dozens of sources.
The atomic bombs killed fewer than conventional firestorm attacks.
In case anyone does not know Bruce Campbell, he is about the best known military historian.





__





						Japan Tried To Surrender After Midway Defeat
					





					rense.com
				



{...
*Japan Tried To Surrender
After Midway Defeat*
By J Bruce Campbell
jb_campbell@yahoo.com
8-2-6


Dear Gary, Your essay reveals that the Japanese were attempting to surrender before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped on unsuspecting civilians.  However ... it was much worse than that. The US Strategic Bombing Survey reveals that the Japanese began peace feelers shortly after their defeat at Midway in April, '42.  The Japanese figured they had 16 months from Pearl Harbor to beat the US, without one setback.  Midway was the setback that guaranteed their eventual surrender.  George Marshall, Roosevelt's army chief of staff, would not hear of any peace attempts.  As we now can see, the whole purpose of Pearl Harbor, from the Roosevelt POV, was to get us into a war with Germany.  A secondary purpose was to install Mao Tse-tung in China, which demanded the annihilation of the Japanese and the selling out of Chiang Kai-shek.  We can see now the idea behind the Communization of China - the transfer of US jobs to Chinese slavers. Peace feelers continued through '42, '43 and '44, when the blood was really flowing in the Pacific.  They tried through the Soviets, the British and the Siamese.  Marshall would not consider anything but Unconditional Surrender, knowing the Japanese would not give up Hirohito to the hangman, which didn't happen anyway.  But this was always threatened, deliberately driving the Japanese to desperate acts to protect their god-leader.  All well understood by the psychiatrists in FDR's gang.  Even after Okinawa, Marshall said the desperate attempts at surrender were "premature."  Going through the list of terrible battles in the Pacific while the Japanese were frantically attempting to end the war is mind-numbing. Marshall was taking his orders from Harry Hopkins, who has been revealed as Stalin's most important agent in the US.  Stalin never declared war on the Japanese and wanted the fighting to continue so that he could occupy Manchuria when he was ready, and when the Japanese were no longer able to resist.  He didn't declare war on Japan until the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.  Marshall still wouldn't accept surrender until the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.  The anticipated effects of atom bombing were too interesting to forego. Meanwhile, Hopkins had arranged for the transfer of the atom bomb plans and an entire bomb-manufacturing industry from Oak Ridge to Moscow via the airlift command at Great Falls, Montana (see Major George Racey Jordan's Diaries). 
...}


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Liar.


Yes you are


----------



## Vegasgiants

Rigby5 said:


> This has been verified by dozens of sources.
> The atomic bombs killed fewer than conventional firestorm attacks.
> In case anyone does not know Bruce Campbell, he is about the best known military historian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan Tried To Surrender After Midway Defeat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rense.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> *Japan Tried To Surrender
> After Midway Defeat*
> By J Bruce Campbell
> jb_campbell@yahoo.com
> 8-2-6
> 
> 
> Dear Gary, Your essay reveals that the Japanese were attempting to surrender before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped on unsuspecting civilians.  However ... it was much worse than that. The US Strategic Bombing Survey reveals that the Japanese began peace feelers shortly after their defeat at Midway in April, '42.  The Japanese figured they had 16 months from Pearl Harbor to beat the US, without one setback.  Midway was the setback that guaranteed their eventual surrender.  George Marshall, Roosevelt's army chief of staff, would not hear of any peace attempts.  As we now can see, the whole purpose of Pearl Harbor, from the Roosevelt POV, was to get us into a war with Germany.  A secondary purpose was to install Mao Tse-tung in China, which demanded the annihilation of the Japanese and the selling out of Chiang Kai-shek.  We can see now the idea behind the Communization of China - the transfer of US jobs to Chinese slavers. Peace feelers continued through '42, '43 and '44, when the blood was really flowing in the Pacific.  They tried through the Soviets, the British and the Siamese.  Marshall would not consider anything but Unconditional Surrender, knowing the Japanese would not give up Hirohito to the hangman, which didn't happen anyway.  But this was always threatened, deliberately driving the Japanese to desperate acts to protect their god-leader.  All well understood by the psychiatrists in FDR's gang.  Even after Okinawa, Marshall said the desperate attempts at surrender were "premature."  Going through the list of terrible battles in the Pacific while the Japanese were frantically attempting to end the war is mind-numbing. Marshall was taking his orders from Harry Hopkins, who has been revealed as Stalin's most important agent in the US.  Stalin never declared war on the Japanese and wanted the fighting to continue so that he could occupy Manchuria when he was ready, and when the Japanese were no longer able to resist.  He didn't declare war on Japan until the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.  Marshall still wouldn't accept surrender until the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.  The anticipated effects of atom bombing were too interesting to forego. Meanwhile, Hopkins had arranged for the transfer of the atom bomb plans and an entire bomb-manufacturing industry from Oak Ridge to Moscow via the airlift command at Great Falls, Montana (see Major George Racey Jordan's Diaries).
> ...}


Yes japan was desperate to surrender.   All the us military generals knew the war was over


They just wanted one condition


----------



## Vegasgiants

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Japan had no more planes, ships, fuel, pilots, food, steel, coal, etc.
> Their islands had turned into prison camps they could no longer escape from.
> They were dying by the tens of thousands.
> Anyone claiming we ever had to invade, is just lying.


No general or admiral thought we needed to invade by august


----------



## Esdraelon

Rigby5 said:


> We did NOT target anything remotely military, but instead the very center of the population.


That's a lie.  It seems you play pretty fast and loose with your terminology.  There were a couple of military facilities in Hiroshima.  What does that designation require for you to accept it?  Must there be a base with thousands of soldiers?  THERE WAS.  
It's true that there were more civilians killed than soldiers but that is only because by that time the lines had been blurred that designated the difference.  The home population was training to meet invasion on the beaches.  With SHARPENED STICKS.  

The Japanese in Hiroshima suffered LESS than those in Tokyo, just two months prior.  You revisionists make me ill.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Esdraelon said:


> That's a lie.  It seems you play pretty fast and loose with your terminology.  There were a couple of military facilities in Hiroshima.  What does that designation require for you to accept it?  Must there be a base with thousands of soldiers?  THERE WAS.
> It's true that there were more civilians killed than soldiers but that is only because by that time the lines had been blurred that designated the difference.  The home population was training to meet invasion on the beaches.  With SHARPENED STICKS.
> 
> The Japanese in Hiroshima suffered LESS than those in Tokyo, just two months prior.  You revisionists make me ill.


They did not need to suffer at all


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Japan had no more planes, ships, fuel, pilots, food, steel, coal, etc.


Japan had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invasion.




Rigby5 said:


> Their islands had turned into prison camps they could no longer escape from.
> They were dying by the tens of thousands.
> Anyone claiming we ever had to invade, is just lying.


We were going to invade if Japan had kept refusing to surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> When no one gets the truth the first time around, you have to repeat yourself.


Nothing that Unkotare says is true.  He lies about history, and he lies about other posters.




Rigby5 said:


> The US committed dozens of atrocities and war crimes.


No we didn't.




Rigby5 said:


> Do you realize it was a war crime for US subs and mines to blow up and since civilian food freighters?


I tend to not realize things that are not true, and that claim is not even remotely true.




Rigby5 said:


> This has been verified by dozens of sources.


No it hasn't.

Nor will it be, since it isn't true.




Rigby5 said:


> The atomic bombs killed fewer than conventional firestorm attacks.


So what?




Rigby5 said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan Tried To Surrender After Midway Defeat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rense.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> *Japan Tried To Surrender
> After Midway Defeat*
> By J Bruce Campbell
> 8-2-6
> 
> 
> Dear Gary, Your essay reveals that the Japanese were attempting to surrender before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped on unsuspecting civilians.  However ... it was much worse than that. The US Strategic Bombing Survey reveals that the Japanese began peace feelers shortly after their defeat at Midway in April, '42.  The Japanese figured they had 16 months from Pearl Harbor to beat the US, without one setback.  Midway was the setback that guaranteed their eventual surrender.  George Marshall, Roosevelt's army chief of staff, would not hear of any peace attempts.  As we now can see, the whole purpose of Pearl Harbor, from the Roosevelt POV, was to get us into a war with Germany.  A secondary purpose was to install Mao Tse-tung in China, which demanded the annihilation of the Japanese and the selling out of Chiang Kai-shek.  We can see now the idea behind the Communization of China - the transfer of US jobs to Chinese slavers. Peace feelers continued through '42, '43 and '44, when the blood was really flowing in the Pacific.  They tried through the Soviets, the British and the Siamese.  Marshall would not consider anything but Unconditional Surrender, knowing the Japanese would not give up Hirohito to the hangman, which didn't happen anyway.  But this was always threatened, deliberately driving the Japanese to desperate acts to protect their god-leader.  All well understood by the psychiatrists in FDR's gang.  Even after Okinawa, Marshall said the desperate attempts at surrender were "premature."  Going through the list of terrible battles in the Pacific while the Japanese were frantically attempting to end the war is mind-numbing. Marshall was taking his orders from Harry Hopkins, who has been revealed as Stalin's most important agent in the US.  Stalin never declared war on the Japanese and wanted the fighting to continue so that he could occupy Manchuria when he was ready, and when the Japanese were no longer able to resist.  He didn't declare war on Japan until the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.  Marshall still wouldn't accept surrender until the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.  The anticipated effects of atom bombing were too interesting to forego. Meanwhile, Hopkins had arranged for the transfer of the atom bomb plans and an entire bomb-manufacturing industry from Oak Ridge to Moscow via the airlift command at Great Falls, Montana (see Major George Racey Jordan's Diaries).
> ...}


Fake news.  Never happened.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes you are


Wrong again.  You and Unkotare are the only liars here.




Vegasgiants said:


> Yes japan was desperate to surrender.


Wrong again.  Japan refused to surrender for as long as they had hopes that the Soviets might help them escape the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended).

It was only after the Soviet war declaration dashed their hopes of ending the war in a draw that Hirohito was willing to contemplate surrender.




Vegasgiants said:


> All the us military generals knew the war was over


None of them said anything like that to Truman.

Perhaps you should be criticizing those admirals and generals for not telling Truman that the war was over.




Vegasgiants said:


> They just wanted one condition


Wrong again.  Japan refused to surrender for as long as they had hopes that the Soviets might help them escape the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended).

It was only after the Soviet war declaration dashed their hopes of ending the war in a draw that Hirohito was willing to contemplate surrender.




Vegasgiants said:


> No general or admiral thought we needed to invade by august


I bet MacArthur did.

Regardless, no general or admiral ever advised Truman against dropping the atomic bombs.




Vegasgiants said:


> They did not need to suffer at all


Japan was the one who chose to wait until they were nuked twice before surrendering.

But, for sake of the entire human race, yes, Hiroshima did have to suffer.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong again.  You and Unkotare are the only liars here.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Japan refused to surrender for as long as they had hopes that the Soviets might help them escape the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended).
> 
> It was only after the Soviet war declaration dashed their hopes of ending the war in a draw that Hirohito was willing to contemplate surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> None of them said anything like that to Truman.
> 
> Perhaps you should be criticizing those admirals and generals for not telling Truman that the war was over.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Japan refused to surrender for as long as they had hopes that the Soviets might help them escape the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended).
> 
> It was only after the Soviet war declaration dashed their hopes of ending the war in a draw that Hirohito was willing to contemplate surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet MacArthur did.
> 
> Regardless, no general or admiral ever advised Truman against dropping the atomic bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was the one who chose to wait until they were nuked twice before surrendering.
> 
> But, for sake of the entire human race, yes, Hiroshima did have to suffer.


Ok.  You have nothing but insult 


Dismissed


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong again.  You and Unkotare are the only liars here.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Japan refused to surrender for as long as they had hopes that the Soviets might help them escape the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended).
> 
> It was only after the Soviet war declaration dashed their hopes of ending the war in a draw that Hirohito was willing to contemplate surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> None of them said anything like that to Truman.
> 
> Perhaps you should be criticizing those admirals and generals for not telling Truman that the war was over.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Japan refused to surrender for as long as they had hopes that the Soviets might help them escape the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended).
> 
> It was only after the Soviet war declaration dashed their hopes of ending the war in a draw that Hirohito was willing to contemplate surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet MacArthur did.
> 
> Regardless, no general or admiral ever advised Truman against dropping the atomic bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was the one who chose to wait until they were nuked twice before surrendering.
> 
> But, for sake of the entire human race, yes, Hiroshima did have to suffer.


Woukd you like to bet on MacArthur?  


Bet me


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Ok.  You have nothing but insult


Wrong again.  It is you and Unkotare who rely on insults.




Vegasgiants said:


> Dismissed


You sure are.




Vegasgiants said:


> Would you like to bet on MacArthur?


No.

If you can provide credible evidence that MacArthur thought that invasion was unnecessary, go ahead and do so.

If not, don't waste my time.

Note that Gar Alperovitz misquotes of people are not credible evidence.




Vegasgiants said:


> Bet me


Pass.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> They did not drop an atomic bomb on Tokyo because very little of Tokyo was left, and it would have been wasted.


They considered Yokohama (a suburb of Tokyo) early on as an atomic bomb target.  But they dropped it from the atomic target list for some reason and the conventional bombers were quick to lay waste to it before wiser heads could get it back on the atomic target list.

Had they kept it on the atomic target list and free of conventional raids, an atomic bombing there would have given the imperial palace a good view of a live mushroom cloud.

I think it would have made a good fourth target (after Hiroshima, Kyoto, and Kokura Arsenal) because the closeup view of the live mushroom cloud would have been a nice escalation.

Then a good fifth target would have been a simultaneous bombing of Nagasaki and Niigata (a double bombing being another escalation).




__





						Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945
					

Transcribed minutes of Target Committee meeting, Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945



					www.dannen.com


----------



## Rigby5

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes japan was desperate to surrender.   All the us military generals knew the war was over
> 
> 
> They just wanted one condition



And that one condition, to not abuse the Emperor, was not unreasonable.
In fact, we did agree to it.


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> Japan was contained



"containment" isn't a victory.   It wasn't in WW2 or against Iraq.


----------



## Rigby5

Esdraelon said:


> That's a lie.  It seems you play pretty fast and loose with your terminology.  There were a couple of military facilities in Hiroshima.  What does that designation require for you to accept it?  Must there be a base with thousands of soldiers?  THERE WAS.
> It's true that there were more civilians killed than soldiers but that is only because by that time the lines had been blurred that designated the difference.  The home population was training to meet invasion on the beaches.  With SHARPENED STICKS.
> 
> The Japanese in Hiroshima suffered LESS than those in Tokyo, just two months prior.  You revisionists make me ill.



Wrong.
All the military facilities had long been abandoned, in the attempt to concentrate forces for a defense.
There were no soldiers at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
If there had been, we would have already bombed them, and then they would have has air defenses.
But neither city had any defenses because there was no longer any valid targets there.
Just ask yourself WHY would Japan have wasted soldiers at Hiroshima or Nagasaki?


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Japan had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invasion.



Total lie.

If Japan had any military aircraft left at all, then the atomic bombs would never have reached target.
They were each delivered by a single B-29 bomber, which Japanese fighter planes could easily shoot down.
There was no fighter escorts.
So the only possible explanation is that the Japanese simply had run out of planes entirely.
When is what the Pentagon already knew.
They knew that the total number of Japanese planes left was 109, and almost all of those were civilian.
Japan has no fuel, pilots, bullets, food, or anything.

So you do not even believe Bruce Campbell?


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> We were going to invade if Japan had kept refusing to surrender.



First of all, Japan NEVER refused to surrender.
Second is that only an idiot would have ever invaded Japan, as the islands made perfect prison colonies.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> I tend to not realize things that are not true, and that claim is not even remotely true.



Read the Geneva conventions of 1906.
Staving out cities is a war crime.
Submarine warfare and mines that do not let civilian food through, are war crimes.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong again. Japan refused to surrender for as long as they had hopes that the Soviets might help them escape the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended).
> 
> It was only after the Soviet war declaration dashed their hopes of ending the war in a draw that Hirohito was willing to contemplate surrender.



Wrong.
The Japanese and Russians had a long history of war between them, and the last thing they would ever have thought is that Russia would at all help them.  
The Korean war never ended because the people were divided and there was no way to combine them again.
With WWII there was no similarity at all.
There was absolutely no possible way to avoid surrender.
And the Japanese NEVER tried to avoid surrender.
They were ready and willing as early as 1944 to surrender.
But the US refused their advances.
It was the US that deliberately prevented them from being allowed to surrender.
Nor was Hirohito in charge.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Regardless, no general or admiral ever advised Truman against dropping the atomic bombs.



Nonsense.
Not a single military person believed Japan had any resistance left, and they all said that we should drop the atomic bombs in order to scare the Soviets, not because Japan was still a problem.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was the one who chose to wait until they were nuked twice before surrendering.
> 
> But, for sake of the entire human race, yes, Hiroshima did have to suffer.



Ridiculously wrong.
When we finally accepted the Japanese surrender, after Nagasaki, the Japanese still did not even know of either nuclear attack.
It took almost another week before the groups sent to investigate came back with reports.


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> I think it would have made a good fourth target (after Hiroshima, Kyoto, and Kokura Arsenal) because the closeup view of the live mushroom cloud would have been a nice escalation.
> 
> Then a good fifth target would have been a simultaneous bombing of Nagasaki and Niigata (a double bombing being another escalation).



Wrong.
It would have taken as much as a month to even assemble a third atomic bomb, and years for any more after that.
The atomics were actually a fraud, in that they only really had the 2 and a half and no more.


----------



## Mushroom

rightwinger said:


> Japan was contained
> Their Navy was neutralized and they lacked the pilots to challenge our air superiority



Actually, only around the Home Islands.

Tens of thousands were still being killed by their gunboats and aircraft in China every month.  

And we were still losing ships to that "contained" country until shortly before the surrender.  The USS Indianapolis, 30 July 1945 by the Japanese submarine I-58.

The USS Underhill, on 24 July 1945 by a Kaiten suicide sub.

The USS Bonefish on 18 June 1945 by 5 Japanese Destroyers.

And an additional 35 US cargo ships, mostly by kamikaze or submarines in the final 3 months of the war.  And the last confirmed air attack on a US ship that was lost was the John A. Rawlins, a Liberty Ship sunk off of Okinawa on 27 July 1945.

That is a hell of a lot of damage for a "contained enemy".


----------



## Rigby5

Dayton3 said:


> "containment" isn't a victory.   It wasn't in WW2 or against Iraq.



Containment is a victory is they do not have enough food to survive, like with Japan.
And Iraq was totally innocent, so why are you even bringing them up?
All that shows is that we are still lying in 2003 like we lied in 1945.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> Not a single military person believed Japan had any resistance left, and they all said that we should drop the atomic bombs in order to scare the Soviets, not because Japan was still a problem.


You stupid confused Moon Bat

They didn't surrender until the bombs were dropped, duh!


----------



## Rigby5

Mushroom said:


> Actually, only around the Home Islands.
> 
> Tens of thousands were still being killed by their gunboats and aircraft in China every month.
> 
> And we were still losing ships to that "contained" country until shortly before the surrender.  The USS Indianapolis, 30 July 1945 by the Japanese submarine I-58.
> 
> The USS Underhill, on 24 July 1945 by a Kaiten suicide sub.
> 
> The USS Bonefish on 18 June 1945 by 5 Japanese Destroyers.
> 
> And an additional 35 US cargo ships, mostly by kamikaze or submarines in the final 3 months of the war.  And the last confirmed air attack on a US ship that was lost was the John A. Rawlins, a Liberty Ship sunk off of Okinawa on 27 July 1945.
> 
> That is a hell of a lot of damage for a "contained enemy".



I disagree.
China was not active at that point.
And besides, if we cared at all about the Chinese, we would have been at war with Japan in 1937.

Sure we lost a few ships, but we could have ended that any time, simply by giving the assurances about the emperor the Japanese needed.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> You stupid confused Moon Bat
> 
> They didn't surrender until the bombs were dropped, duh!



Wrong.
The Japanese never even knew that atomics had been used on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that had NOTHING at all to do with their surrender.
What caused their surrender is that finally we agreed to not prosecute the Emperor.


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> Actually only the emperor could surrender.



Wow, you know absolutely nothing about how Japan was run in the early Showa era, do you?

The Emperor was essentially a puppet, who could do absolutely nothing on his own.

The actual decision making body was the "Supreme Council for the Direction of the War" (Gimngi Sangiin), commonly called the "Big Six".  That was the Foreign Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of War, Minister of the Navy, and the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Navy.

They literally met in closed sessions, with Emperor Showa in attendance.  The Emperor sat behind a screen in the cabinet room, out of sight of the others and by tradition was to remain completely silent.  All decisions were made only by those six individuals, they are the only ones with the power to end the war, or to continue fighting.  The only time possible that the Emperor would have a say in his own Cabinet was in the event they were hopelessly deadlocked, and turned the final decision over to him.  Which happened exactly one time.

On the morning of 6 August, they opened the meeting as always, with a vote on if they were to reject surrender and continue the war.  And that vote was unanimous, 6-0 to continue fighting.

On the morning of 8 August, the cabinet opened with a vote of 5-1 to continue the war.  On 9 August came the second bomb, as well as the Soviet declaration of war.  Only in the early morning hours of 10 August did the cabinet become hopelessly deadlocked at 3-3, and for the first time in history the Emperor had a say in his own cabinet.

So no, actually the Emperor could not surrender.  That only happened because they were deadlocked.  If it was 4-2, the fighting would have continued.  If it was 2-4, they would have surrendered no matter what the Emperor wanted.


----------



## Dayton3

Rigby5 said:


> And Iraq was totally innocent, so why are you even bringing them up?


You're kidding right?    Iraqs government was supporting terrorism targeting American citizens.


----------



## Rigby5

Mushroom said:


> Wow, you know absolutely nothing about how Japan was run in the early Showa era, do you?
> 
> The Emperor was essentially a puppet, who could do absolutely nothing on his own.
> 
> The actual decision making body was the "Supreme Council for the Direction of the War" (Gimngi Sangiin), commonly called the "Big Six".  That was the Foreign Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of War, Minister of the Navy, and the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Navy.
> 
> They literally met in closed sessions, with Emperor Showa in attendance.  The Emperor sat behind a screen in the cabinet room, out of sight of the others and by tradition was to remain completely silent.  All decisions were made only by those six individuals, they are the only ones with the power to end the war, or to continue fighting.  The only time possible that the Emperor would have a say in his own Cabinet was in the event they were hopelessly deadlocked, and turned the final decision over to him.  Which happened exactly one time.
> 
> On the morning of 6 August, they opened the meeting as always, with a vote on if they were to reject surrender and continue the war.  And that vote was unanimous, 6-0 to continue fighting.
> 
> On the morning of 8 August, the cabinet opened with a vote of 5-1 to continue the war.  On 9 August came the second bomb, as well as the Soviet declaration of war.  Only in the early morning hours of 10 August did the cabinet become hopelessly deadlocked at 3-3, and for the first time in history the Emperor had a say in his own cabinet.
> 
> So no, actually the Emperor could not surrender.  That only happened because they were deadlocked.  If it was 4-2, the fighting would have continued.  If it was 2-4, they would have surrendered no matter what the Emperor wanted.



That is true, but ONLY because the US kept refusing any attempt to get any reassurances to not humiliate the Emperor.
That is because the Emperor was also the major figure of their religion, so would have totally thrown Japan into chaos.
If we had agree to any sort of assurances for the Emperor, than it would have instantly been all 6 voting to surrender.
No one wanted to fight if that had been achieved.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Wow, you know absolutely nothing about how Japan was run in the early Showa era, do you?
> 
> The Emperor was essentially a puppet, who could do absolutely nothing on his own.
> 
> The actual decision making body was the "Supreme Council for the Direction of the War" (Gimngi Sangiin), commonly called the "Big Six".  That was the Foreign Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of War, Minister of the Navy, and the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Navy.
> 
> They literally met in closed sessions, with Emperor Showa in attendance.  The Emperor sat behind a screen in the cabinet room, out of sight of the others and by tradition was to remain completely silent.  All decisions were made only by those six individuals, they are the only ones with the power to end the war, or to continue fighting.  The only time possible that the Emperor would have a say in his own Cabinet was in the event they were hopelessly deadlocked, and turned the final decision over to him.  Which happened exactly one time.
> 
> On the morning of 6 August, they opened the meeting as always, with a vote on if they were to reject surrender and continue the war.  And that vote was unanimous, 6-0 to continue fighting.
> 
> On the morning of 8 August, the cabinet opened with a vote of 5-1 to continue the war.  On 9 August came the second bomb, as well as the Soviet declaration of war.  Only in the early morning hours of 10 August did the cabinet become hopelessly deadlocked at 3-3, and for the first time in history the Emperor had a say in his own cabinet.
> 
> So no, actually the Emperor could not surrender.  That only happened because they were deadlocked.  If it was 4-2, the fighting would have continued.  If it was 2-4, they would have surrendered no matter what the Emperor wanted.


Only the emperor could surrender. 

If they tried to surrender without him they would have to.kill him or jail him because he could go on the radio and say keep fighting 

We would never accept a surrender unless it included the emperor 


That is a stone cold fact


----------



## gipper

Leo123 said:


> Just telling the truth.  Make of it what you wish.   Study the Japanese atrocities during WWII.  Try to understand the atmosphere at the time.   One can actually disagree with what Truman did but understand the circumstances at the time.  It takes more intellect than you posses I guess.


Still no excuse for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children, of a nation trying to surrender.

Your argument is absurd. Because the Japanese committed atrocities, it’s okay for Truman to too.


----------



## Rigby5

Dayton3 said:


> You're kidding right?    Iraqs government was supporting terrorism targeting American citizens.



That is totally and completely wrong.
Iraq had absolutely NO connection at all to any terrorist organization, and instead was about the most anti terrorist force on the planet.
It is why Zarqawi set up his organization in the northern Kurdish no-fly-zone, where Saddam could not attack his organization.
It was only after we had Saddam killed that al Qaeda, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, etc., were able to start operating in Iraq.


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> Only the emperor could surrender.
> 
> If they tried to surrender without him they would have to.kill him or jail him because he could go on the radio and say keep fighting
> 
> We would never accept a surrender unless it included the emperor
> 
> 
> That is a stone cold fact



And even when the emperor agreed to surrender,  there was attempt by Japanese officers to prevent the transmission of the emperor's surrender notification to the Japanese people.


----------



## Dayton3

gipper said:


> Still no excuse for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children, of a nation trying to surrender.


If the Japanese were "defenseless" they would not be shooting at Americans any longer.


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> If they tried to surrender without him they would have to.kill him or jail him because he could go on the radio and say keep fighting



Oh my freaking god!

The very first time the Emperor ever "spoke" on the Radio was the "Jeweled Voice" broadcast of 15 August.  And that was not even live, it was recorded the day before. inside the Imperial Palace.

That was the first time any Emperor ever had their voice broadcast.  And a team and their equipment had to be brought into the Palace so the recording could be made.

Now how in the hell was he going to "go on the radio", when he was essentially a prisoner inside the Imperial Palace?  "Jail him"?  He had essentially been a prisoner his entire life.

As I said, you know absolutely nothing of the early Showa era.  You seem to think he is like some European Emperor.  He was not, he was mostly the head of the State Religion and a Spiritual leader.  But he made no decisions, they had always been made entirely in his name, with him having no input into them.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Oh my freaking god!
> 
> The very first time the Emperor ever "spoke" on the Radio was the "Jeweled Voice" broadcast of 15 August.  And that was not even live, it was recorded the day before. inside the Imperial Palace.
> 
> That was the first time any Emperor ever had their voice broadcast.  And a team and their equipment had to be brought into the Palace so the recording could be made.
> 
> Now how in the hell was he going to "go on the radio", when he was essentially a prisoner inside the Imperial Palace?  "Jail him"?  He had essentially been a prisoner his entire life.
> 
> As I said, you know absolutely nothing of the early Showa era.  You seem to think he is like some European Emperor.  He was not, he was mostly the head of the State Religion and a Spiritual leader.  But he made no decisions, they had always been made entirely in his name, with him having no input into them.


We would never accept a surrender without the emperor 


He did go on the radio on august 15.


And he surrendered.....and the people accepted surrender 


They would never do it without him


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> And that one condition, to not abuse the Emperor, was not unreasonable.
> In fact, we did agree to it.


The condition (only asked for after both atomic bombs had already been dropped) was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

We did not agree to it.  We told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.


Not wrong.  Hiroshima was a huge military base.




Rigby5 said:


> All the military facilities had long been abandoned, in the attempt to concentrate forces for a defense.


No they hadn't.  Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of that defense, and it held 43,000 Japanese soldiers.




Rigby5 said:


> There were no soldiers at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.


There were 43,000 soldiers at Hiroshima.




Rigby5 said:


> If there had been, we would have already bombed them, and then they would have has air defenses.


Hiroshima was off limits to conventional bombing.




Rigby5 said:


> But neither city had any defenses because there was no longer any valid targets there.


The headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion makes for a valid target.

So do 43,000 soldiers.




Rigby5 said:


> Just ask yourself WHY would Japan have wasted soldiers at Hiroshima


Hardly a waste.  Most were probably awaiting deployment.  The guys at headquarters were there to do their jobs.




Rigby5 said:


> Total lie.


Reality is not a lie.  Japan had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading forces.




Rigby5 said:


> If Japan had any military aircraft left at all, then the atomic bombs would never have reached target.


The Nagasaki crew would like to speak to you about the Japanese aircraft that harassed them at Kokura Arsenal.




Rigby5 said:


> They were each delivered by a single B-29 bomber, which Japanese fighter planes could easily shoot down.


Not so easily.  Antiaircraft fire from the ground was a much greater concern.




Rigby5 said:


> So the only possible explanation is that the Japanese simply had run out of planes entirely.
> When is what the Pentagon already knew.
> They knew that the total number of Japanese planes left was 109, and almost all of those were civilian.
> Japan has no fuel, pilots, bullets, food, or anything.


That is incorrect.  Japan had ten thousand kamikazes, and they each had a bomb and enough fuel for a single one-way flight.




Rigby5 said:


> So you do not even believe Bruce Campbell?


Not when he spouts falsehoods.




Rigby5 said:


> First of all, Japan NEVER refused to surrender.


They refused up until August 10, 1945.




Rigby5 said:


> Second is that only an idiot would have ever invaded Japan, as the islands made perfect prison colonies.


We were going to invade if Japan had kept refusing to surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> Read the Geneva conventions of 1906.
> Staving out cities is a war crime.
> Submarine warfare and mines that do not let civilian food through, are war crimes.


Which articles of the conventions say that?




Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.


Not wrong.  Japan refused to surrender until August 10, 1945, by which time both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> The Japanese and Russians had a long history of war between them, and the last thing they would ever have thought is that Russia would at all help them.


They not only thought it, they actively pushed to get Russia to help them escape the war in a draw so they would not have to surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> And the Japanese NEVER tried to avoid surrender.


That is incorrect.  Japan tried to avoid surrender until August 10, 1945, by which time both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Rigby5 said:


> They were ready and willing as early as 1944 to surrender.


No they weren't.




Rigby5 said:


> But the US refused their advances.


There were no such advances to refuse.




Rigby5 said:


> It was the US that deliberately prevented them from being allowed to surrender.


We didn't have any control over whether Japan offered to surrender.

If we did have such control, we would have had them surrender in 1941.




Rigby5 said:


> Nor was Hirohito in charge.


That is incorrect.  He was the Emperor.




Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.


Not nonsense.  Not one person advised Truman against using the atomic bombs.




Rigby5 said:


> Not a single military person believed Japan had any resistance left, and they all said that we should drop the atomic bombs in order to scare the Soviets, not because Japan was still a problem.


Not one person advised Truman that Japan was not still a problem.




Rigby5 said:


> Ridiculously wrong.


Not wrong.  Japan was in control of when they offered to surrender.

Japan was the one who chose to wait until August 10 before ever contemplating surrender.




Rigby5 said:


> When we finally accepted the Japanese surrender, after Nagasaki, the Japanese still did not even know of either nuclear attack.
> It took almost another week before the groups sent to investigate came back with reports.


Japan knew of Hiroshima immediately because we broadcast to the entire world that we had destroyed Hiroshima with an atomic bomb.

Japan already knew what an atomic bomb was from their own nuclear program.

Japan knew the very next day that we were telling the truth, because they had reliable reports from their own people that a single bomb had destroyed the entire city.




Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> It would have taken as much as a month to even assemble a third atomic bomb, and years for any more after that.


Not wrong.  The third atomic bomb was only a few days away from being dropped on Japan when they surrendered.

There were another seven atomic bombs coming over the course of September and October.  Another five atomic bombs coming in November.  And then at least ten a month from December onward.

And the core of Little Boy could have been recast into four implosion cores as well.




Rigby5 said:


> If we had agree to any sort of assurances for the Emperor, than it would have instantly been all 6 voting to surrender.


Not before the Soviets declared war.

Up until that point Japan was trying to secure Soviet aid to help them end the war in a draw instead of surrendering.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> And even when the emperor agreed to surrender,  there was attempt by Japanese officers to prevent the transmission of the emperor's surrender notification to the Japanese people.


And they failed.   And the emperor surrendered 



His was the only surrender we woukd accept


----------



## Leo123

gipper said:


> Still no excuse for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children, of a nation trying to surrender.
> 
> Your argument is absurd. Because the Japanese committed atrocities, it’s okay for Truman to too.


The U.S. was at war.  Fear was everywhere.  The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.   Folks on the Pacific Coast feared a Japanese invasion.   People were actually dissing the Chinese here in America because they thought they looked Japanese.  Stories of Japanese atrocities were all over the news.  I have some actual newspapers from that time.  When I read them, it was like going back in time and experiencing the widespread fear of not only Japan but Hitler as existential threats to the 'home land.'   People were sacrificing not only their male children to war but rationing had a big impact on what one could even buy and the overall quality of life. 

To look back now and pass judgement from a modern perspective is, I believe, lacking much historical perspective and a bit arrogant.   Hiroshima was an important military target.  Nagasaki was an important port for the Japanese.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> 
> You lack the intelligence to understand this, but other people's private lives are none of your business.
> .....



Just come right out and say you've never taught anything a day in your life, and you are just gassing on about things you are uninformed and uneducated about. It's ok, everyone knows.


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Still no excuse for mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children,


Wartime strikes against military targets are not murder.

For an example of mass murder, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.




gipper said:


> of a nation trying to surrender.


Japan did not try to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




gipper said:


> Your argument is absurd. Because the Japanese committed atrocities, it’s okay for Truman to too.


Mr. Truman didn't commit any atrocities.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> The U.S. was at war.  Fear was everywhere.  The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.   Folks on the Pacific Coast feared a Japanese invasion.   People were actually dissing the Chinese here in America because they thought they looked Japanese.  Stories of Japanese atrocities were all over the news.  I have some actual newspapers from that time.  When I read them, it was like going back in time and experiencing the widespread fear of not only Japan but Hitler as existential threats to the 'home land.'   People were sacrificing not only their male children to war but rationing had a big impact on what one could even buy and the overall quality of life.
> 
> To look back now and pass judgement from a modern perspective is, I believe, lacking much historical perspective and a bit arrogant.   Hiroshima was an important military target.  Nagasaki was an important port for the Japanese.


The war was over according to the military leaders


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> The war was over according to the military leaders


Yet none of them told Mr. Truman.

Perhaps you should consider criticizing them for not telling Mr. Truman?


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Just come right out and say you've never taught anything a day in your life,


You lack the intelligence to understand this, but other people's private lives are none of your business.




Unkotare said:


> and you are just gassing on about things you are uninformed and uneducated about. It's ok, everyone knows.


You are the one who is uninformed and uneducated here.  I am extremely informed and educated.  That is why it is so easy for me to debunk all of your falsehoods.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Yet none of them told Mr. Truman.
> 
> Perhaps you should consider criticizing them for not telling Mr. Truman?


Prove it


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> 
> If you can provide credible evidence that MacArthur thought that invasion was unnecessary, go ahead and do so.
> ...








						Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
					

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> You lack the intelligence to understand this, but other people's private lives are none of your business.
> ....


= you are full of shit


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Prove it


There are no records of anyone ever advising Mr. Truman against using the atomic bombs or advising him that the war was over.

There is only one person who even claims to have been saying such a thing at the time, and that was Eisenhower.

And Eisenhower's own account makes it quite clear that Truman was not present when he gave this advice.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> ... I am extremely informed and educated.  ....


Prove it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> There are no records of anyone ever advising Mr. Truman against using the atomic bombs or advising him that the war was over.
> 
> There is only one person who even claims to have been saying such a thing at the time, and that was Eisenhower.
> 
> And Eisenhower's own account makes it quite clear that Truman was not present when he gave this advice.


That doesnt mean anything.   Do you have quotes saying they never advised truman?


I'll wait


----------



## Lastamender

Unkotare said:


> Prove it.


I think he has.


----------



## Unkotare

Lastamender said:


> I think he has.


Where, exactly?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Unkotare said:


> Where, exactly?


Of course he hasnt


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> The war was over according to the military leaders



Military leaders have their own biases. 

If you had ever served in the military (note I never did but every male in my family did at some point) you would know that.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> = you are full of shit


You have a big mouth, but you are all talk.

You cannot back up your empty talking by pointing out a single untrue statement in any of my posts.

I, on the other hand, routinely point out untrue statements in your posts.

In short, you are fraud.  All you do is lie.


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> He did go on the radio on august 15.



The first time an Emperor ever went on the radio.  Hell, he was so far removed from the Japanese people that he barely even spoke the same language!  They actually had to have a translator speak afterwards to explain what he had actually said.

And all decisions were made in the name of the Emperor.  He had no say or choice in the matter.

As I said, you seem to think that Japan was like some European nation, it was not.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> Military leaders have their own biases.
> 
> If you had ever served in the military (note I never did but every male in my family did at some point) you would know that.


You have your own biases too


And you never served a day so dont tell me what your daddy did


----------



## Lastamender

Unkotare said:


> Where, exactly?


Actually, on another forum. But he seems to be doing fine here too.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> The first time an Emperor ever went on the radio.  Hell, he was so far removed from the Japanese people that he barely even spoke the same language!  They actually had to have a translator speak afterwards to explain what he had actually said.
> 
> And all decisions were made in the name of the Emperor.  He had no say or choice in the matter.
> 
> As I said, you seem to think that Japan was like some European nation, it was not.


And yet he did go on the radio or the people of Japan would not accept surrender 


Only the emperor could surrender


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Prove it.


My history of correcting all of your untrue statements is evidence of my knowledge.




Vegasgiants said:


> Of course he hasnt


Wrong again.  My history of correcting your untrue statements will suffice as well.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> My history of correcting all of your untrue statements is evidence of my knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  My history of correcting your untrue statements will suffice as well.


I accept your concession


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> That doesnt mean anything.


Sure it does.




Vegasgiants said:


> Do you have quotes saying they never advised truman?


No.  Why would they make a statement detailing all the things that they never said?


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> You have a big mouth, but you are all talk.
> ...


Not talk; direct quotes, primary sources, links, evidence, citations. YOU have brought nothing but "nuh-uh!" childish nonsense. 

How many years have you taught History?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Sure it does.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Why would they make a statement detailing all the things that they never said?


I again accept your concession


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> your concession


You're lying again.  That is because you can't defend your position using facts or logic.




Vegasgiants said:


> your concession


More of your lies.  More evidence that you can't defend your position with facts or logic.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> You're lying again.  That is because you can't defend your position using facts or logic.
> 
> 
> 
> More of your lies.  More evidence that you can't defend your position with facts or logic.


I don't care


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> I don't care


We know.

That is why you lie all the time.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Not talk; direct quotes, primary sources, links, evidence, citations.


Liar.  You have backed up none of your personal attacks against me.

You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.




Unkotare said:


> YOU have brought nothing but "nuh-uh!" childish nonsense.


Challenging your lies is hardly childish.  And hardly nonsense either.

Your resort to personal attacks because you don't know what you are talking about was pretty childish though.




Unkotare said:


> How many years have you taught History?


You lack the intelligence to understand this, but other people's private lives are none of your business.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> My history of correcting all of your untrue statements is evidence of my knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  My history of correcting your untrue statements will suffice as well.


Perhaps you do not understand what the word proof means.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> We know.
> 
> That is why you lie all the time.


Ask me if I care


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Liar.  You have backed up none of your personal attacks against me.
> 
> You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenging your lies is hardly childish.  And hardly nonsense either.
> 
> Your resort to personal attacks because you don't know what you are talking about was pretty childish though.
> 
> 
> 
> You lack the intelligence to understand this, but other people's private lives are none of your business.


No one cares


----------



## Unkotare

Such an ignorant fraud. But perhaps one day he will grow up.


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> You have your own biases too
> 
> 
> And you never served a day so dont tell me what your daddy did


Neither have you so don't tell me I have my own biases.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> Neither have you so don't tell me I have my own biases.


I dont care


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont care


Never served either though you slam those that haven't and act all superior.   Claiming you were in the military until challenged to prove it then you scurry away like a coward.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> Never served either though you slam those that haven't and act all superior.   Claiming you were in the military until challenged to prove it then you scurry away like a coward.


So you were afraid?

HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> No one cares


Wrong.  If you didn't care you wouldn't be posting.

You hate that I've posted the truth and you are unable to credibly deny it.


----------



## gipper

Vegasgiants said:


> No one cares


It’s hard to understand why these warmongers argue so persistently for mass murdering defenseless civilians. It’s fucking crazy.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Such an ignorant fraud.


Wrong again.  You are the only person here who is ignorant, and you are the only person here who is a fraud.




Unkotare said:


> But perhaps one day he will grow up.


I'm not the one who hasn't grown up yet.




Unkotare said:


> Perhaps you do not understand what the word proof means.


You are the one who uses personal attacks instead of backing up his claims.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong again.  You are the only person here who is ignorant, and you are the only person here who is a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who hasn't grown up yet.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who uses personal attacks instead of backing up his claims.


Wrong again


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> It’s hard to understand why these warmongers argue so persistently for mass murdering defenseless civilians. It’s fucking crazy.


Wartime strikes against military targets are not murder.

For an example of mass murder look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong.  If you didn't care you wouldn't be posting.
> 
> You hate that I've posted the truth and you are unable to credibly deny it.


Huh?


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> My history of correcting all of your untrue statements is evidence of my knowledge.
> 
> 
> ...


No, it's not.


----------



## gipper

Open Bolt said:


> Wartime strikes against military targets are not murder.
> 
> For an example of mass murder look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.


Dumb, but you’ve proved your dumb a thousand times in this thread.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Not talk; direct quotes, primary sources, links, evidence, citations. YOU have brought nothing but "nuh-uh!" childish nonsense.
> 
> How many years have you taught History?


^^^^^


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Wrong again


You're a liar and a fraud.  You cannot point out anywhere where I am wrong.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> You're a liar and a fraud.  You cannot point out anywhere where I am wrong.


Yes you are a liar and a fraud


I agree


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Dumb, but you’ve proved your dumb a thousand times in this thread.


Nope.  You are the only person here who has proved that they are dumb.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes you are a liar and a fraud
> I agree


Wrong again.  You and Unkotare are the only ones here who are liars and frauds.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong again.  You and Unkotare are the only ones here who are liars and frauds.


What?


----------



## Turtlesoup

rightwinger said:


> We only gave them two days to decide
> 
> What would have happened if we gave them a week?


We would have lost more of our soldiers---they would have hid their coward leader so he wouldn't have to worry about being killed, and given them a chance to find out that we only had the two bombs.  In short, we would have been really stupid.


----------



## Turtlesoup

rightwinger said:


> The war was over once we successfully tested the bomb at Alamogordo.
> 
> From that point on, we had the bomb and nobody else did. An invasion of Japan was no longer necessary
> 
> The question was how best to demonstrate our nuclear weapon.
> 
> Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki better options than bombing a purely military target?
> 
> Would Japan have surrendered if we had bombed military targets to demonstrate the weapon?
> 
> We Will never know
> We didn’t give them the chance


What the pluck are you trying to lie about now?   The two cities were military targets....


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> We would have lost more of our soldiers---they would have hid their coward leader so he wouldn't have to worry about being killed, and given them a chance to find out that we only had the two bombs.  In short, we would have been really stupid.


And then they do what exactly?


They had nothing left


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


Fake news.  Never happened.

I mean, the news article is unfortunately real.

But everything that the article says is untrue.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Not talk; direct quotes, primary sources, links, evidence, citations.


Liar.  You have backed up none of your personal attacks against me.

You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.




Unkotare said:


> YOU have brought nothing but "nuh-uh!" childish nonsense.


Challenging your lies is hardly childish.  And hardly nonsense either.

Your resort to personal attacks because you don't know what you are talking about was pretty childish though.




Unkotare said:


> How many years have you taught History?


You lack the intelligence to understand this, but other people's private lives are none of your business.




Unkotare said:


> No, it's not.


Wrong again.  My history of correcting all of your untrue statements is evidence of my knowledge.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Fake news.  Never happened.
> 
> I mean, the news article is unfortunately real.
> 
> But everything that the article says is untrue.


Prove it


Watch this folks


He cant


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> I'm getting the impression that you haven't cracked a history book in decades, Junior.


Everything he or she said is correct----Maybe you need to find a history book.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Liar.  You have backed up none of your personal attacks against me.
> 
> You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenging your lies is hardly childish.  And hardly nonsense either.
> 
> Your resort to personal attacks because you don't know what you are talking about was pretty childish though.
> 
> 
> 
> You lack the intelligence to understand this, but other people's private lives are none of your business.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  My history of correcting all of your untrue statements is evidence of my knowledge.


Fake news


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> The war was over according to the military leaders


They were wrong.  The Japanese were still fighing in their occupied areas.   Hirohito did not surrender until the bombs were dropped.


----------



## Turtlesoup

rightwinger said:


> Once we tested the bomb there was no longer a need to invade.
> We could bomb them into submission any time we chose
> 
> We had three bombs, one to test, two to drop
> We could also continue to produce as many as we needed
> 
> There was no rush, Japan was at our mercy
> 
> No need to bomb civilians


No need to rush---just that our soldiers were getting killed both in Asia and Europe.  And that Japan was torturing and killing our soldiers and the civilians that they captured.    Japanese were awful people then-----better they die than our or any other innocent people.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> They were wrong.  The Japanese were still fighing in their occupied areas.   Hirohito did not surrender until the bombs were dropped.


Oh we have their opinions.....and then yours 


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Fake news


Liar.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Liar.


Huh?


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> "the overwhelming historical evidence from American and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered that August, even if atomic bombs had not been used — and documents prove that President Truman and his closest advisors knew it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Op-Ed: U.S. leaders knew we didn't have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway
> 
> 
> We've been taught that the U.S. had to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. Historical evidence shows Japan would have surrendered anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Truman knew that the Japanese were searching for a way to end the war; he had referred to Togo’s intercepted July 12 cable as the “telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.”"
> 
> 
> "MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. "
> 
> 
> "Before the bombings, Eisenhower had urged at Potsdam, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"


You are fucking lying-----

Everything that history indicates says clearly that Japan would have fought to the last man, woman, and child as long as the emperor felt safe hiding somewhere.   This was his command---and the Japanese obeyed their living gods command.


----------



## Turtlesoup

rightwinger said:


> For Christ sake…we gave them two days to decide
> 
> We had all the time on our side
> Deciding to kill an extra 400,000 was not necessary


They would not have surrendered without the bombs.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> They would not have surrendered without the bombs.


The military generals disagree


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong again.  You are the only person here who is ignorant, and you are the only person here who is a fraud.
> ...


Ok, prove it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Unkotare said:


> Ok, prove it.


He wont.  He never does


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> He wont.  He never does


Liar.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> Liar.  You have backed up none of your personal attacks against me.
> 
> You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.
> ...








						Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
					

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Ok, prove it.


Your history of not backing up your claims and resorting to personal attacks is ample proof of your ignorance and fraud.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Liar.


What?


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


Fake news.  Never happened.

I mean, the news article is unfortunately real.

But everything that the article says is untrue.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Fake news.  Never happened.
> 
> I mean, the news article is unfortunately real.
> 
> But everything that the article says is untrue.


Prove it


Watch this folks 


He can't


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Prove it


Japanese records show clearly what the Japanese government was doing, and when.

Their records are quite clear that they did not stop trying to win the war until we captured Okinawa.  And after that, they were focused on getting the Soviets to help them to end the war in a draw instead of surrendering.

The first time the Japanese government showed any interest in surrendering was after the Soviet war declaration made it impossible that the Soviets would help them end the war in a draw.

For a good description of what Japan's government was doing, and when, I recommend "Japan's Decision to Surrender" by Robert J.C. Butow, and "Japan's Longest Day" by The Pacific War Research Society.




Vegasgiants said:


> Watch this folks
> He cant


Wrong again.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> The military generals disagree


I don't care who disagrees---facts are facts.   The japanese worshipped their ruler as a god---they planned on dying for their god.  Hell, the fuckers would kill their own children rather than be captured in order to appease their god ruler.  Their ruler called for all of them to die defending him/japan---the bombs are the only reason why they surrendered.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Prove it


Japanese records show clearly what the Japanese government was doing, and when.

Their records are quite clear that they did not stop trying to win the war until we captured Okinawa. And after that, they were focused on getting the Soviets to help them to end the war in a draw instead of surrendering.

The first time the Japanese government showed any interest in surrendering was after the Soviet war declaration made it impossible that the Soviets would help them end the war in a draw.

For a good description of what Japan's government was doing, and when, I recommend "Japan's Decision to Surrender" by Robert J.C. Butow, and "Japan's Longest Day" by The Pacific War Research Society.




Vegasgiants said:


> Watch this folks
> He can't


Wrong again (again).

Face it.  You're never right.

I mean, even broken clocks are right twice a day.  But you couldn't hope to reach that standard.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Japanese records show clearly what the Japanese government was doing, and when.
> 
> Their records are quite clear that they did not stop trying to win the war until we captured Okinawa.  And after that, they were focused on getting the Soviets to help them to end the war in a draw instead of surrendering.
> 
> The first time the Japanese government showed any interest in surrendering was after the Soviet war declaration made it impossible that the Soviets would help them end the war in a draw.
> 
> For a good description of what Japan's government was doing, and when, I recommend "Japan's Decision to Surrender" by Robert J.C. Butow, and "Japan's Longest Day" by The Pacific War Research Society.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.


So no evidence 


I thought so


Dismissed


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> I don't care who disagrees---facts are facts.   The japanese worshipped their ruler as a god---they planned on dying for their god.  Hell, the fuckers would kill their own children rather than be captured in order to appease their god ruler.  Their ruler called for all of them to die defending him/japan---the bombs are the only reason why they surrendered.


It's cute you have an opinion but they knew a lot more than you


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> It's cute you have an opinion but they knew a lot more than you


I don't like propaganda or people spinning shit.   The Japanese were awful people then---they had no plans to surrender before the two bombs were dropped.  These are the facts....Grow up and deal with them.

The Us could not accept anything but complete surrender from JAPAN in order to prevent them from attacking again.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> So no evidence


Wrong again.  There is considerable evidence as to what Japan's government was thinking, and when.

Try actually reading a history book instead of gnawing on the cover.




Vegasgiants said:


> Dismissed


You sure are.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong again.  There is considerable evidence as to what Japan's government was thinking, and when.
> 
> Try actually reading a history book instead of gnawing on the cover.
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are.


I see you post no evidence 


Dismissed


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> I don't like propaganda or people spinning shit.   The Japanese were awful people then---they had no plans to surrender before the two bombs were dropped.  These are the facts....Grow up and deal with them.


Do you know more about the war than Admiral Halsey,  Leahy,  MacArthur,  Eisenhower, and lemay did?


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> It's cute you have an opinion but they knew a lot more than you


Unlikely that they knew more than Turtlesoup.  But regardless, appeals to authority are logical fallacies for a reason.




Vegasgiants said:


> Do you know more about the war than Admiral Halsey,  Leahy,  MacArthur,  Eisenhower, and lemay did?


He probably does.  I certainly do.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Unlikely that they knew more than Turtlesoup.  But regardless, appeals to authority are logical fallacies for a reason.


That is hilarious 


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> I see you post no evidence


Wrong.  I referred you to two reputable history books.




Vegasgiants said:


> Dismissed


You sure are.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Wrong.  I referred you to two reputable history books.
> 
> 
> 
> You sure are.


Quote them directly


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Quote them directly


I'm not going to sit here and type an entire book into a messageboard.

If you want to learn, go read them.  If you chose ignorance, that's your choice.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> Do you know more about the war than Admiral Halsey,  Leahy,  MacArthur,  Eisenhower, and lemay did?


I am not sure what comments that you want to claim mean something---But in Halseys case, I know that he was grossly inept and kept on likely because his daddy was some military higher up just like with fuck up drunk McCAIN in Nam and later on in the US.   His comments mean nothing.  He should have been tossed from the military on atleast two occasions that resulted in others dying that I know of.   And then tossed in the BRIG.

I have no clue who Lemay is nor do I care.

I like MacArthur atleast on some thing--the man had an ego that got others hurt at times, but his bravado did throw the enemy some screwballs.

Never Liked Eisenhower and i don't know what you think Leahy did that gives him any weight on this.

AGain, I am only concerned with facts--dropping the bombs ended the war and stopped Japans aggressions saving millions.


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> So you were afraid?
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA


Afraid of what?   The U.S. wasn't involved in a significant war when I got out of high school or college.


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> And yet he did go on the radio or the people of Japan would not accept surrender



Says who?

They accepted going to war without hearing him say so.  All you keep doing is digging yourself in more and more by showing you do not seem to understand Japan of that era.  They never heard him speak, ever.  This was a nation that would follow orders without question even to their deaths.  Just because somebody said they spoke for the Emperor.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> You have also not backed up your claims about Japan being willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.



It does not matter.

He has said the same thing to me, when I have provided direct quotes and cables from Naotake Sato, the Ambassador to the Soviet Union.  How he himself castigated the Prime and Foreign Ministers for not being serious about surrender, and that they would be destroyed if they did not start to get serious.

I have provided a day by day account of the various votes of the Big Six, and when they changed their minds.

I have given all that and more, with references.  He simply rejects them, and insists that no references were provided.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Unkotare said:


> It's unfortunate that some people come to the history forum, but are clearly unwilling if not unable to actually discuss history. The study of history involves more than just repeating comfortable narratives like some kind of tribal chant. Those without the courage to look directly at the facts of history really should go somewhere else for empty self-affirmation. Leave it to the adults to actually discuss history.


We are willing to discuss history.  Not fiction.  Maybe you’re from some alternate timestream where Japan actually did try to surrender.  But it just didn’t happen here.  In this timeline Japan just wanted a do-over with no consequences.


----------



## AZrailwhale

rightwinger said:


> Japan was contained
> Their Navy was neutralized and they lacked the pilots to challenge our air superiority
> 
> But we had THE BOMB
> 
> The ability to end the war under our terms.
> 
> The question is……did those terms need to be three days between bombs


They were still murdering thousands of Chinese and Indo-Chinese civilians every week and hundreds of POWs every week.  The military junta running Japan wasn’t prepared to surrender under ANY circumstances.  It was willing to fight to the last child to retain Japanese honor that would have been lost by surrendering no matter how adverse the correlation of forces was.  The Japanese government knew it had lost the war after Midway, by the time we invaded the Mariannas and destroyed the naval air power they had strained to rebuild they knew the war was irrevocably lost, after they lost most of the remains of their navy in the Philippines they absolutely knew they had lost.  But they never once made the phone call to say “We surrender”.  No instead, they kept killing their own people and Allied soldiers and sailors in the belief that if they spilled enough blood, they would be granted the armistice that would allow them to keep their ill-gotten gains and escape punishment for their war crimes.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Open Bolt said:


> I assume that you are referring to the post where you quoted all that hysterical whining from Ike and Leahy and the like?  If not you'll need to clarify what post of yours you mean.
> 
> It is impossible to know with 100% certainty if it is true that Japan was secretly willing to surrender and just decided to wait and let the war drag out without telling us.
> 
> But it is certainly possible that it is true.
> 
> It was a really bad move on Japan's part if that's what they did.
> 
> And again, even if it is true, so what?
> 
> By the way, in my original post when I declined to say it was false, and merely said "so what", you could have inferred my acceptance that it could be true.
> 
> Had I thought that it was definitely not true, I would have challenged it as not being true.


But we do know they were unwilling to surrender.  We have all the records of the imperial war council meetings where they made the plans to fight to the past man, woman and child rather than suffer the dishonor of surrender.


----------



## AZrailwhale

rightwinger said:


> In July 1945, once we had a bomb, there was no longer a need to invade


You are right.  We could continued fire bombing every city, town and hamlet, then nuked whatever was left standing by the firestorms.  We would have killed millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians and thousands of allied POWs in the process.  Or we could have spent years blockading Japan and starving the entire population to death while fighting a war against the million plus a Japanese soldiers in China, while uncounted millions of Chinese and Indi-Chinese civilians died


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> You are fucking lying-----
> 
> ....


Direct quotes and historical documents aren't "lying."


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ...
> 
> Everything that history indicates says clearly that Japan would have fought to the last man, woman, and child .....


You mean everything that you were told as a child and now are afraid to even think about.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> Your history of not backing up your claims ....


I have provided copious amounts of data. You have provided nothing beyond your own personal insistence.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> I don't care who disagrees---facts are facts.   ...


Facts are what I have provided. Your scholarly contribution so far has been "you're a liar!"


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> I don't like propaganda or people spinning shit.  .....


Then you should stop doing those things.


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> ....
> 
> I have no clue who Lemay is nor do I care.
> ....


 
Oh, what a historian.


----------



## Unkotare

AZrailwhale said:


> We are willing to discuss history. .....


Doesn't seem that way. Just seems like the reaction of a child who is told Santa Clause isn't real.


----------



## Open Bolt

AZrailwhale said:


> But we do know they were unwilling to surrender.  We have all the records of the imperial war council meetings where they made the plans to fight to the past man, woman and child rather than suffer the dishonor of surrender.


But that changed on August 10.

The theory in question is that it was the Soviet war declaration alone that changed Japan's mind, and the atomic bombs did not contribute.

Most of the people who support that theory probably have an axe to grind.  They hate freedom and democracy, and they think it would make America look bad if the atomic bombs were not what won the war.

However, they are wrong to think it makes America look bad.  Since Japan was refusing to surrender before August 10, there was nothing wrong with dropping atomic bombs on them.

The theory that it was the Soviets alone that made Japan change their mind can never be proven without the ability to re-run history and see how different choices would pan out.

But Japan was depending rather heavily on a plan to secure Soviet aid to help them to escape the war in a draw without surrendering, so it is theoretically possible that the Soviet war declaration was what forced them to change their minds.

In the end I don't think it matters.  Like I said it was still OK for us to drop atomic bombs on them before their surrender.

So the theory could be true, but... who cares?


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Direct quotes and historical documents aren't "lying."


Your personal attacks against other posters were lies however.

And your claim that Japan was willing to surrender before August 10, 1945 certainly was not true.




Unkotare said:


> I have provided copious amounts of data.


None of it backs up your personal attacks against other posters.

None of it backs up your claim that Japan tried to surrender before August 10, 1945.




Unkotare said:


> Facts are what I have provided.


Your personal attacks certainly were not factual.

Your claim that Japan tried to surrender before August 10, 1945 was not factual.




Unkotare said:


> Your scholarly contribution so far has been "you're a liar!"


After your outrageous personal attacks against other posters, I don't see how you have a basis for complaining about being called a liar.




Unkotare said:


> Then you should stop doing those things.


You are posting propaganda when you pretend that Japan tried to surrender before August 10, 1945.




Unkotare said:


> Doesn't seem that way. Just seems like the reaction of a child who is told Santa Clause isn't real.


The closest thing here to such a reaction has been your personal attacks against other posters.


----------



## Unkotare

Thin skin


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "the overwhelming historical evidence from American and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered that August, even if atomic bombs had not been used — and documents prove that President Truman and his closest advisors knew it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Op-Ed: U.S. leaders knew we didn't have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway
> 
> 
> We've been taught that the U.S. had to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. Historical evidence shows Japan would have surrendered anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Truman knew that the Japanese were searching for a way to end the war; he had referred to Togo’s intercepted July 12 cable as the “telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.”"
> 
> 
> "MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. "
> 
> 
> "Before the bombings, Eisenhower had urged at Potsdam, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"


^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


^^^^^^^^


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The Japanese never even knew that atomics had been used on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that had NOTHING at all to do with their surrender.
> What caused their surrender is that finally we agreed to not prosecute the Emperor.


So now you idiots are claiming that the Japs didn't even know they were nuked?

LOL!


----------



## fncceo

4,500 posts in ... not a single mind has been changed.  Not a single opinion altered.

The fact is, regardless of how much we speculate or opinionate 75+ years later, based on the best available intelligence and prevailing thought AT THE TIME, dropping the new weapon was the decision that was made.

We can luxuriate from the distance of nearly a century later, with no sons and daughters lives on the line, but we can't change what happened of blame anyone except posthumously.

Making the entire line of discussion, literally moot.


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> ....
> 
> Making the entire line of discussion, literally moot.


Couldn't you say that about any topic of history under discussion?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> I'm not going to sit here and type an entire book into a messageboard.
> 
> If you want to learn, go read them.  If you chose ignorance, that's your choice.


I accept your concession


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> You are right.  We could continued fire bombing every city, town and hamlet, then nuked whatever was left standing by the firestorms.  We would have killed millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians and thousands of allied POWs in the process.  Or we could have spent years blockading Japan and starving the entire population to death while fighting a war against the million plus a Japanese soldiers in China, while uncounted millions of Chinese and Indi-Chinese civilians died


It we could have simply waited 2 weeks


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> But we do know they were unwilling to surrender.  We have all the records of the imperial war council meetings where they made the plans to fight to the past man, woman and child rather than suffer the dishonor of surrender.


We know they were willing to surrender.....because they did


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The Japanese and Russians had a long history of war between them, and the last thing they would ever have thought is that Russia would at all help them.
> The Korean war never ended because the people were divided and there was no way to combine them again.
> With WWII there was no similarity at all.
> There was absolutely no possible way to avoid surrender.
> And the Japanese NEVER tried to avoid surrender.
> They were ready and willing as early as 1944 to surrender.
> But the US refused their advances.
> It was the US that deliberately prevented them from being allowed to surrender.
> Nor was Hirohito in charge.


link to these offers to surrender....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


that article does not have any cites to back up the claim.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Not talk; direct quotes, primary sources, links, evidence, citations. YOU have brought nothing but "nuh-uh!" childish nonsense.
> 
> How many years have you taught History?


LOL all you have is an unsourced newspaper article from the mid 60's.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> that article does not have any cites to back up the claim.


Yiu have top military leader being quoted that japan sued for peace.  And 

As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[107]


These are facts


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Yiu have top military leader being quoted that japan sued for peace.  And
> 
> As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[107]
> 
> 
> These are facts


Facts are strange things, for example the Japanese record we captured after the war clearly show that what the Japanese INTENDED to offer the Soviets was a plan to aid them in the coming war with the US. They were going to offer to side with the Soviets in that war if the Soviets got the US to accept a cease fire,


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Facts are strange things, for example the Japanese record we captured after the war clearly show that what the Japanese INTENDED to offer the Soviets was a plan to aid them in the coming war with the US. They were going to offer to side with the Soviets in that war if the Soviets got the US to accept a cease fire,


I see no evidence of that


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I see no evidence of that


I posted the link to the historical documents it is not my fault you cant read.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> I posted the link to the historical documents it is not my fault you cant read.


I see no link

Why the insult?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I see no link
> 
> Why the insult?


LOL cant read how many times do I need to post the link it is there I have posted it several times in this thread


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL cant read how many times do I need to post the link it is there I have posted it several times in this thread


Settle down.  Quote the relevant section like I and many others have done


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Settle down.  Quote the relevant section like I and many others have done


Here is another source History, War & Politics-Japanese Peace Feelers in 1945


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Here is another source History, War & Politics-Japanese Peace Feelers in 1945


The emperor wanted peace

On June 22, the Emperor summoned the Big Six and said, "This is not an imperial command, but merely a discussion.  At the last meeting of the Supreme Council it was decided to adopt a new policy and prepare the homeland for defense.  But now I have deemed it necessary to consider a move toward peace, an unprecedented one, and I ask you to take steps at once to realize my wish."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> The emperor wanted peace
> 
> On June 22, the Emperor summoned the Big Six and said, "This is not an imperial command, but merely a discussion.  At the last meeting of the Supreme Council it was decided to adopt a new policy and prepare the homeland for defense.  But now I have deemed it necessary to consider a move toward peace, an unprecedented one, and I ask you to take steps at once to realize my wish."


And yet they never offered SURRENDER. They want a cease fire and return to 41 start line.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> "the overwhelming historical evidence from American and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered that August, even if atomic bombs had not been used


That's nice.  But so what?  Japan still had not surrendered when the atomic bombs were actually used.




Unkotare said:


> and documents prove that President Truman and his closest advisors knew it."


No such documents exist.




Unkotare said:


> Op-Ed: U.S. leaders knew we didn't have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway
> 
> 
> We've been taught that the U.S. had to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. Historical evidence shows Japan would have surrendered anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com


The fact that we expected the Soviet entry into the war to be a blow to Japanese morale is in no way evidence that we could see into the future and know that the war would end at that moment.

We had no idea what it would take to make Japan surrender.

Gar Alperovitz is a known fraud by the way.  So not exactly a credible source.




Unkotare said:


> "Truman knew that the Japanese were searching for a way to end the war; he had referred to Togo’s intercepted July 12 cable as the “telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.”"
> "MacArthur thought the use of atomic bombs was inexcusable. "
> "Before the bombings, Eisenhower had urged at Potsdam, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”"


People really must have struggled to resist slapping Eisenhower and Leahy the way they sniveled and whined all the time.

If Japan wanted out of the war, they were free to surrender at any time.

Japan was the one who chose to wait until August 10 (by which time both atomic bombs had already been dropped) before surrendering.




Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


Fake news.  Never happened.


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> I accept your concession


You're lying about me again.  I have not conceded.




Vegasgiants said:


> It we could have simply waited 2 weeks


We were not interested in waiting.  We were interested in hammering Japan as hard as we could until they surrendered.

If someone is ever foolish enough to place you in charge of a war, you will be free to wait around and do nothing until you lose the war.

Truman was not interested in sitting around doing nothing when we could be pounding on Japan.




Vegasgiants said:


> We know they were willing to surrender.....because they did


We know they were willing to surrender on August 10, because they did.

We know that they refused to surrender before August 10, because they did.

By the time August 10 came around, both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Vegasgiants said:


> You have top military leader being quoted that japan sued for peace.


And we have the actual fact that Japan didn't offer to surrender until August 10, by which time both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Vegasgiants said:


> And
> As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[107]


Yep.  Dumb move by Japan to hope that the Soviets would help them to end the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended) instead of surrendering.




Vegasgiants said:


> These are facts


You left a lot of important context out of those facts, and you presented them in a misleading manner.

But don't worry, I added in the context that you left out.




Vegasgiants said:


> I see no evidence of that


Perhaps if you read some history books and gained a little bit of real knowledge about the issue.

"Japan siding with the Soviets during the coming Cold War" was to be Japan's payment to the Soviets for helping Japan to end the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended) instead of surrendering.




Vegasgiants said:


> The emperor wanted peace
> On June 22, the Emperor summoned the Big Six and said, "This is not an imperial command, but merely a discussion.  At the last meeting of the Supreme Council it was decided to adopt a new policy and prepare the homeland for defense.  But now I have deemed it necessary to consider a move toward peace, an unprecedented one, and I ask you to take steps at once to realize my wish."


Japan was free to surrender at any time.

No one made Japan wait until August 10 to surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet they never offered SURRENDER. They want a cease fire and return to 41 start line.


Actually they wanted no war crimes for the imperial family.....and we gave them that


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> You're lying about me again.  I have not conceded.
> 
> 
> 
> We were not interested in waiting.  We were interested in hammering Japan as hard as we could until they surrendered.
> 
> If someone is ever foolish enough to place you in charge of a war, you will be free to wait around and do nothing until you lose the war.
> 
> Truman was not interested in sitting around doing nothing when we could be pounding on Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> We know they were willing to surrender on August 10, because they did.
> 
> We know that they refused to surrender before August 10, because they did.
> 
> By the time August 10 came around, both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> And we have the actual fact that Japan didn't offer to surrender until August 10, by which time both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Dumb move by Japan to hope that the Soviets would help them to end the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended) instead of surrendering.
> 
> 
> 
> You left a lot of important context out of those facts, and you presented them in a misleading manner.
> 
> But don't worry, I added in the context that you left out.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you read some history books and gained a little bit of real knowledge about the issue.
> 
> "Japan siding with the Soviets during the coming Cold War" was to be Japan's payment to the Soviets for helping Japan to end the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended) instead of surrendering.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was free to surrender at any time.
> 
> No one made Japan wait until August 10 to surrender.


Fake news


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Actually they wanted no war crimes for the imperial family.....and we gave them that


Before August 10, Japan wanted to end the war in a draw without surrendering (like the Korean War later ended).

We did not give them that.

After August 10, Japan wanted to surrender with a guarantee that Hirohito would retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

We didn't give them that either.  We told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




Vegasgiants said:


> Fake news


Wrong again.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Before August 10, Japan wanted to end the war in a draw without surrendering (like the Korean War later ended).
> 
> We did not give them that.
> 
> After August 10, Japan wanted to surrender with a guarantee that Hirohito would retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.
> 
> We didn't give them that either.  We told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.


Fake news.  Never happened


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Fake news.  Never happened


Liar.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Liar.


Quit whining


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Quit whining


Another lie on your part.  I am not whining.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Another lie on your part.  I am not whining.


More whining from you


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> More whining from you


Liar.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Liar.


Yes you are


----------



## Open Bolt

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes you are


Okay.  It's time to put you on ignore.  You clearly have no interest in honest discussion.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Okay.  It's time to put you on ignore.  You clearly have no interest in honest discussion.


Thank god.  I can just correct your posts without whining 


You lost when your only response is I dont care and they are whining


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> Okay.  It's time to put you on ignore.  You clearly have no interest in honest discussion.


Look who’s talking.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Look who’s talking.


More of your lies and personal attacks.




Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


Fake news.  Never happened.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


^^^^^


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> ^^^^^


Again I REPEAT that story has no source. No references to sources no sourced facts at all.


----------



## Vegasgiants

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb by Gar Alperovitz: 9780679762850 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books
					

With a new preface by the author  Controversial in nature, this book demonstrates that the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb against Japan. Alperovitz criticizes one of the most hotly debated...



					www.penguinrandomhouse.com


----------



## Open Bolt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again I REPEAT that story has no source. No references to sources no sourced facts at all.


The reason why the article has no source is because it is fake news.  The events described in the article never happened.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> The reason why the article has no source is because it is fake news.  The events described in the article never happened.


Prove it


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


^^^^^


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


Repeating this fraudulent propaganda will not make it any less fake.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Repeating this fraudulent propaganda will not make it any less fake.


Prove it


----------



## Unkotare

Funny how I've provided loads of evidence and been met with "Nuh-uh! You lying!"

What impressive historical scholarship.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Prove it


Dumb ass it is your job to prove something HAPPENED not ours to prove something DID NOT happen.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dumb ass it is your job to prove something HAPPENED not ours to prove something DID NOT happen.


I have provided tons of evidence for my case......DUMB ASS


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Funny how I've provided loads of evidence and been met with "Nuh-uh! You lying!"
> 
> What impressive historical scholarship.


Funny how you claim to be a historian but link to things with NO SOURCE.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I have provided tons of evidence for my case......DUMB ASS


The newspaper article is unsourced which is what we are talking about retard


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> The newspaper article is unsourced which is what we are talking about retard


I dont give a shit.   A lot of evidence has been presented that japan sued for peace long before august


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont give a shit.   A lot of evidence has been presented that japan sued for peace long before august


NO it has not no link to a SINGLE offer by the Japanese Government has EVER been provided.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> NO it has not no link to a SINGLE offer by the Japanese Government has EVER been provided.


Sure it has.  They sued for peace thru sweden and russia.  The emperor himself said he wanted peace


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Sure it has.  They sued for peace thru sweden and russia.  The emperor himself said he wanted peace


LOL the Swedish lie I see the link I provided clearly shows that Sweden wasnt done by the Government and when they found out about it sent a cable reminding their rep they intended to fight to the bitter end as for Soviets that article also pointed out the plan was to offer the Soviets a deal to ally with them against the US if they brokered a CEASEFIRE not a surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Delete


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh we have their opinions.....and then yours
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA


Historical facts are not opinions.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> Historical facts are not opinions.


Yes.  I posted them


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes.  I posted them


You said we have their opinions then falsely called my facts opinions and then gave a snarky laugh.  Where are your facts?  The Japanese did not stop fighting. It’s historical fact.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> You said we have their opinions then falsely called my facts opinions and then gave a snarky laugh.  Where are your facts?  The Japanese did not stop fighting. It’s historical fact.


Their statements are a part of the factual record.


Deny that


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Their statements are a part of the factual record.
> 
> 
> Deny that


Whose statements and what statements?  Just answer the question.  Do you deny the fact that the Japanese were still fighting?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> Whose statements and what statements?  Just answer the question.  Do you deny the fact that the Japanese were still fighting?


The statements of the admirals and generals that said the bomb was not needed.


Deny they are part of the factual record


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> The statements of the admirals and generals that said the bomb was not needed.
> 
> 
> Deny they are part of the factual record





DGS49 said:


> It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
> 
> The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
> 
> Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, *to the death.*
> 
> The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.  The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives.  It was the most fully justified military decision in human history.  A pox on anyone claiming otherwise.  You make me want to puke.
> 
> If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.


Here is a good synopsis…I provided a quote form another Forum member.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> Here is a good synopsis….


The military generals disagree with that assessment


----------



## Turtlesoup

Dayton3 said:


> Afraid of what?   The U.S. wasn't involved in a significant war when I got out of high school or college.


I


Unkotare said:


> Direct quotes and historical documents aren't "lying."


It's lying---people lie all the time---people are idiots and get things wrong and people lie when they are playing political games of manipulation.  Quotes are often taken out of context.   Cherry picking quotes  and attempting to use as evidence to prove something that other more reliable evidence clearly shows is inaccurate is still lying hun.

The bombs ended the war.   The japanese would not have completely surrendered without the bombs BOTH being dropped due to the order of their god-ruler.  These are the facts.  They would have fought to the last man, woman, and child.   (In order to prevent being captured which would have offended their god-ruler--they tossed their own small kids over cliffs killing them.)   The two cities bombed despite the lies were indeed military targets.   The Japanese were truly horrid people who had to be stopped completely and totally or they would have been a repeated threat costing more millions of lives later on.   If the bombs weren't dropped, we would have lost millions of more people trying to end their terror upon others and even themselves.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> I
> 
> It's lying---people lie all the time---people are idiots and get things wrong and people lie when they are playing political games of manipulation.  Quotes are often taken out of context.   Cherry picking quotes  and attempting to use as evidence to prove something that other more reliable evidence clearly shows is inaccurate is still lying hun.
> 
> The bombs ended the war.   The japanese would not have completely surrendered without the bombs BOTH being dropped due to the order of their god-ruler.  These are the facts.  They would have fought to the last man, woman, and child.   (In order to prevent being captured which would have offended their god-ruler--they tossed their own small kids over cliffs killing them.)   The two cities bombed despite the lies were indeed military targets.   The Japanese were truly horrid people who had to be stopped completely and totally or they would have been a repeated threat costing more millions of lives later on.   If the bombs weren't dropped, we would have lost millions of more people trying to end their terror upon others and even themselves.


Then prove the quotes are out of context.  That is your claim.....just prove it


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> You mean everything that you were told as a child and now are afraid to even think about.


Sweetheart--I read a lot and I had a mother who was obsessed with old books especially history hun before rewriting history became in vogue---and then again I grew up around my elderly family---including my Grandfather and his 5 brothers who were all in WW2. 

I research constantly hun---as  a matter of habit.

AGain--the facts not he said/she said is that Japan would not have fully surrendered without the bombs BOTH bombs being dropped---------the two cities despite the lies that libs/communists/globalists/idiotic manipulative school teachers have spread since atleast my childhood were indeed military targets.   The same groups lies about the Japanese being anything but absolutely evil assholes that needed to be killed to get them to stop their agressions which included mass rapes, cannabalism, tortured of capture soldiers, splitting open of pregnant women's bellies for sport along with stabbing infants for fun had to be stopped and asking pretty please would have never worked.   They murdered their own children to avoid offending their druggy god/ruler who had them convinced to allow their selves or kids to live captured would be a sin.

It doesn't matter what anyone said about history for whatever reason---the facts are there---the japanese culture then would have never allowed for a full surrender without the bombs--their fucking god/ruler would have never stopped his aggressions until it became clear (even though he didn't know that we used up the last of our bombs) to him that he too could be bombed into the afterlife where they knew that he was not a god.

Without the bombs---Japan would not have completely surrender ---and they would not stopped their aggressions long term causing more wars later on killing more----sick of the globalist communists bullshit of trying to rewrite history making the US the bad guys when the facts we sacrificed to try to keep the worlds peace. 

If you want to argue something that has some merits--why not try something along the lines of had the US not stopped Japan that the Japanese could have continue to rape and murder the chinese which might have saved us some hardaches now.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> Sweetheart--I read a lot and I had a mother who was obsessed with old books especially history hun before rewriting history became in vogue---and then again I grew up around my elderly family---including my Grandfather and his 5 brothers who were all in WW2.
> 
> I research constantly hun---as  a matter of habit.
> 
> AGain--the facts not he said/she said is that Japan would not have fully surrendered without the bombs BOTH bombs being dropped---------the two cities despite the lies that libs/communists/globalists/idiotic manipulative school teachers have spread since atleast my childhood were indeed military targets.   The same groups lies about the Japanese being anything but absolutely evil assholes that needed to be killed to get them to stop their agressions which included mass rapes, cannabalism, tortured of capture soldiers, splitting open of pregnant women's bellies for sport along with stabbing infants for fun had to be stopped and asking pretty please would have never worked.   They murdered their own children to avoid offending their druggy god/ruler who had them convinced to allow their selves or kids to live captured would be a sin.
> 
> It doesn't matter what anyone said about history for whatever reason---the facts are there---the japanese culture then would have never allowed for a full surrender without the bombs--their fucking god/ruler would have never stopped his aggressions until it became clear (even though he didn't know that we used up the last of our bombs) to him that he too could be bombed into the afterlife where they knew that he was not a god.
> 
> Without the bombs---Japan would not have completely surrender ---and they would not stopped their aggressions long term causing more wars later on killing more----sick of the globalist communists bullshit of trying to rewrite history making the US the bad guys when the facts we sacrificed to try to keep the worlds peace.
> 
> If you want to argue something that has some merits--why not try something along the lines of had the US not stopped Japan that the Japanese could have continue to rape and murder the chinese which might save some hardaches now.


I think the opinions of the military leaders are worth something


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> The military generals disagree with that assessment


So you found generals that disagree with historical facts.  Unfortunately that doesn't prove a thing.  I do notice, as I read through some of the over 900 posts in this thread, the same Forum members who always express disdain for America are the ones you are in line with.  Also, you failed to comment on the good synopsis of facts (from another forum member) that I posted.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> Then prove the quotes are out of context.  That is your claim.....just prove it


I've already addressed the quotes in general----from idiots who should have been removed from command for being so inept that they were repeatedly bought up for review for getting our people killed, to others who are of no importance, to others playing political games.  If you want me to argue a specific quote---Words mean nothing hun.   HARD facts do--and I have already told you what the Japanese were like, what they believed, what they did, and what they were willing to continue to do which makes it clear that without the bombs intimidating their druggy god/ruler-- that the wars with Japan would have never completely ended without the bombs.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> So you found generals that disagree with historical facts.  Unfortunately that doesn't prove a thing.  I do notice, as I read through some of the over 900 posts in this thread, the same Forum members who always express disdain for America are the ones you are in line with.  Also, you failed to comment on the good synopsis of facts (from another forum member) that I posted.


No I found that virtually ALL the US military leadership believes the bombs were not needed.  These people knew more about the situation on the ground than anyone.  You simply dismiss them ......which I find odd


----------



## Leo123

Turtlesoup said:


> Sweetheart--I read a lot and I had a mother who was obsessed with old books especially history hun before rewriting history became in vogue---and then again I grew up around my elderly family---including my Grandfather and his 5 brothers who were all in WW2.
> 
> I research constantly hun---as  a matter of habit.
> 
> AGain--the facts not he said/she said is that Japan would not have fully surrendered without the bombs BOTH bombs being dropped---------the two cities despite the lies that libs/communists/globalists/idiotic manipulative school teachers have spread since atleast my childhood were indeed military targets.   The same groups lies about the Japanese being anything but absolutely evil assholes that needed to be killed to get them to stop their agressions which included mass rapes, cannabalism, tortured of capture soldiers, splitting open of pregnant women's bellies for sport along with stabbing infants for fun had to be stopped and asking pretty please would have never worked.   They murdered their own children to avoid offending their druggy god/ruler who had them convinced to allow their selves or kids to live captured would be a sin.
> 
> It doesn't matter what anyone said about history for whatever reason---the facts are there---the japanese culture then would have never allowed for a full surrender without the bombs--their fucking god/ruler would have never stopped his aggressions until it became clear (even though he didn't know that we used up the last of our bombs) to him that he too could be bombed into the afterlife where they knew that he was not a god.
> 
> Without the bombs---Japan would not have completely surrender ---and they would not stopped their aggressions long term causing more wars later on killing more----sick of the globalist communists bullshit of trying to rewrite history making the US the bad guys when the facts we sacrificed to try to keep the worlds peace.
> 
> If you want to argue something that has some merits--why not try something along the lines of had the US not stopped Japan that the Japanese could have continue to rape and murder the chinese which might save some hardaches now.


As I just told another here, I noticed that most of the America naysayers in this thread have a history here of denigrating American history and even American traditional values.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> I've already address the quotes in general----from idiots who should have been removed from command for being so inept that repeatedly were bought up for review for killing people, to others who are of no importance, to others playing political games.  If you want me to argue a specific quote---Words mean nothing hun.   HARD facts do--and I have already told you what the Japanese were alike, what they believe, what they did and were willing to continue to do which makes it clear that without the bombs intimidating their druggy god/ruler--the wars with Japan would have never completely ended.


I see.  So the very military leaders that got us to that point are now idiots because YOU say so.


The japanese surrendered so surrender was ALWAYS an option


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> No I found that virtually ALL the US military leadership believes the bombs were not needed.  These people knew more about the situation on the ground than anyone.  You simply dismiss them ......which I find odd


LOL Eisenhower knew NOTHING of the military aspects of the Pacific Campaigns and neither did Halsey or most of those you quoted.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL Eisenhower knew NOTHING of the military aspects of the Pacific Campaigns and neither did Halsey or most of those you quoted.


I await your evidence


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> I think the opinions of the military leaders are worth something


Well you know what they say about opinions---they are like assholes, everyone has one.  In this case---inept leaders and idiots vying for political power mean nothing.   FACTS are facts---and their opinions fly directly against the facts.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> Well you know what they say about opinions---they are like assholes, everyone has one.  In this case---inept leaders and idiots vying for political power mean nothing.   FACTS are facts---and their opinions fly directly against the facts.


In your opinion


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I await your evidence


Eisenhower served in Europe end of discussion. Halsey was a carrier commander he did not do invasions for the ground game. the Chief of Staff was a Pogue that did not serve at all in the Pacific.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Funny how I've provided loads of evidence and been met with "Nuh-uh! You lying!"
> What impressive historical scholarship.


But you haven't provided loads of evidence.  You are linking to a single inaccurate article over and over and over again.

If you want scholarship, I recommend starting with _"Japan's Decision to Surrender"_ by Robert J.C. Butow, and then reading _"Japan's Longest Day"_ by The Pacific War Research Society.

Note that The Pacific War Research Society are Japanese historians, so in addition to providing a good solid historical background of the end of the war, they also provide it with an interesting perspective.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Eisenhower served in Europe end of discussion. Halsey was a carrier commander he did not do invasions for the ground game. the Chief of Staff was a Pogue that did not serve at all in the Pacific.


So you claim they knew nothing about the situation in japan even after the war when they made those statements?


Come on man


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> So you claim they knew nothing about the situation in japan even after the war when they made those statements?
> 
> 
> Come on man


They had NO experience with the Japanese on the Ground so YES that is my OPINION.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> They had NO experience with the Japanese on the Ground so YES that is my OPINION.


I dismiss that opinion.  They were EXPERTS on the situation in japan especially after the war when they were able to review all the documents available


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I dismiss that opinion.  They were EXPERTS on the situation in japan especially after the war when they were able to review all the documents available


LOL yet they did no such thing. If they had they would have noted that Japanese Military fought virtually to the last man in every fight that the Japanese Civilians obeyed the military with out question on Saipan and Okinawa and committed suicide rather then surrender and that the Government of Japan refused to surrender before August 10 after 2 atomic bombs and a Russian invasion and then STILL voted to continue the war failing that attempt they tried a Coup to stop the surrender.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> Yiu have top military leader being quoted that japan sued for peace.  And
> 
> As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[107]
> 
> 
> These are facts


Japan refused to surrender completely--------they were trying to retain power and the ability to attack others.  The bombs forced them into surrendering completely ending their reign of terror saving millions....


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL yet they did no such thing. If they had they would have noted that Japanese Military fought virtually to the last man in every fight that the Japanese Civilians obeyed the military with out question on Saipan and Okinawa and committed suicide rather then surrender and that the Government of Japan refused to surrender before August 10 after 2 atomic bombs and a Russian invasion and then STILL voted to continue the war failing that attempt they tried a Coup to stop the surrender.


And yet they surrendered and did not fight to the last man so they were open to that possibility


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> Japan refused to surrender completely--------they were trying to retain power and the ability to attack others.  The bombs forced them into surrendering completely ending their reign of terror saving millions....


Actually they did surrender so the idea that they were never open to that possibility is ridiculous


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> And yet they surrendered and did not fight to the last man so they were open to that possibility


Only because their God ordered it. And no the attempted coup was not just low level officers a General Committed suicide because his Coup failed.


----------



## Oddball

Vegasgiants said:


> And yet they surrendered and did not fight to the last man so they were open to that possibility


There's no fighting back against getting vaporized, sock-o.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> And yet they surrendered and did not fight to the last man so they were open to that possibility


Only after the two bombs were dropped fearing that we had more to drop on their emperors head.


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> No I found that virtually ALL the US military leadership believes the bombs were not needed.  These people knew more about the situation on the ground than anyone.  You simply dismiss them ......which I find odd


One example: Leahy was told that the bomb was great enough to destroy the whole world.   He was given false information.   After that, even after the first test, Leahy was against the bomb.   Dr. Bush told Leahy that the bomb would never go off.   Leahy also said, after the test, that the bomb would be of 'no material assistance in our war against Japan.'   Actual history proved him dead wrong.  The war ended after the bombs were dropped and no American troops were needed to subdue Japan.  Yet, here you are holding up a misinformed General as proof that dropping the bomb was a bad idea.

Eisenhower supposedly told Sec. of War Stimpson that the bomb should not be used.   In reality, Stimson's own diary and assessments from contemporaries at the time shows that this conversation never took place.

Frankly, I find it odd that you did not look at all the facts of what happened at the time and made the typical anti-American knee-jerk conclusions.   Leahy was dead wrong and Eisenhower never opposed the use of the bomb.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> One example: Leahy was told that the bomb was great enough to destroy the whole world.   He was given false information.   After that, even after the first test, Leahy was against the bomb.   Dr. Bush told Leahy that the bomb would never go off.   Leahy also said, after the test, that the bomb would be of 'no material assistance in our war against Japan.'   Yet, here you are holding up a misinformed General as proof that dropping the bomb was a bad idea.
> 
> Eisenhower supposedly told Sec. of War Stimpson that the bomb should not be used.   In reality, Stimson's own diary and assessments from contemporaries at the time shows that this conversation never took place.
> 
> Frankly, I find it odd that you did not look at all the facts of what happened at the time and made the typical anti-American knee-jerk conclusions.   Leahy was dead wrong and Eisenhower never opposed the use of the bomb.


I see no evidence of these claims


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> I see no evidence of these claims


I found it in 5 minutes.  You just don't want to look because, for some reason, you seem to want to blame America.  Here's a hint:  Go online, read material, etc. without trying to find stuff that agrees with your POV.   All I did was use a search engine and just typed in 'Eisenhower and the Bomb.'   Do some research, actually read articles, etc. before you come here and claim you know anything.  With Leahy all I did was search his bio.   You, apparently just took someone else's word for it because it agreed with your opinion.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> I found it in 5 minutes.  You just don't want to look because, for some reason, you seem to want to blame America.


Should be very easy to link then

And I never blamed America


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Should be very easy to link then
> 
> And I never blamed America


Find it yourself.  For Leahy, go to Wiki, for Eisenhower type what I told you to type.  Read it for yourself.   I am not your babysitter.  At that time there were plenty of people that doubted the bomb or were questioning it's use.  The FACT is that Japan surrendered AFTER the bomb was dropped.   You can try to play retrospective arm-chair general all you want but it's nothing but a fantasy.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> Find it yourself.  For Leahy, go to Wiki, for Eisenhower type what I told you to type.  Read it for yourself.   I am not your babysitter.


Nope.  Link it or not 


Dismissed


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Nope.  Link it or not
> 
> 
> Dismissed


I will not do your work for you.  Prove me wrong or go away. Dismissed.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> I will not do your work for you.  Prove me wrong or go away. Dismissed.


Dismissed


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> I see no evidence of these claims


You have a lot of trouble seeing the facts.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> You have a lot of trouble seeing the facts.


Post some and let's find out


I am not the debate


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Should be very easy to link then
> 
> And I never blamed America


I forgot to mention, you provided no links either.  At least I gave you a hint as to where to find more accurate info...."Dismissed.."


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> Nope.  Link it or not
> 
> 
> Dismissed


GROW UP VEGAS----


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> GROW UP VEGAS----


You got nothing


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> I forgot to mention, you provided no links either.  At least I gave you a hint as to where to find more accurate info...."Dismissed.."


Actually I did.  Read the thread


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Actually I did.  Read the thread


I'm not reading 900+ posts to find one.   I told you where to go, you just sit there a bloviate and expect us all to believe you.   'Dismissed' LOL


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> I'm not reading 900+ posts to find one.   I told you where to go, you just sit there a bloviate and expect us all to believe you.   'Dismissed' LOL


I gave you a chance.


You got nothing 


Dismissed


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> I see.  So the very military leaders that got us to that point are now idiots because YOU say so.
> 
> 
> The japanese surrendered so surrender was ALWAYS an option


I thought that I was very clear----I was very specific that atleast one of the idiots (the admiral) that you listed was completely inept at his job---caused the death of several of our soldiers on atleast two documented occasions, was put up for criminal review on for these two occassions, and should have been put in the brig----------he like McCAIN was given a command because of WHO his daddy was instead of his ability.  His comments mean less than nothing---he actions were not honorable.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> Sure it has.  They sued for peace thru sweden and russia.  The emperor himself said he wanted peace


He didn't want to be bombed and didn't want to fully surrender...ending Japans world power status which would have allowed him attack again later on.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> I thought that I was very clear----I was very specific that atleast one of the idiots (the admiral) that you listed was completely inept at his job---caused the death of several of our soldiers on atleast two documented occasions, was put up for criminal review on for these two occassions, and should have been put in the brig----------he like McCAIN was given a command because of WHO his daddy was instead of his ability.  His comments mean less than nothing---he actions were not honorable.


And you have an opinion on that admiral.


Yet his opinion is backed by many other military leaders.


Just a coincidence I guess.  Lol


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> He didn't want to be bombed and didn't want to fully surrender...ending Japans world power status which would have allowed him attack again later on.


Yet he did surrender....so it was always an option


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Post some and let's find out
> 
> 
> I am not the debate


LOL why post links for you, you either dont read them or claim they are wrong.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL why post links for you, you either dont read them or claim they are wrong.


No I read them
And you can post them or not


And i will judge based on that


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> No I read them
> And you can post them or not
> 
> 
> And i will judge based on that


I post links then the next day you deny having seen them demanding they be posted again all the while refusing to post the supposed links you gave.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> I post links then the next day you deny having seen them demanding they be posted again all the while refusing to post the supposed links you gave.


I will post any links you want.  If I missed any of your I apologize 


Now....just call me a retard again.  You will feel better.  Lol


----------



## Turtlesoup

Vegasgiants said:


> And you have an opinion on that admiral.
> 
> 
> Yet his opinion is backed by many other military leaders.
> 
> 
> Just a coincidence I guess.  Lol


My comments are more than just opinion---it's documented fact.   GROW UP and research instead of trolling to try to annoy.  You are coming off as a petulant child.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Turtlesoup said:


> My comments are more than just opinion---it's documented fact.   GROW UP and research instead of trolling to try to annoy.  You are coming off as a petulant child.


You're very upset

Maybe you need a break


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> You're very upset
> 
> Maybe you need a break


Actually we are tired of your claiming no such facts in evidence when we link to the info and you ignore it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually we are tired of your claiming no such facts in evidence when we link to the info and you ignore it.


Link anything you like and we can discuss it rationally


Without insult or personal attacks


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Link anything you like and we can discuss it rationally
> 
> 
> Without insult or personal attacks


You dont read them my last link clearly showed that the Swedish offers were not supported by the Japanese Government  AND when they were told of them sent a demand to their envoy to cease and desist as they intended to fight to the bitter end. Further it clearly stated that the Soviet offer was to aid the Soviets later in a war with the US if they brokered a ceasefire rather then a surrender. You ignored it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> You dont read them my last link clearly showed that the Swedish offers were not supported by the Japanese Government  AND when they were told of them sent a demand to their envoy to cease and desist as they intended to fight to the bitter end. Further it clearly stated that the Soviet offer was to aid the Soviets later in a war with the US if they brokered a ceasefire rather then a surrender. You ignored it.


I question the validity of that second claim


The emperor clearly said he wants peace...not just a ceasefire


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I question the validity of that second claim


It is in the official records seized after the surrender you can dispute it all you want it is a fact. I also linked to a source for that too.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is in the official records seized after the surrender you can dispute it all you want it is a fact. I also linked to a source for that too.


I also posted evidence that the emperor clearly said he did not want to focus on defense of the homeland and instead wanted peace


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I also posted evidence that the emperor clearly said he did not want to focus on defense of the homeland and instead wanted peace


LOL what he wanted was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL what he wanted was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.


That's not what the emperor said though


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> That's not what the emperor said though


It is what he intended as evidenced by the attempt with the Soviets before Aug 10.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is what he intended as evidenced by the attempt with the Soviets before Aug 10.


The bottom line is the bombs were not necessary


We could have achieved the same result without them


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> The bottom line is the bombs were not necessary
> 
> 
> We could have achieved the same result without them


THAT CLAIM is lacking any proof.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> THAT CLAIM is lacking any proof.


It certainly is the opinion of the military leaders at the time


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> It certainly is the opinion of the military leaders at the time


Leaders with no direct experience with Japanese soldiers will to fight.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> It certainly is the opinion of the military leaders at the time


Provide a link to an actual General or Admiral WITH Combat experience against the Japanese soldiers......


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Provide a link to an actual General or Admiral WITH Combat experience against the Japanese soldiers......


You honestly think these military leaders did not know the best way to proceed militarily?


Tell me you are kidding


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Leaders with no direct experience with Japanese soldiers will to fight.


Like truman?  Lol


His opinion you like.  Lol


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> But you haven't provided loads of evidence.  Y.....


Pretty sure I have.


----------



## Unkotare

Leo123 said:


> Find it yourself. ....



= full of shit


----------



## Unkotare

Leo123 said:


> I will not do your work for you.  ...



= full of shit


----------



## Unkotare

Leo123 said:


> I'm not reading 900+ posts to find one.   ....



= full of shit


----------



## Leo123

On July 26, 1945 the Allied forces issued the Potsdam declaration calling for Japan's unconditional surrender. The Japanese rejected the demand few days later. On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, followed by the second nuclear attack on Nagasaki three days later. On August 14, 1945, Japan declared its surrender.








						Chester W. Nimitz
					

Chester W. Nimitz (1885-1966) was Fleet Admiral of the US Navy and Commander in Chief of the US Pacific Fleet during World War II.Nimitz was born on February 24, 1885 in Fredericksburg, Texas to parents of German descent. He attended the US Naval Academy from 1901-1905, where he finished 7th in...




					www.atomicheritage.org
				




Per Nimitz
“He said he was not attempting to minimize the ‘awful power’ of the new weapon, because it undoubtedly ‘hastened the end.’

Facts.....


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> On July 26, 1945 the Allied forces issued the Potsdam declaration calling for Japan's unconditional surrender. The Japanese rejected the demand few days later. On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, followed by the second nuclear attack on Nagasaki three days later. On August 14, 1945, Japan declared its surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chester W. Nimitz
> 
> 
> Chester W. Nimitz (1885-1966) was Fleet Admiral of the US Navy and Commander in Chief of the US Pacific Fleet during World War II.Nimitz was born on February 24, 1885 in Fredericksburg, Texas to parents of German descent. He attended the US Naval Academy from 1901-1905, where he finished 7th in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.atomicheritage.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Per Nimitz
> “He said he was not attempting to minimize the ‘awful power’ of the new weapon, because it undoubtedly ‘hastened the end.’
> 
> Facts.....


Nuclear weapons will end any war.  Yiu make the case to drop them on the first day of battle....to hasten the end of the war.

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


----------



## Leo123

More facts....

A key source in this contested history has been the evidence of individuals who were involved in the U.S. government’s development of and decision-making on nuclear weapons. Yet, many of these individuals, be they supporters or critics, somewhat rewrote their history in the aftermath of the August 1945 bombings.


Untangling postwar contentions from actual pre-Hiroshima actions is generally not a simple matter. It requires close attention to pre-Hiroshima archival sources, which account for well more than 100,000 pages in multiple libraries. In using these sources, the analyst should give much greater weight to the pre-Hiroshima sources than to the later, postwar claims in cases of significant discrepancies.


After the war, in memoirs and in related statements, three former wartime members of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff—Admiral William Leahy, the de facto chairman of the Joint Chiefs; General Henry Arnold, head of the Army Air Forces, and Admiral Ernest King, head of the Navy—publicly raised sharp questions about the military-political necessity of those atomic bombings and indicated there were other ways of ending the war. In his own widely reviewed memoir _I Was There_,1 Leahy passionately condemned the bombings as unethical and even barbarous. Yet, the available records, including his own diary, give no indication that he expressed this opinion to Truman or to any other government associate before the bombings.




__





						Looking Back: Gen. Marshall and the Atomic Bombing of Japanese Cities | Arms Control Association
					






					www.armscontrol.org


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Nuclear weapons will end any war.  Yiu make the case to drop them on the first day of battle....to hasten the end of the war.
> 
> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


That question weighed on their minds when the Potsdam Declaration arrived (July 27-28), calling on them to surrender unconditionally or face immediate destruction. Yet they rejected the four-power ultimatum, feeling as former prime minister and navy"moderate," Admiral Yonai Mitsumasa, said to his secretary on July 28,"There is no need to rush."

These people had many reasons to bring the lost war to an end short of Japan's further destruction and unconditional capitulation to the Anglo-Americans. But only the emperor had the sovereign power to resolve the issue. And during the entire month of June and well into July, when U.S. terror bombing of Japanese civilian targets peaked, he resisted and showed no determination to do so.

Emperor Hirohito and his chief political adviser, Kido Koichi, stuck with the militarists and insisted on continuing with preparations for final battles on the home islands even in late June, when all organized resistance on Okinawa had ended, and an estimated 120,000 Japanese combatants (including Koreans and Taiwanese) and 150,000 to 170,000 non-combatants lay dead. U.S. combat losses in the battle of Okinawa were approximately 12,520 killed and over 33,000 wounded. With time accelerating and their sense of the urgency of the situation deepening, Hirohito responded to this defeat by forcing the army and navy leaders to agree to the idea of an"early peace." But he still gave no indication that he was thinking in terms of an immediate surrender, let alone proposing peace to the nations he was actually fighting.




__





						Why Did the Japanese Delay Surrendering? |  History News         Network
					






					historynewsnetwork.org
				




The decision to drop the bomb was far more complicated than your arrogant, ill informed anti-American screeds.  I just gave you a fire hose of information.  You have given nothing but revised historical opinions some of which are just not true.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> First of all, the bomb was not dropped on the first day of battle.  Secondly, the Japanese refused to surrender at Potsdam.


So?  Why not wait for the russian invasion?  A three day wait.  They surrendered after the invasion.  Why couldn't we wait three days?  We knew the exact date of the invasion


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> That question weighed on their minds when the Potsdam Declaration arrived (July 27-28), calling on them to surrender unconditionally or face immediate destruction. Yet they rejected the four-power ultimatum, feeling as former prime minister and navy"moderate," Admiral Yonai Mitsumasa, said to his secretary on July 28,"There is no need to rush."
> 
> These people had many reasons to bring the lost war to an end short of Japan's further destruction and unconditional capitulation to the Anglo-Americans. But only the emperor had the sovereign power to resolve the issue. And during the entire month of June and well into July, when U.S. terror bombing of Japanese civilian targets peaked, he resisted and showed no determination to do so.
> 
> Emperor Hirohito and his chief political adviser, Kido Koichi, stuck with the militarists and insisted on continuing with preparations for final battles on the home islands even in late June, when all organized resistance on Okinawa had ended, and an estimated 120,000 Japanese combatants (including Koreans and Taiwanese) and 150,000 to 170,000 non-combatants lay dead. U.S. combat losses in the battle of Okinawa were approximately 12,520 killed and over 33,000 wounded. With time accelerating and their sense of the urgency of the situation deepening, Hirohito responded to this defeat by forcing the army and navy leaders to agree to the idea of an"early peace." But he still gave no indication that he was thinking in terms of an immediate surrender, let alone proposing peace to the nations he was actually fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did the Japanese Delay Surrendering? |  History News         Network
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> historynewsnetwork.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The decision to drop the bomb was far more complicated than your arrogant, ill informed anti-American screeds.  I just gave you a fire hose of information.  You have given nothing but revised historical opinions some of which are just not true.


Well you certainly have an opinion.....one our military leaders did not agree with


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> So?  Why not wait for the russian invasion?  A three day wait.  They surrendered after the invasion.  Why couldn't we wait three days?  We knew the exact date of the invasion


Because Hirohito was facing a military coup after his peace overtures to Moscow.  The atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion gave Japanese decision-makers a good justification for ending the war.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> Because Hirohito was facing a military coup after his peace overtures to Moscow.  The atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion gave Japanese decision-makers a good justification for ending the war.


No the coup only happened when he offered surrender


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Well you certainly have an opinion.....one our military leaders did not agree with


My opinion?  Shit, I gave you the link which is more than you have ever done in this discussion


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> My opinion?  Shit, I gave you the link which is more than you have ever done in this discussion


Wanna bet?


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> No the coup only happened when he offered surrender


There was no coup because he refused to surrender.  You don't seem to comprehend.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> There was no coup because he refused to surrender.  You don't seem to comprehend.


There was a attempted coup when he did surrender


He did it anyway


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Wanna bet?


I have yet to see you post anything to back up your revised history.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> I have yet to see you post anything to back up your revised history.


Well I have posted numerous links


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> There was a attempted coup when he did surrender
> 
> 
> He did it anyway


No, dufus, a coup was threatned if he did surrender.  The military did not want to surrender.  Emperor Hirohito and his chief political adviser, Kido Koichi, stuck with the militarists and insisted on continuing with preparations for final battles on the home islands even in late June......As far as Hirohito: "But he still gave no indication that he was thinking in terms of an immediate surrender, let alone proposing peace to the nations he was actually fighting."  I already gave you the link to this information, apparently you either can't read very well or comprehend what you read or just refuse to read any real history at all.


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Well I have posted numerous links


Not in your discussions with me you haven't.    You keep alluding to all these links you posted yet I have yet to see one and I am NOT, as I said, going to go through 900+ posts to find them.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> No, dufus, a coup was threatned if he did surrender.  The military did not want to surrender.  Emperor Hirohito and his chief political adviser, Kido Koichi, stuck with the militarists and insisted on continuing with preparations for final battles on the home islands even in late June......As far as Hirohito: "But he still gave no indication that he was thinking in terms of an immediate surrender, let alone proposing peace to the nations he was actually fighting."  I already gave you the link to this information, apparently you either can't read very well or comprehend what you read or just refuse to read any real history at all.


The *Kyūjō incident (宮城事件, Kyūjō Jiken)* was an attempted military coup d'état in the Empire of Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night of 14–15 August 1945, just before the announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. The coup was attempted by the Staff Office of the Ministry of War of Japan and many from the Imperial Guard to stop the move to surrender.


Kyūjō incident









						Kyūjō incident - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> Not in your discussions with me you haven't.    You keep alluding to all these links you posted yet I have yet to see one and I am NOT, as I said, going to go through 900+ posts to find them.


You need only ask


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Vegasgiants said:


> One day given the right terms


Proving that "time to process what was happening" is a bogus claim


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Nuclear weapons will end any war.  Yiu make the case to drop them on the first day of battle....to hasten the end of the war.
> 
> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


Be VERY SPECIFIC and LINK to this offer to surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Be VERY SPECIFIC and LINK to this offer to surrender.


Where do you see the word surrender in there?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Where do you see the word surrender in there?


So you accept that all the Japanese offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines? Something the Allies would NEVER agree to.


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> Where do you see the word surrender in there?


That's the point.  'Sue for peace' is not surrender.   Japan should have surrendered.


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> I think the opinions of the military leaders are worth something


They shouldn't be considered the last word on the issue though.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> That's the point.  'Sue for peace' is not surrender.   Japan should have surrendered.


It did. And we could have offered them a conditional surrender or even just waited 3 days for Russia to enter the war


But truman did not want Japan to surrender too quickly


He had a message to send to russia


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> It did. And we could have offered them a conditional surrender or even just waited 3 days for Russia to enter the war
> 
> 
> But truman did not want Japan to surrender too quickly
> 
> 
> He had a message to send to russia



Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you accept that all the Japanese offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines? Something the Allies would NEVER agree to.


No.  We could have offered them the one condition we gave them anyway 


Or just waited three days


They were open to the possibility of surrender


----------



## Leo123

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you accept that all the Japanese offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines? Something the Allies would NEVER agree to.


He doesn't want to accept that he is believing in revised history.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> He doesn't want to accept that he is believing in revised history.


I'm right here and I have posted the facts


----------



## Leo123

Vegasgiants said:


> I'm right here and I have posted the facts


The fact is that Japan never surrendered before the bomb.  The military wanted to fight for the homeland and threatned a coup if Hirohito surrendered.  I gave you facts and links.  Also, generals in the U.S. were mostly for the bomb before it was dropped but changed their stories after the bomb was dropped.  Leahy comes to mind.   It's easy to criticize AFTER the fact.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> The fact is that Japan never surrendered before the bomb.


Or before the invasion by Russia


----------



## Vegasgiants

Leo123 said:


> The fact is that Japan never surrendered before the bomb.  The military wanted to fight for the homeland and threatned a coup if Hirohito surrendered.  I gave you facts and links.  Also, generals in the U.S. were mostly for the bomb before it was dropped but changed their stories after the bomb was dropped.  Leahy comes to mind.   It's easy to criticize AFTER the fact.


They actually attempted a coup when he did surrender.  It did not stop him

I posted the link

I see no evidence for your claims


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> I'm right here and I have posted the facts


Why are you so desperate to believe that the nuclear attacks were not a good thing?

Why are you do desperate to believe that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians all at once is a bad thing?

I have no such problems.    Civilians start the wars.   Civilians sustain the wars.    Civilians should die because of those wars.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> Why are you so desperate to believe that the nuclear attacks were not a good thing?
> 
> Why are you do desperate to believe that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians all at once is a bad thing?
> 
> I have no such problems.    Civilians start the wars.   Civilians sustain the wars.    Civilians should die because of those wars.


You're the guy that said we should have a preemptive attack on china today.....right?


I think you said limited nuclear exchange would be fine.  Lol


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> You're the guy that said we should have a preemptive attack on china today.....right?
> 
> 
> I think you said limited nuclear exchange would be fine.  Lol


I never said "fine"


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> I never said "fine"


That is what you object to?????


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> That is what you object to?????
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA



I hate it when people misrepresent or deliberately misstate what I've posted. 

Don't you?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Dayton3 said:


> I hate it when people misrepresent or deliberately misstate what I've posted.
> 
> Don't you?


You support a nuclear attack on china


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> You support a nuclear attack on china



Of course.   As relatively mild a one as possible to destroy their nuclear arsenal.  

I read an article in Foreign Affairs where two arms control experts said that U.S. could do so and kill as few as 800,000 Chinese.   Probably less.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont give a shit.   A lot of evidence has been presented that japan sued for peace long before august


No there hasn't, because the Japanese never sued for peace.  People not connected to the government made unofficial attempts to broker a peace, but none of the offers came close to meeting the Allied pre-conditions.  The Government's official offer that was attempted to pass through the Soviets was far a cease fire with a return of the conditions of 6 December 1941 with no penalties for Japan at all.


----------



## Leo123

AZrailwhale said:


> No there hasn't, because the Japanese never sued for peace.  People not connected to the government made unofficial attempts to broker a peace, but none of the offers came close to meeting the Allied pre-conditions.  The Government's official offer that was attempted to pass through the Soviets was far a cease fire with a return of the conditions of 6 December 1941 with no penalties for Japan at all.


Exactly.  Japan needed to actually surrender.  Suing for peace was never an option for them after all their invasions, inhumane treatment of conquered peoples and prisoners.   No way were they going to prevail.  They refused, we dropped the bomb then they surrendered.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> It did. And we could have offered them a conditional surrender or even just waited 3 days for Russia to enter the war
> 
> 
> But truman did not want Japan to surrender too quickly
> 
> 
> He had a message to send to russia


The official ALLIED position was unconditional surrender, Truman was only one of the four international leaders who established that policy.


----------



## Dayton3

Vegasgiants said:


> No.  We could have offered them the one condition we gave them anyway
> 
> 
> Or just waited three days
> 
> 
> They were open to the possibility of surrender



When fighting a war we have no obligation to go out of our way to minimize the number of deaths of the side that started it.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Pretty sure I have.


Not for the claim that Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

All you've done to back that up, is link to a single untrue article over and over and over again.

There is no way that you could ever back up that claim, because the claim is untrue.  It never happened.




Unkotare said:


> = full of shit





Unkotare said:


> = full of shit





Unkotare said:


> = full of shit


Not at all.

Vegasgiants is clearly not interested in honest debate.

Why should they play his silly mind games?


----------



## Open Bolt

AZrailwhale said:


> No there hasn't, because the Japanese never sued for peace.  People not connected to the government made unofficial attempts to broker a peace, but none of the offers came close to meeting the Allied pre-conditions.  The Government's official offer that was attempted to pass through the Soviets was far a cease fire with a return of the conditions of 6 December 1941 with no penalties for Japan at all.


Exactly.

And that offer never even got passed to the Soviets, much less through them.

All Japan ever did was ask the Soviets to please let Prince Konoye come and talk to them.

Since the Soviets never let Prince Konoye come and talk to them, they never even heard Japan's proposal.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> Not for the claim that Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.
> ....


Pretty sure I have.


----------



## DudleySmith

elektra said:


> Explain this problem you have



He's pissed off the Japs and Nazis didn't win.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Not for the claim that Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.
> 
> All you've done to back that up, is link to a single untrue article over and over and over again.
> 
> There is no way that you could ever back up that claim, because the claim is untrue.  It never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Vegasgiants is clearly not interested in honest debate.
> 
> Why should they play his silly mind games?


I will give you the response you gave me


I dont care and quit whining


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> The official ALLIED position was unconditional surrender, Truman was only one of the four international leaders who established that policy.


Why?  Why not give them the condition we gave them anyway?


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Why?  Why not give them the condition we gave them anyway?


Because they never asked? 

The Japanese surrendered to our original terms. 

What more could se of done? Other than give up and say we list the war, allowing many to die in the process


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Because they never asked?
> 
> The Japanese surrendered to our original terms.
> 
> What more could se of done? Other than give up and say we list the war, allowing many to die in the process


Why didnt we?  Why not just wait three days for the Russian invasion?  They surrendered right after that.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Explain this problem you have


What problem?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "


^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "
> Contrary to popular belief, however, not all Pacific war veterans applaud the atomic annihilation of two Japanese cities.
> 
> Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it." "


^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." "


^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


^^^


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> He's pissed off the Japs and Nazis didn't win.


Wrong, liar.


----------



## Unkotare

Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
					

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Why didnt we?  Why not just wait three days for the Russian invasion?  They surrendered right after that.


They surrendered to the Russians Sept 3rd. Almost a month later. The idea that we only had to wait is untrue. We also do not know if Russia would of joined the war had we not dropped both bombs.

The Japanese were not going to surrender, the emperor did surrender, the generals and admirals fighting the war fought against the emperor's wish to surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> They surrendered to the Russians Sept 3rd. Almost a month later. The idea that we only had to wait is untrue. We also do not know if Russia would of joined the war had we not dropped both bombs.
> 
> The Japanese were not going to surrender, the emperor did surrender, the generals and admirals fighting the war fought against the emperor's wish to surrender.


They surrendered right after Russia invaded.  You are only talking about the formal signing 


The war was over when Russia entered in and they surrendered that day


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> They surrendered right after Russia invaded.  You are only talking about the formal signing
> 
> 
> The war was over when Russia entered in and they surrendered that day


No, they physically shot bullets at Russians until Sept 3rd.

The war between Japan and Russia continued until the 3rd of September.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> No, they physically shot bullets at Russians until Sept 3rd.
> 
> The war between Japan and Russia continued until the 3rd of September.


I see no evidence of that claim.  Everyone knows when japan surrendered as a nation


----------



## Open Bolt

Dayton3 said:


> Of course.   As relatively mild a one as possible to destroy their nuclear arsenal.
> I read an article in Foreign Affairs where two arms control experts said that U.S. could do so and kill as few as 800,000 Chinese.   Probably less.


Nuke China to take out their nukes?  That's an interesting proposal.

Under which circumstances do you propose we do that?

Should we do so from out of the blue without any provocation?

Should we do so as soon as they launch a conventional invasion of Taiwan?

Should we wait and only do so if they use a nuclear weapon first?

Some other scenario?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Nuke China to take out their nukes?  That's an interesting proposal.
> 
> Under which circumstances do you propose we do that?
> 
> Should we do so from out of the blue without any provocation?
> 
> Should we do so as soon as they launch a conventional invasion of Taiwan?
> 
> Should we wait and only do so if they use a nuclear weapon first?
> 
> Some other scenario?


You guys just love nukes.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Pretty sure I have.


You haven't.

Nor could you have.  Since it never even happened, no evidence exists to support that it happened.

Japan offered to surrender only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war,"


I wasn't aware that we had launched our offensive against the Japanese home islands.

How many were killed in the invasion?

I do recall learning how Halsey took his forces off their post to go chasing after a decoy, leaving our invasion of the Philippines precariously unprotected and able to be smashed by the Japanese Navy.

Admiral Clifton Sprague was able to save the day by using superior tactics to do Halsey's job for him using a much smaller force.








						Battle off Samar - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Where is, repeat, where is Task Force Thirty Four? The world wonders.*




__





						The world wonders - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				







Unkotare said:


> "publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." "


The poor guy didn't understand very much about wars.

When we go to war, we bomb the other country.




Unkotare said:


> "The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."


Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted to.

Japan was the one who chose to wait until August 10 before ever offering to surrender.




Unkotare said:


> "Contrary to popular belief, however, not all Pacific war veterans applaud the atomic annihilation of two Japanese cities.
> Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it." "


The poor guy probably never received an education.

Had he done so, he would have known that the atomic bombs were dropped on vital military targets.

He should have taken advantage of the GI Bill when it was on offer.  A mind is a terrible thing to waste.




Unkotare said:


> "Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled."


Japan had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading troops.




Unkotare said:


> "He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." "


Japan's silly plot to end the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended) instead of surrendering was not something that was ever going to happen.

Japan needed to surrender in order to end the war.  Japan only did that after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Unkotare said:


> President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


Eisenhower and Leahy must have been the most tedious whiners in human history.

I'm surprised that people didn't slap them when they started sniveling.




Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


Fake news.  Never happened.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> You haven't.
> 
> Nor could you have.  Since it never even happened, no evidence exists to support that it happened.
> 
> Japan offered to surrender only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that we had launched our offensive against the Japanese home islands.
> 
> How many were killed in the invasion?
> 
> I do recall learning how Halsey took his forces off their post to go chasing after a decoy, leaving our invasion of the Philippines precariously unprotected and able to be smashed by the Japanese Navy.
> 
> Admiral Clifton Sprague was able to save the day by using superior tactics to do Halsey's job for him using a much smaller force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle off Samar - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is, repeat, where is Task Force Thirty Four? The world wonders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world wonders - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor guy didn't understand very much about wars.
> 
> When we go to war, we bomb the other country.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted to.
> 
> Japan was the one who chose to wait until August 10 before ever offering to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> The poor guy probably never received an education.
> 
> Had he done so, he would have known that the atomic bombs were dropped on vital military targets.
> 
> He should have taken advantage of the GI Bill when it was on offer.  A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading troops.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's silly plot to end the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended) instead of surrendering was not something that was ever going to happen.
> 
> Japan needed to surrender in order to end the war.  Japan only did that after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Eisenhower and Leahy have to have been the most tedious whiners in human history.
> 
> I'm surprised that people didn't slap them when they started sniveling.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Never happened.


Didn't understand war.  Absolutely priceless.  LOL


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> You haven't.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I have.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


^^^


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Yeah, I have.


You haven't.

Nor could you have.  Since it never even happened, no evidence exists to support that it happened.

Japan offered to surrender only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


Fake news.  Never happened.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> You haven't.
> 
> Nor could you have.  Since it never even happened, no evidence exists to support that it happened.
> 
> Japan offered to surrender only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Never happened.


Stop whining.  I don't care


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> ^^^


You can link to that article till the cows come home, it is not sourced and has no reference to any source for the claim.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can link to that article till the cows come home, it is not sourced and has no reference to any source for the claim.


The fact remains several of the top generals have said that Japan sued for peace and the war was over prior to the bombs


----------



## Esdraelon

Rigby5 said:


> WRONG!
> Japan had desperately been TRYING to surrender and we refused to communicate with them directly, and pretended confusion with the surrender attempts through the Soviets.


They were seeking surrender with conditions.  The American public was righteously PISSED at what had been done to our soldiers and marines and there was never going to be anything less than an unconditional surrender that was acceptable.  Need I remind you that even AFTER the first bomb, they STILL refused to surrender?  They wanted guarantees that the Mikado be left in his place as ruler and it cost them a second bombing.
Those who believe America caused this war are free to believe it but reality says otherwise.  The same people today would be saying that Ukraine caused the actions of the Russians.  Disgusting.  When ANY nation commits violence against another, the consequences fall on THEM.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> You haven't.
> 
> ...


Indeed I have.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Esdraelon said:


> They were seeking surrender with conditions.  The American public was righteously PISSED at what had been done to our soldiers and marines and there was never going to be anything less than an unconditional surrender that was acceptable.  Need I remind you that even AFTER the first bomb, they STILL refused to surrender?  They wanted guarantees that the Mikado be left in his place as ruler and it cost them a second bombing.
> Those who believe America caused this war are free to believe it but reality says otherwise.  The same people today would be saying that Ukraine caused the actions of the Russians.  Disgusting.  When ANY nation commits violence against another, the consequences fall on THEM.


What is your take on all the military leaders who said the bomb was not needed?

Are you saying we should nuke russia to stop the war in ukraine?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> The fact remains several of the top generals have said that Japan sued for peace and the war was over prior to the bombs


They were wrong or purposefully lied.


----------



## DudleySmith

Esdraelon said:


> They were seeking surrender with conditions.



^^^^ This.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Funny how I've provided loads of evidence and been met with "Nuh-uh! You lying!"
> 
> What impressive historical scholarship.


^^^


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> They were wrong or purposefully lied.


In your opinion


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> In your opinion


By the facts actually in evidence.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> By the facts actually in evidence.


No that is factually incorrect


There is no evidence they were lying and they sure were near all on the same page with their opinion even though they were quoted separately


----------



## Esdraelon

Rigby5 said:


> WRONG!
> Japan had desperately been TRYING to surrender and we refused to communicate with them directly, and pretended confusion with the surrender attempts through the Soviets.


Mokusatsu was the term they used to respond to the Potsdam declaration.  The closest translation in English was "silent contempt".  What followed was totally their responsibility.  I get the impression that if a nuke was detonated in America, people like you would be dancing in celebration.  Your little buddies in the Empire of the Rising Sun were fecking EVIL.  In many ways, they were FAR worse than the Nazis.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> No that is factually incorrect
> 
> 
> There is no evidence they were lying and they sure were near all on the same page with their opinion even though they were quoted separately


Then perhaps you can link to the surrender offers by Japanese Government?


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Then perhaps you can link to the surrender offers by Japanese Government?


Nope. They clearly sued for peace and all we had to do is wait three days for the russian invasion and offer them the one concession we gave them anyway


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Nope. They clearly sued for peace and all we had to do is wait three days for the russian invasion and offer them the one concession we gave them anyway


Link to these supposed offers.... or admit you are wrong.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Link to these supposed offers.... or admit you are wrong.


I have already.  We have the statements of very very very credible witnesses.  There is no denying that

Shall I link those statements again?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I have already.  We have the statements of very very very credible witnesses.  There is no denying that
> 
> Shall I link those statements again?


Statements with OUT a shred of evidence  to support them are simply not worth the paper the statement was written on.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Statements with OUT a shred of evidence  to support them are simply not worth the paper the statement was written on.


Yet statements by very credible witnesses who would certainly have access to that information especially after the war when they said them.


Witness testimony is evidence.


It is up to you to prove they are lying and why


----------



## Esdraelon

Open Bolt said:


> Some other scenario?


Pre-emptive use of low-yield nukes would be difficult to justify today.  The one situation where I'd approve of it would be to use a L-Y bunker buster-type munition to destroy Iran's nuke facilities.  They have openly, REPEATEDLY threatened the annihilation of another UN nation.  Once they have the means, the strategic situation in the Gulf region will be untenable for the civilized world.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Yet statements by very credible witnesses who would certainly have access to that information especially after the war when they said them.
> 
> 
> Witness testimony is evidence.
> 
> 
> It is up to you to prove they are lying and why


No I have the ACTUAL Government records and the Japanese records and NONE of those have any such offers or feelers or attempts. Now who to believe the ACTUAL RECORDS or some General? Some General that CAN NOT provide a single source to back his claim?


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> No I have the ACTUAL Government records and the Japanese records and NONE of those have any such offers or feelers or attempts. Now who to believe the ACTUAL RECORDS or some General? Some General that CAN NOT provide a single source to back his claim?


And I have the actual quotes of the military leaders who knew the situation on the ground better than anyone.  People who had access to all this information.  

You claimed they are lying or were wrong.  I just want you to tell me why.


Their testimony is evidence.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> And I have the actual quotes of the military leaders who knew the situation on the ground better than anyone.  People who had access to all this information.
> 
> You claimed they are lying or were wrong.  I just want you to tell me why.
> 
> 
> Their testimony is evidence.


LOL no they did not NOT a single General or Admiral you quoted was involved ON the ground in the Pacific.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> And I have the actual quotes of the military leaders who knew the situation on the ground better than anyone.  People who had access to all this information.
> 
> You claimed they are lying or were wrong.  I just want you to tell me why.
> 
> 
> Their testimony is evidence.


It  is worthless as the ACTUAL RECORDS show no such offers attempts or feelers you fucking moron.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL no they did not NOT a single General or Admiral you quoted was involved ON the ground in the Pacific.


They had the BEST access available to any american about what the situation on the ground was.  That is a fact



Now......why would they ALL lie or ALL get it wrong


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> They had the BEST access available to any american about what the situation on the ground was.  That is a fact
> 
> 
> 
> Now......why would they ALL lie or ALL get it wrong


There were hundreds of high level officers involved in the Pacific you have what? 5?


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> It  is worthless as the ACTUAL RECORDS show no such offers attempts or feelers you fucking moron.


You're getting very upset again gunny.  A sign of a failing argument


Just answer my simple question and leave the histrionics to others.  You are better than that


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> There were hundreds of high level officers involved in the Pacific you have what? 5?


If you have others with different testimony I would be happy to see their quotes


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> rYou're getting very upset again gunny.  A sign of a failing argument
> 
> 
> Just answer my simple question and leave the histrionics to others.  You are better than that


You keep posting stupid shit. The records are CLEAR and you believe 5 men from out of the dozens and hundreds of high ranking officers.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> If you have others with different testimony I would be happy to see their quotes


Their LACK of statements says it all.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Their LACK of statements says it all.


No.  That is called a LACK OF EVIDENCE


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> You keep posting stupid shit. The records are CLEAR and you believe 5 men from out of the dozens and hundreds of high ranking officers.


Its a simple question.  Just answer it


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> No.  That is called a LACK OF EVIDENCE


LOL NO no statement to support your 5 is a VERY BIG statement indeed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

No Officer with direct combat experience against the Japanese ever stated any such nonsense.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL NO no statement to support your 5 is a VERY BIG statement indeed.


I think its seven actually but I would have to check.  


You can't find a single general that supports that we needed the bomb to end the war


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> No Officer with direct combat experience against the Japanese ever stated any such nonsense.


Correct.  They never stated we needed the bomb to end the war


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I think its seven actually but I would have to check.
> 
> 
> You can't find a single general that supports that we needed the bomb to end the war


You cant find a single General with direct combat againt the Japanese that supports your claim.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> Why?  Why not give them the condition we gave them anyway?


Because that was what the leaders of the Allies agreed to.  What we allowed the Japanese after surrender was for our convenience, NOT something they could demand.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> You cant find a single General with direct combat againt the Japanese that supports your claim.


I don't need to.  If their opinion was the most important they would be in charge.  They weren't.  


Should we get a private to weigh in?  LOL



Why not just answer my question


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> Because that was what the leaders of the Allies agreed to.  What we allowed the Japanese after surrender was for our convenience, NOT something they could demand.


It was something we could offer.....since we gave it to them anyway


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> They surrendered right after Russia invaded.  You are only talking about the formal signing
> 
> 
> The war was over when Russia entered in and they surrendered that day


Nope the Kwantung Army surrendered to Soviet forces on August 18th and actual combat lasted longer than that.


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> Nope the Kwantung Army surrendered to Soviet forces on August 18th and actual combat lasted longer than that.


I think we all know when Japan surrendered


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> I think we all know when Japan surrendered


Yeah, the Japanese announced their UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER on August 15th.  Not the 18th when the Kwantung Army surrendered.


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> Yeah, the Japanese announced their UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER on August 15th.  Not the 18th when the Kwantung Army surrendered.


So AFTER the invasion by russia.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I don't need to.  If their opinion was the most important they would be in charge.  They weren't.
> 
> 
> Should we get a private to weigh in?  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just answer my question


LOL NONE of the Generals in the Pacific ever said the atomic bombs were not needed. Are you claiming none of the dozens of 2 and 3 and 4 star Generals were not in command?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

For that matter you only have 2 of the Admirals saying it wasnt needed.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL NONE of the Generals in the Pacific ever said the atomic bombs were not needed. Are you claiming none of the dozens of 2 and 3 and 4 star Generals were not in command?


I am waiting for your evidence.   The quotes I gave were big news at the time


Quote those who disagreed


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I am waiting for your evidence.   The quotes I gave were big news at the time
> 
> 
> Quote those who disagreed


That NONE of the direct officers in command complained is my point you idiot THAT is a statement all by itself, If the Generals thought it wasnt necessary they too would have said so.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> For that matter you only have 2 of the Admirals saying it wasnt needed.


You have zero


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> You have zero


Again DUMB ASS in support requires NO statement to be in support No statement means they supported the bombing.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> That NONE of the direct officers in command complained is my point you idiot THAT is a statement all by itself, If the Generals thought it wasnt necessary they too would have said so.


Listen you moron


You have zero


Nada 



Zilch.


Did you get shot in the head gunny?


Yes...this is much better.  Lol


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again DUMB ASS in support requires NO statement to be in support No statement means they supported the bombing.


Isnt it time for your medications for TBI?


No statement means no openly expressed opinion...jarhead


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Listen you moron
> 
> 
> You have zero
> 
> 
> Nada
> 
> 
> 
> Zilch.
> 
> 
> Did you get shot in the head gunny?
> 
> 
> Yes...this is much better.  Lol


LOL retard alert if they did not speak that means they supported it dumbass only those that DID NOT support it spoke up.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL retard alert if they did not speak that means they supported it dumbass only those that DID NOT support it spoke up.


Man you low asvab score guys just cant think for yourselves.   Lol


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Man you low asvab score guys just cant think for yourselves.   Lol


LOL I maxed the ASVAB retard.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL I maxed the ASVAB retard.


Of course you did


HAHAHAHAHA


I think I will just insult you instead of debate.

I gave you a chance for civil debate.....but you insist


----------



## Open Bolt

Esdraelon said:


> Pre-emptive use of low-yield nukes would be difficult to justify today.  The one situation where I'd approve of it would be to use a L-Y bunker buster-type munition to destroy Iran's nuke facilities.  They have openly, REPEATEDLY threatened the annihilation of another UN nation.  Once they have the means, the strategic situation in the Gulf region will be untenable for the civilized world.


Iran's bunkers are very incompetently designed.  They can be destroyed with conventional bunker busters.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Funny how I've provided loads of evidence and been met with "Nuh-uh! You lying!"
> What impressive historical scholarship.


But you haven't provided loads of evidence.  You are linking to a single inaccurate article over and over and over again.

If you want scholarship, I recommend starting with _"Japan's Decision to Surrender"_ by Robert J.C. Butow, and then reading _"Japan's Longest Day"_ by The Pacific War Research Society.

Note that The Pacific War Research Society are Japanese historians, so in addition to providing a good solid historical background of the end of the war, they also provide it with an interesting perspective.




Unkotare said:


> Indeed I have.


No you haven't.

Nor could you have.  Since it never even happened, no evidence exists to support that it happened.

Japan offered to surrender only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> But you haven't provided loads of evidence.  You are linking to a single inaccurate article over and over and over again.
> 
> If you want scholarship, I recommend starting with _"Japan's Decision to Surrender"_ by Robert J.C. Butow, and then reading _"Japan's Longest Day"_ by The Pacific War Research Society.
> 
> Note that The Pacific War Research Society are Japanese historians, so in addition to providing a good solid historical background of the end of the war, they also provide it with an interesting perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't.
> 
> Nor could you have.  Since it never even happened, no evidence exists to support that it happened.
> 
> Japan offered to surrender only after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.


I recommend Gar Alperovitz


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> Of course you did
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> I think I will just insult you instead of debate.
> 
> I gave you a chance for civil debate.....but you insist


That's all you've been doing. You haven't been debating, you've been trying to make a position that NONE of the facts including the historical records of the Japanese who made the decisions don't agree with.  I'm not wasting any more time on you because you are either and opinionated idiot or a troll.


----------



## Open Bolt

Esdraelon said:


> They were seeking surrender with conditions.  The American public was righteously PISSED at what had been done to our soldiers and marines and there was never going to be anything less than an unconditional surrender that was acceptable.  Need I remind you that even AFTER the first bomb, they STILL refused to surrender?  They wanted guarantees that the Mikado be left in his place as ruler and it cost them a second bombing.


Actually it was even worse than that.  After the first atomic bomb Japan was still completely refusing to surrender.

Japan's offer to surrender if the Emperor was allowed to retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity only came after the SECOND atomic bomb.

But it almost cost them a third bombing.  Japan came to their senses and agreed to our terms just a few days before the third atomic bomb was ready to use on them.


----------



## Open Bolt

DudleySmith said:


> Esdraelon said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were seeking surrender with conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ This.
Click to expand...

Actually it was even worse.  Japan was refusing to surrender at all.

Japan only offered to surrender with conditions after the SECOND atomic bomb was dropped.

We were days away from dropping a third atomic bomb on them when Japan relented and agreed to our terms.


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> That's all you've been doing. You haven't been debating, you've been trying to make a position that NONE of the facts including the historical records of the Japanese who made the decisions don't agree with.  I'm not wasting any more time on you because you are either and opinionated idiot or a troll.





AZrailwhale said:


> That's all you've been doing. You haven't been debating, you've been trying to make a position that NONE of the facts including the historical records of the Japanese who made the decisions don't agree with.  I'm not wasting any more time on you because you are either and opinionated idiot or a troll.


The quotes of the military leaders are part of the historical record and are facts


Buh bye


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Actually it was even worse.  Japan was refusing to surrender at all.
> 
> Japan only offered to surrender with conditions AFTER the second atomic bomb was dropped.
> 
> We were days away from dropping a third atomic bomb on them when Japan relented and agreed to our terms.


Japan only surrendered after russia entered the war


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> But you haven't provided loads of evidence.  ...
> ...


I most certainly have. You, meanwhile have done nothing but crying "Nuh-uh!" over and over like a frustrated child.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> I most certainly have. You, meanwhile have done nothing but crying "Nuh-uh!" over and over like a frustrated child.


lol best example of projection all day.


----------



## there4eyeM

there4eyeM said:


> Given what was done, what position to criticize would the U.S. be in if Russia were to use such weapons to 'win' their current 'war'?


How are people "disagreeing" with a question?


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> I most certainly have.


No you haven't.

Not only have you not provided any evidence of a Japanese surrender attempt before the atomic bombs were dropped, you also haven't presented any evidence that the atomic bombs weren't dropped on vital military targets.

There is no way that you could ever provide evidence for a fictitious event.




Unkotare said:


> You, meanwhile have done nothing but crying "Nuh-uh!" over and over


That is the appropriate response when you make untrue claims.




Unkotare said:


> like a frustrated child.


Not at all.  My responses are neither frustrated nor childish.


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> How are people "disagreeing" with a question?


Probably by hitting the disagree button.

I suspect that they disagree with implied position that the US has done something wrong or somehow lacks moral standing to condemn atrocities.


----------



## DudleySmith

Open Bolt said:


> Not at all. My responses are neither frustrated nor childish.



He says that about everybody who hands him his ass, which of course is everybody.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> lol best example of projection all day.


Go look up what that word means.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> 
> Not only have you not provided any evidence of a Japanese surrender attempt before the atomic bombs were dropped, you also haven't presented any evidence that the atomic bombs weren't dropped on vital military targets.
> ...


Except that I've done that many times. Go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and cry "Nuh-uh!" a few dozen more times.


----------



## P@triot

Mushroom said:


> Actually, I can give them a pass there as that was a legitimate military target.


Wait. Wait. Wait. Let me get this straight. You're President of the United States on December 7, 1941. Japan bombs Pearl Harbor. You would go before the American people and say, "I'll give Japan a pass here, as that is a legitimate military target. No response from the United States"?

There is no "pass". You hit _any_ US target (civilian, military, infrastructure, cultural, etc.) and the response should be so horrifying that nobody ever wants to hit the US again. That's how you *prevent* unnecessary atrocities.


----------



## P@triot

Open Bolt said:


> Not only have you not provided any evidence of a Japanese surrender attempt before the atomic bombs were dropped, you also haven't presented any evidence that the atomic bombs weren't dropped on vital military targets.


You have to realize OB, Unkatore is a piece of shit who defends vicious, oppressive, totalitarian states. He defends China's CCP all the time. And 80 fuck'n years later, he's _still_ crying that his beloved Japanese totalitarian state got exactly what they deserved.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> ....He defends China's CCP all the time.....


NO he doesn't, liar.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Except that I've done that many times.


That is incorrect.  You have provided zero evidence that Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Nor could you, since Japan never tried to do any such thing.

You have provided zero evidence that the atomic bombs were not dropped on vital military targets.

Nor could you, since the atomic bombs were in fact dropped on vital military targets.




Unkotare said:


> Go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears


No need for that.  Since you are not providing any evidence, there is nothing to block out.




Unkotare said:


> and cry "Nuh-uh!" a few dozen more times.


That is the appropriate response when you make untrue statements.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  ....
> ......


No, it's not. And I note that YOU have still NEVER contributed any links, sources, or evidence beyond your personal insistence.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> No, it's not.


Yes it is.  You have provided zero evidence that Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Nor could you, since Japan never tried to do any such thing.

You have provided zero evidence that the atomic bombs were not dropped on vital military targets.

Nor could you, since the atomic bombs were in fact dropped on vital military targets.




Unkotare said:


> And I note that YOU have still NEVER contributed any links, sources, or evidence beyond your personal insistence.


That is incorrect.  I have referred you to two essential history books that would tell you what Japan was actually doing at the end of WWII.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> I see no evidence of that claim.  Everyone knows when japan surrendered as a nation


That is why I am here, to let you know the facts of history. No claims needed. 



> Khingan–Mukden Offensive Operation (9 August 1945 – 2 September 1945)
> Harbin–Kirin Offensive Operation (9 August 1945 – 2 September 1945)
> Sungari Offensive Operation (9 August 1945 – 2 September 1945)



Japan surrendered to the USA after we dropped two atomic bombs. Russia attacked Japan after we dropped 2 atomic bombs, and they fought another 3 weeks.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> The quotes of the military leaders are part of the historical record and are facts


I love the quotes of the military leaders. We have discussed them much in this thread and others. Have you read them. They are a great read, an even better read if they are not cherry picked with google searches. 

Did you know that Eisenhower's quotes, were different from year to year to year, proving he knew nothing about the atomic bombs and was simply politically grandstanding. 

There is only one way to get quotes right.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> In fact, seven out of eight top U.S. military commanders believed that it was unnecessary to use atomic bombs against Japan from a military-strategic vantage point, including Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, William Halsey, and William Leahy, and Generals Henry Arnold and Douglas MacArthur.2 According to Air Force historian Daniel Haulman, even General Curtis LeMay, the architect of the air war against Japan, believed “the new weapons were unnecessary, because his bombers were already destroying the Japanese cities.”3"


Now you are plagiarizing posts made by other members. You do realize this has already been shown false. 

The great part about this simpleton revisionist history is how easy it is to show it is false. 

Answer one question, how did these people oppose the atomic bombs when they did not know they existed?


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Now you are plagiarizing posts made by other members. ....


It was MY post to start with, genius.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ...
> Answer one question, how did these people oppose the atomic bombs when they did not know they existed?


Still not making much progress with those reading skills, huh?


----------



## Dayton3

Open Bolt said:


> Should we do so as soon as they launch a conventional invasion of Taiwan?


Yes


----------



## P@triot

elektra said:


> I love the quotes of the military leaders. We have discussed them much in this thread and others. Have you read them. They are a great read, an even better read if they are not cherry picked with google searches.
> 
> Did you know that Eisenhower's quotes, were different from year to year to year, proving he knew nothing about the atomic bombs and was simply politically grandstanding.
> 
> There is only one way to get quotes right.


Damn! That is quite a personal library!


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> I love the quotes of the military leaders. We have discussed them much in this thread and others. Have you read them. They are a great read, an even better read if they are not cherry picked with google searches.
> 
> Did you know that Eisenhower's quotes, were different from year to year to year, proving he knew nothing about the atomic bombs and was simply politically grandstanding.
> 
> There is only one way to get quotes right.


Yes I have read them.  They are great.  Almost total agreement that the bombs were not needed


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Now you are plagiarizing posts made by other members. You do realize this has already been shown false.
> 
> The great part about this simpleton revisionist history is how easy it is to show it is false.
> 
> Answer one question, how did these people oppose the atomic bombs when they did not know they existed?


They saw it used and said....yeah that was unnecessary


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> That is why I am here, to let you know the facts of history. No claims needed.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan surrendered to the USA after we dropped two atomic bombs. Russia attacked Japan after we dropped 2 atomic bombs, and they fought another 3 weeks.


Well no


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> They saw it used and said....yeah that was unnecessary


Many people say that now.  I wonder if they or whomever replaced them when they weren’t born because their grandfather was killed or maimed in the invasion, or killed as the Japanese massacred their POWs to save food as Japan slowly starved from the months or years long blockade before the Japanese government finally surrendered or was overthrown by someone willing to surrender unconditionally?  None of the alternatives were less painful for both  Japan and America than the nukes.


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> Many people say that now.  I wonder if they or whomever replaced them when they weren’t born because their grandfather was killed or maimed in the invasion, or killed as the Japanese massacred their POWs to save food as Japan slowly starved from the months or years long blockade before the Japanese government finally surrendered or was overthrown by someone willing to surrender unconditionally?  None of the alternatives were less painful for both  Japan and America than the nukes.


Or we could have waited three days for the russian invasion


Check out that time machine.  Lol


----------



## AZrailwhale

You mean the Russian invasion that no cou


Vegasgiants said:


> Or we could have waited three days for the russian invasion
> 
> 
> Check out that time machine.  Lol


You mean the Russian invasion that no one could even guess how the Japanese were going to respond to?  The Soviets kept fighting the Japanese for THREE WEEKS after the surrender.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Open Bolt said:


> Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Both atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what Japan requested was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.
> 
> Needless to say, we refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.
> 
> 
> 
> Attacks on military targets are not murder.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to pretend.  Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.  It also held tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.
> 
> Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki were part of Japan's war industry.
> 
> 
> 
> Attacks on military targets are not murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Attacks on military targets are still not murder.


Two years, and I still have people quoting me with necro-posts. 

Let's pretend that your assertion regarding Japan's surrender condition and timing are totally accurate, mostly because your baseless assertions don't change whether the act was legitimate or not. Mostly because it's irrelevant to the nuking of literally thousands of innocent people. 




"Military target" doesn't mean that it was completely, or Hell, even mostly Military personnel. That's not to say that you'd be right, even if it was 100% military, because war is still mass murder, the Government just calls it something else so that gullible people will defend it. 

It's fine, though, because people like you will always refer to what the Government does as "we" and everyone else is the "not we". When the mass murder is carried out by someone else, and someone else is being killed, it's easy to just dismiss it, because it doesn't directly affect you.


----------



## Open Bolt

Pumpkin Row said:


> Two years, and I still have people quoting me with necro-posts.


I never understand this complaint when people make it.  It's a messageboard.  When you post something, someone might come along later and reply to it.

If someone replies to one of my messages a couple years later, and I am around to notice it, I will give them the same reply that I would give if they replied immediately.




Pumpkin Row said:


> Let's pretend that your assertion regarding Japan's surrender condition and timing are totally accurate, mostly because your baseless assertions don't change whether the act was legitimate or not.


No need to pretend.  Reality isn't baseless.




Pumpkin Row said:


> Mostly because it's irrelevant to the nuking of literally thousands of innocent people.
> View attachment 633263
> "Military target" doesn't mean that it was completely, or Hell, even mostly Military personnel.


Merely comparing dead soldiers to dead civilians neglects the fact that the atomic bombs also destroyed a vital military headquarters and also some weapons industry.

But do note those 20,000 dead soldiers at Hiroshima.




Pumpkin Row said:


> That's not to say that you'd be right, even if it was 100% military, because war is still mass murder, the Government just calls it something else so that gullible people will defend it.


The government calls it something else because it is something else.

Soldiers killing enemy soldiers in wartime is not murder.




Pumpkin Row said:


> It's fine, though, because people like you will always refer to what the Government does as "we" and everyone else is the "not we".


I'm an American citizen.  I can reasonably use "we" when referring to the actions of my nation.

And as an American citizen, I am represented by the American government.  It's part of that democracy thing.




Pumpkin Row said:


> When the mass murder is carried out by someone else, and someone else is being killed, it's easy to just dismiss it, because it doesn't directly affect you.


Wartime strikes on military targets are not murder.

For an example of mass murder, look at the peacetime attack against Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Open Bolt said:


> I never understand this complaint when people make it.  It's a messageboard.  When you post something, someone might come along later and reply to it.
> 
> If someone replies to one of my messages a couple years later, and I am around to notice it, I will give them the same reply that I would give if they replied immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to pretend.  Reality isn't baseless.
> 
> 
> 
> Merely comparing dead soldiers to dead civilians neglects the fact that the atomic bombs also destroyed a vital military headquarters and also some weapons industry.
> 
> But do note those 20,000 dead soldiers at Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> The government calls it something else because it is something else.
> 
> Soldiers killing enemy soldiers in wartime is not murder.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an American citizen.  I can reasonably use "we" when referring to the actions of my nation.
> 
> And as an American citizen, I am represented by the American government.  It's part of that democracy thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Wartime strikes on military targets are not murder.
> 
> For an example of mass murder, look at the peacetime attack against Pearl Harbor.


People are generally mocked for replying to years-old threads. 

Like I said, let's pretend your baseless assertion is reality, since it has no affect of the Government's psychopathy in murdering thousands of innocent people. 

The fact that there was a target there that the Government deems important is irrelevant to whether an action is ethical or not. The fact that one in five people was an enemy of the murderer ALSO doesn't determine whether an action is ethical or not. You egoists are funny.

Soldiers killing soldiers in "wartime" IS murder. The murder is just, probably, justified in their minds, since they're being paid to cuck out to the Government that way. Just because the people being murdered are the "not we" doesn't make the murder suddenly justified, and politicians wanting those specific people dead doesn't make it justified. They are no more an arbiter of morality or ethics than any other random on the street, the only difference is that the politician wears a suit and speaks in Word Salads. 

So, based on your geographical location, you just automatically cheer on mass murder of people in other geographical locations, and politicians you've never met before automatically have your consent to make decisions and speak for you. That's literally just location-based social justice. 

I don't see a difference between Pearl Harbor and the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, besides the number of people murdered in the attack. I suppose the location would be the most important aspect to you, though.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pumpkin Row said:


> People are generally mocked for replying to years-old threads.
> 
> Like I said, let's pretend your baseless assertion is reality, since it has no affect of the Government's psychopathy in murdering thousands of innocent people.
> 
> The fact that there was a target there that the Government deems important is irrelevant to whether an action is ethical or not. The fact that one in five people was an enemy of the murderer ALSO doesn't determine whether an action is ethical or not. You egoists are funny.
> 
> Soldiers killing soldiers in "wartime" IS murder. The murder is just, probably, justified in their minds, since they're being paid to cuck out to the Government that way. Just because the people being murdered are the "not we" doesn't make the murder suddenly justified, and politicians wanting those specific people dead doesn't make it justified. They are no more an arbiter of morality or ethics than any other random on the street, the only difference is that the politician wears a suit and speaks in Word Salads.
> 
> So, based on your geographical location, you just automatically cheer on mass murder of people in other geographical locations, and politicians you've never met before automatically have your consent to make decisions and speak for you. That's literally just location-based social justice.
> 
> I don't see a difference between Pearl Harbor and the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, besides the number of people murdered in the attack. I suppose the location would be the most important aspect to you, though.


This thread has been active the whole time so your complaint is baseless. Further your claim of murder is retarded as well. We did not start the war and had no choice in regards to fighting it unless you think we should have just rolled over and surrendered after being attacked.


----------



## MisterBeale

RetiredGySgt said:


> unless you think we should have just rolled over and surrendered after being attacked.


Perhaps. . . we should have never provoked the war, or we should have not left ourselves open to purposely let ourselves BE attacked in the first place?

Some believe it is immoral to bait dumb animals. . . . 








But then?  We did the same thing to the Russians in Ukraine, why would our oligarchs stop doing something when it works, right?



Anyone that tells you any different?  Lacks an education.











__





						Propaganda
					

Blast from the past.   The Nayirah testimony was false testimony given before the United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a 15-year-old girl who was publicly identified at the time by her first name, Nayirah.  ~~~~~Edited to conform to the Forum Rules. Please read...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Well no


oh, I see you are going to dazzle us with brilliance, so...

well yes


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> They saw it used and said....yeah that was unnecessary


I never heard that quote before??? So, you have admitted that nobody knew the bomb existed and nobody objected to its use. 

Unnecessary was killing our soldiers, the bombs stopped that. You know, stopped the war. Everyone here, if you agree or disagree, have shown that Japan only surrendered after the bomb was dropped. You have provided no facts that says otherwise. 

Unnecessary, from the Japanese perspective, from the perspective of anybody who wished the war to go on longer and was disregarded those who were dying.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes I have read them.  They are great.  Almost total agreement that the bombs were not needed


Then you have not read any of the books, for you would know, that everyone was in agreement with ending the war at the soonest possible date, which is what atomic bombs did. You have still not offered anything other than your opinion.


----------



## elektra

P@triot said:


> Damn! That is quite a personal library!


I started it debating on the little ninja site years ago, I add a book or two here, so that I can see where the quotes that are cherry picked come from


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Still not making much progress with those reading skills, huh?


I see when confronted with questions from material you are unfamiliar with you must insult. 

I can do the same, why do you keep a user name that is such a perversion, I hate to bring it up because if anyone looks up the meaning of the name you choose they find out it is a very much a sexual perversion in japan, and we can all see that you about japan. Why advertise your perversion?


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Or we could have waited three days for the russian invasion


What proof do you have that Russia would join the war if the bombs were not dropped, zero.

Russia fought Japan until September 2nd or 3rd. Had we not dropped the bombs we would have to fight at least that long. If we continued to fight as your idea would require a minimum of 15,000 of our military personnel would die.

Yes, for you it is a sad fact of history that we won the war with thee most powerful weapon. A fact you can not argue away with your ignorance.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> I see when confronted with questions from material you are unfamiliar with ....


Let me know when that happens.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> What proof do you have that Russia would join the war if the bombs were not dropped, zero.
> 
> Russia fought Japan until September 2nd or 3rd. Had we not dropped the bombs we would have to fight at least that long. If we continued to fight as your idea would require a minimum of 15,000 of our military personnel would die.
> 
> Yes, for you it is a sad fact of history that we won the war with thee most powerful weapon. A fact you can not argue away with your ignorance.


Uh no.  We didnt need to fight at all.  Just sit and wait.   They surrendered when Russia entered the war.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Then you have not read any of the books, for you would know, that everyone was in agreement with ending the war at the soonest possible date, which is what atomic bombs did. You have still not offered anything other than your opinion.


I offered the opinions if the military leaders.   They said the bomb was not needed.


That is a fact


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> I never heard that quote before??? So, you have admitted that nobody knew the bomb existed and nobody objected to its use.
> 
> Unnecessary was killing our soldiers, the bombs stopped that. You know, stopped the war. Everyone here, if you agree or disagree, have shown that Japan only surrendered after the bomb was dropped. You have provided no facts that says otherwise.
> 
> Unnecessary, from the Japanese perspective, from the perspective of anybody who wished the war to go on longer and was disregarded those who were dying.


Japan only surrendered after Russia joined the war.  That is a fact


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> You mean the Russian invasion that no cou
> 
> You mean the Russian invasion that no one could even guess how the Japanese were going to respond to?  The Soviets kept fighting the Japanese for THREE WEEKS after the surrender.


We could not wait three days to see what would happen when Russia entered the war?


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Let me know when that happens.


It just happened, I am happy to inform you.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Uh no.  We didnt need to fight at all.  Just sit and wait.   They surrendered when Russia entered the war.


Uh, history is how it happened, you can speculate all you want but the fact remains, Russia and Japan fought until the beginning of September, your opinion is that with much less bombing, if we did not destroy two cities and the military capabilities of those cities the war won of ended in days? 

Had we not destroyed two cities and the military capacities of those cities the war would of ended sooner is your opinion.

Thank God nobody with your opinion was in charge.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Uh, history is how it happened, you can speculate all you want but the fact remains, Russia and Japan fought until the beginning of September, your opinion is that with much less bombing, if we did not destroy two cities and the military capabilities of those cities the war won of ended in days?
> 
> Had we not destroyed two cities and the military capacities of those cities the war would of ended sooner is your opinion.
> 
> Thank God nobody with your opinion was in charge.


Did Japan surrender to the US after Russia entered the war?


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> I offered the opinions if the military leaders.   They said the bomb was not needed.
> 
> 
> That is a fact


You offered no facts, you offered your opinion, not the opinion of military leaders. You offered no quotes or links, you referenced no books. 

What you did was offered an opinion of your own, that is a fact.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> You offered no facts, you offered your opinion, not the opinion of military leaders. You offered no quotes or links, you referenced no books.
> 
> What you did was offered an opinion of your own, that is a fact.


Their statements are facts.  Their testimony is nearly unanimous. 


They were the experts on the war.  They knew better than anyone what we should do.


Not a former VP kept out of the loop for most of the war


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Did Japan surrender to the US after Russia entered the war?


Did Japan surrender to Russia, no, they fought Russia until the beginning of September.

Japan, the leaders if Japan refused to surrender so your premise is based on a false narrative.

Japan was at war until September, Russia prolonged the fighting.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Their statements are facts.  Their testimony is nearly unanimous.
> 
> 
> They were the experts on the war.  They knew better than anyone what we should do.
> 
> 
> Not a former VP kept out of the loop for most of the war


They did not know the bomb existed and never stated it should not be dropped.

Your opinion is not the opinion of the leaders you fail to quote


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> They did not know the bomb existed and never stated it should not be dropped.
> 
> Your opinion is not the opinion of the leaders you fail to quote


Prove that 


I await your evidence


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Did Japan surrender to Russia, no, they fought Russia until the beginning of September.
> 
> Japan, the leaders if Japan refused to surrender so your premise is based on a false narrative.
> 
> Japan was at war until September, Russia prolonged the fighting.


Japan surrendered to us which is all we cared about


----------



## Mushroom

P@triot said:


> You would go before the American people and say, "I'll give Japan a pass here, as that is a legitimate military target. No response from the United States"?
> 
> There is no "pass". You hit _any_ US target (civilian, military, infrastructure, cultural, etc.) and the response should be so horrifying that nobody ever wants to hit the US again. That's how you *prevent* unnecessary atrocities.



Pearl Harbor was not an atrocity.  It was a legitimate military target.  Just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.

Now an atrocity is what they did to Nanking, and most areas they occupied.  How POWs were treated was an atrocity.  The Bataan Death March was an atrocity.  Pearl Harbor was not an atrocity.

And here is the biggest thing about atrocities, those that do them have the might to do them.  And there is never any thought they could lose or get captured (or even that what they are doing is wrong), so such claims that it will prevent others later is pointless.  Japan with their sick form of Bushido during the Showa era is a perfect example of that.  They knew they were the rightful owners of East Asian, and they could not lose, nothing could stop them.  Anything they did to others was allowed, as it was their right as conquerors.

Not unlike the atrocities ISIS did.  Including burning POWs alive and filming it.  They knew they were going to win, that God was on their side, so no past punishment would mean anything to them.

Enacting "retribution" on people like that does nothing.  Because the next group will once again know it is their right to do what they want, and such "lessons" will not apply to them.


----------



## Open Bolt

Mushroom said:


> Pearl Harbor was not an atrocity.  It was a legitimate military target.  Just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.


I consider it an atrocity for them to have attacked in peacetime.  I would only consider Pearl Harbor a valid target after war was declared.

And I consider it to have been Japan's responsibility to have verified that war was declared before they launched their attack.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> I consider it an atrocity for them to have attacked in peacetime.  I would only consider Pearl Harbor a valid target after war was declared.
> 
> And I consider it to have been Japan's responsibility to have verified that war was declared before they launched their attack.


War always starts by one side attacking first.


You are being ridiculous


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> It just happened, I am happy to inform you.


Nope.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Prove that
> 
> 
> I await your evidence


You made the statement. You made the claim Prove your assertions, prove your opinion. 

We await your evidence that the biggest secret, a literal top secret, was known outside Stimson, Marshall, Bush, Grove, and Roosevelt.

Not even Truman, the vice president knew there was a atomic bomb being built. 

Now you assert people under the level of the vice president, who had nothing to do with this Top Secret knew? 

And on top of that you assert that they stated it should not be used.

You have made the claim, voiced your opinion, now the burden is on you to back your mouth with facts.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Japan surrendered to us which is all we cared about.



You are wrong again. Provide proof, you have made the demand of me, so do as you demand. Prove your opinion


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Nope.


Yet, here we are with you informed and in denial


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Their statements are facts.  Their testimony is nearly unanimous.
> 
> They were the experts on the war.  They knew better than anyone what we should do.


Some of thier statements could be fact, most are opinion, and they never testified, there was no testimony.

"They", never acted as one and offered an overall strategy, as one. Not one of these people acted alone, some never commented on strategy. Some simply executed the orders given.

You are making bold wide statement that do not reflect reality


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Nope.


Yep


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Some of thier statements could be fact, most are opinion, and they never testified, there was no testimony.
> 
> "They", never acted as one and offered an overall strategy, as one. Not one of these people acted alone, some never commented on strategy. Some simply executed the orders given.
> 
> You are making bold wide statement that do not reflect reality





elektra said:


> Some of thier statements could be fact, most are opinion, and they never testified, there was no testimony.
> 
> "They", never acted as one and offered an overall strategy, as one. Not one of these people acted alone, some never commented on strategy. Some simply executed the orders given.
> 
> You are making bold wide statement that do not reflect reality


All of their statements are opinion.

You have an opinion on the bomb


They had an opinion on the bomb


I'm gonna go with theres.  Lol


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> You are wrong again. Provide proof, you have made the demand of me, so do as you demand. Prove your opinion


You need proof of the date of the surrender by japan to the US?



Really?


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> You made the statement. You made the claim Prove your assertions, prove your opinion.
> 
> We await your evidence that the biggest secret, a literal top secret, was known outside Stimson, Marshall, Bush, Grove, and Roosevelt.
> 
> Not even Truman, the vice president knew there was a atomic bomb being built.
> 
> Now you assert people under the level of the vice president, who had nothing to do with this Top Secret knew?
> 
> And on top of that you assert that they stated it should not be used.
> 
> You have made the claim, voiced your opinion, now the burden is on you to back your mouth with facts.


Its your claim


Show me a quote that they said they did not know about the bomb



Back it up


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Its your claim
> 
> 
> Show me a quote that they said they did not know about the bomb
> 
> 
> 
> Back it up


You prove it, you are making claims stating that so and so said this and that. Prove your claims. Prove they knew and commented on the need to drop the bomb. 

What is said after the fact is simply opinion, political grandstanding.

You are asking for proof, you brought up, "leaders". So quit being vague or simply admit you do not really know.

It is obvious to everyone, that you do not know, you simply have a couple talking points. 

The fact is, you have expressed an opinion without being able to provide any facts or details to go along with your opinion


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> You prove it, you are making claims stating that so and so said this and that. Prove your claims. Prove they knew and commented on the need to drop the bomb.
> 
> What is said after the fact is simply opinion, political grandstanding.
> 
> You are asking for proof, you brought up, "leaders". So quit being vague or simply admit you do not really know.
> 
> It is obvious to everyone, that you do not know, you simply have a couple talking points.
> 
> The fact is, you have expressed an opinion without being able to provide any facts or details to go along with your opinion


You made a claim about them.  How do you know your claim is true?  Is it based on evidence......or your feelings?


HAHAHAHAHA 


You got nothing


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> You need proof of the date of the surrender by japan to the US?
> 
> Really?


You are demanding proof, so where is yours. You seem to be disagreeing that Russia and Japan did not fight a war until the surrender was signed on September 2nd


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> You are demanding proof, so where is yours. You seem to be disagreeing that Russia and Japan did not fight a war until the surrender was signed on September 2nd


Proof of what? I didnt make a claim....YOU DID


SO PROVE IT


Japan surrendered to the US is all we care about


----------



## AZrailwhale

Open Bolt said:


> I consider it an atrocity for them to have attacked in peacetime.  I would only consider Pearl Harbor a valid target after war was declared.
> 
> And I consider it to have been Japan's responsibility to have verified that war was declared before they launched their attack.


The Japanese plan was to declare war, then immediately after attack Pearl Harbor within minutes.  It got screwed up because it took the Japanese longer to decode the message from Japan than planned.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> The quotes of the military leaders are part of the historical record and are facts


Which quotes? You are making a claim without any proof.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Japan surrendered to the US is all we care about


You are wrong again, prove your claim.

Japan did not surrender to only one country.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> You are wrong again, prove your claim.
> 
> Japan did not surrender to only one country.


They sure stopped fighting Americans.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Which quotes? You are making a claim without any proof.


I presented the quotes of the military leaders


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Did Japan surrender to the US after Russia entered the war?


No, Russia entered the war before the 2nd bomb was dropped. 

Japan did not surrender.

Later, when the 2nd bomb was dropped, Hiroshima, the emperor surrendered (not japan as you ignorantly state).


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> They sure stopped fighting Americans.


Yet the Japanese still attacked, sinking a submarine and shooting down more airplanes. Most likely more than that. We can also state that Japan was still torturing and killing American prisoners. 

So no, they sure did not stop fighting Americans. 

The state of the war ended in 1952


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> No, Russia entered the war before the 2nd bomb was dropped.
> 
> Japan did not surrender.
> 
> Later, when the 2nd bomb was dropped, Hiroshima, the emperor surrendered (not japan as you ignorantly state).


Yes they only surrendered AFTER Russia entered the war


Thanks


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Yet the Japanese still attacked, sinking a submarine and shooting down more airplanes. Most likely more than that. We can also state that Japan was still torturing and killing American prisoners.
> 
> So no, they sure did not stop fighting Americans.
> 
> The state of the war ended in 1952


Ok the war was still going on until 1952


HAHAHAHAHA 


HAHAHAHAHA 


I get jokes


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> You made a claim about them.  How do you know your claim is true?  Is it based on evidence......or your feelings?
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> You got nothing


Most people understand the Atomic bomb was Top Secret, you essentially saying it was not our country's number 1 secret.

You also don't seem to know how the access to secrets or top secrets work. In addition to having the correct security clearance you must have a need to know, granted. 

All facts.

Now you are demanding I prove a negative? That is the same as someone demanding you to prove you did not rape the neighbor last night or beat your spouse.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Most people understand the Atomic bomb was Top Secret, you essentially saying it was not our country's number 1 secret.
> 
> You also don't seem to know how the access to secrets or top secrets work. In addition to having the correct security clearance you must have a need to know, granted.
> 
> All facts.
> 
> Now you are demanding I prove a negative? That is the same as someone demanding you to prove you did not rape the neighbor last night or beat your spouse.


Well I had a top secret security clearance.  Lol


Look you made a claim you cant prove


It is dismissed


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes they only surrendered AFTER Russia entered the war
> 
> 
> Thanks


You could also say they surrendered after Stalin took a shit.

The fact is after Russia entered the war Japan fought Russia another 3 weeks. They did not surrender, they fought.

After the USA dropped a 2nd bomb, Hirohito, the emperor surrendered, not Japan as you claim.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> You could also say they surrendered after Stalin took a shit.
> 
> The fact is after Russia entered the war Japan fought Russia another 3 weeks. They did not surrender, they fought.
> 
> After the USA dropped a 2nd bomb, Hirohito, the emperor surrendered, not Japan as you claim.


No they surrendered.


And the emperor surrendered after the russian invasion


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Well I had a top secret security clearance.  Lol
> 
> 
> Look you made a claim you cant prove
> 
> 
> It is dismissed


Based on that rule, everything you posted is dismissed, leaving only the fact that the emperor hirohito surrendered only after a second bomb dropped and Stalin taking a dump


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Based on that rule, everything you posted is dismissed, leaving only the fact that the emperor hirohito surrendered only after a second bomb dropped and Stalin taking a dump


So you agree the emperor surrendered after the Russian invasion 


Thanks


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> So you agree the emperor surrendered after the Russian invasion
> 
> 
> Thanks


No, it is as I stated, Japan fought Russia until September. 

I see you are beginning to learn, you no longer claim, Japan, as if the leadership was united. 

So you agree, Japan did not surrender after Russia invaded, they fought Russian until september


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> No, it is as I stated, Japan fought Russia until September.
> 
> I see you are beginning to learn, you no longer claim, Japan, as if the leadership was united.
> 
> So you agree, Japan did not surrender after Russia invaded, they fought Russian until september


The US is not russia


Japan surrendered after the Russian invasion


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> The US is not russia
> 
> 
> Japan surrendered after the Russian invasion


Japan? Japan was not a united government.

You don't even know who surrendered, when, or how.

If you wish to speak of Japan and Russia, Japan did not surrender after the Russian invasion. Japan fought the Russians.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Japan? Japan was not a united government.
> 
> You don't even know who surrendered, when, or how.
> 
> If you wish to speak of Japan and Russia, Japan did not surrender after the Russian invasion. Japan fought the Russians.


Yeah I do.  Our war was over after the Russian invasion 


Deny that


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Yeah I do.  Our war was over after the Russian invasion
> 
> 
> Deny that


Our war continued after the Russian invasion. It did not end. We dropped a 2nd atomic bomb after the Russian invasion. 

You could not be more wrong if you tried to be.


----------



## Open Bolt

AZrailwhale said:


> The Japanese plan was to declare war, then immediately after attack Pearl Harbor within minutes.  It got screwed up because it took the Japanese longer to decode the message from Japan than planned.


I consider it to have been Japan's responsibility to have verified that war was declared before they launched their attack.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Our war continued after the Russian invasion. It did not end. We dropped a 2nd atomic bomb after the Russian invasion.
> 
> You could not be more wrong if you tried to be.


And the emperor surrendered after the Russian invasion 


I agree


----------



## Open Bolt

Some of the warships built at the *Nagasaki* shipyards:

The Yamato-class super-battleship Musashi, one of the two largest battleships ever built.  Launched November 1, 1940.  Commissioned August 5, 1942.








						Japanese battleship Musashi - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Hiyō-class aircraft carrier Jun'yō.  Launched June 26, 1941.  Commissioned May 3, 1942.








						Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Unryū-class aircraft carrier Amagi.  Launched October 15, 1943.  Commissioned August 10, 1944.




__





						Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Unryū-class aircraft carrier Kasagi.  Launched October 19, 1944.  84% complete when Japan surrendered.  (Google Translate of Japanese Wikipedia)
https://ja-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/笠置_(空母)?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> And the emperor surrendered after the Russian invasion
> 
> 
> I agree


No, the Emperor surrendered after the atomic bomb was dropped on Ngasaki.

Pure fact.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> No, the Emperor surrendered after the atomic bomb was dropped on Ngasaki.
> 
> Pure fact.


Did he surrender before the Russian invasion?


Lol


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Yet, here we are with you informed and in denial


YOU making an incorrect claim does not equate to ME being in denial.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Yep


Still nope.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Did he surrender before the Russian invasion?
> 
> 
> Lol


 Russia and Japan fought until the 1st week of September.

A fact of history.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Russia and Japan fought until the 1st week of September.
> 
> A fact of history.


How nice for them


The war was over for the US


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> How nice for them
> 
> 
> The war was over for the US


Not until 1952


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Not until 1952


Now that is hilarious 


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## elektra

elektra said:


> Not until 1952





> *Vegasgiants*:                                                                     Now that is hilarious



What is hilarious is how easy you take the bait, as I prove your ignorance 

The state of war formally ended when the Treaty of San Francisco came into force on April 28, 1952. Four more years passed before Japan and the Soviet Union signed the Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, which formally brought an end to their state of war.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> What is hilarious is how easy you take the bait, as I prove your ignorance
> 
> The state of war formally ended when the Treaty of San Francisco came into force on April 28, 1952. Four more years passed before Japan and the Soviet Union signed the Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, which formally brought an end to their state of war.


That is freaking hilarious


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Its your claim
> 
> 
> Show me a quote that they said they did not know about the bomb
> 
> 
> 
> Back it up


Actually you need to learn how debate works you made a claim it is your job to support it no ours to prove it negative. Explain how Eisenhower and other generals knew months before the bomb was dropped about Atomic weapons.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually you need to learn how debate works you made a claim it is your job to support it no ours to prove it negative. Explain how Eisenhower and other generals knew months before the bomb was dropped about Atomic weapons.


I made no claim at all.  Why does that matter?  They saw it used and said it was completely unnecessary 


Deny that


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I made no claim at all.  Why does that matter?  They saw it used and said it was completely unnecessary
> 
> 
> Deny that


After the fact is nothing more then opinion. They expressed an opinion. That and a bit of money will get you a cup pf coffee. You keep claiming they opposed the bombing, they couldnt have since they did not know about it till after it happened,


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> After the fact is nothing more then opinion. They expressed an opinion. That and a bit of money will get you a cup pf coffee. You keep claiming they opposed the bombing, they couldnt have since they did not know about it till after it happened,


Yes.  The most expert opinion available.  The decision to use the bomb was an opinion too.  Made by a guy who spent most of the war out of the loop as a vp.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes.  The most expert opinion available.  The decision to use the bomb was an opinion too.  Made by a guy who spent most of the war out of the loop as a vp.


Not the most expert NONE of them had direct experience fighting the Japanese Soldiers and marines. In fact NONE of the Admirals or Generals with THAT experience criticized the use of the atomic Bombs at ALL.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Not the most expert NONE of them had direct experience fighting the Japanese Soldiers and marines. In fact NONE of the Admirals or Generals with THAT experience criticized the use of the atomic Bombs at ALL.


Then who in fact offered the most expert opinion on the use of the bomb to truman?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Then who in fact offered the most expert opinion on the use of the bomb to truman?


His advisors in DC not in Europe. He got advice from a very small circle.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> His advisors in DC not in Europe. He got advice from a very small circle.


Which ones exactly had more of the experience you cited?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Which ones exactly had more of the experience you cited?


It doesnt matter, NONE of the people you quoted were in the loop they learned of the Bombing like everyone else, when it happened.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> It doesnt matter, NONE of the people you quoted were in the loop they learned of the Bombing like everyone else, when it happened.


I see so no one had that experience you require who could have possibly given this advice to truman.


None at all.


Got it


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> I made no claim at all.  Why does that matter?  They saw it used and said it was completely unnecessary
> Deny that


Prove they said that, you are making a claim. You state they, who the fuck are you talking about? You also claim they said it was, "completely unnecessary". Prove whoever you are making claims about, stated that. 

You claim you have not made any claim, yet here you have made that claim you have claimed you never made. 

Why do the facts matter and not your vague assertions? That should be self-evident.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Prove they said that, you are making a claim. You state they, who the fuck are you talking about? You also claim they said it was, "completely unnecessary". Prove whoever you are making claims about, stated that.
> 
> You claim you have not made any claim, yet here you have made that claim you have claimed you never made.
> 
> Why do the facts matter and not your vague assertions? That should be self-evident.


Note the words completely unnecessary

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir _The White House Years_:



> In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his 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.[98]


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes.  The most expert opinion available.  The decision to use the bomb was an opinion too.  Made by a guy who spent most of the war out of the loop as a vp.


The decision to use the bomb is an opinion? I guess from that perspective, you look at your decision to walk as an opinion. Or, if you state that you will eat, and then eat, that was an opinion as well? 

That statement of yours is one of the best so far.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> The decision to use the bomb is an opinion? I guess from that perspective, you look at your decision to walk as an opinion. Or, if you state that you will eat, and then eat, that was an opinion as well?
> 
> That statement of yours is one of the best so far.


The decision that to drop the bomb is the best way to end the war is an opinion 


Duh


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> The decision that to drop the bomb is the best way to end the war is an opinion
> 
> 
> Duh


That is your opinion.

The decision to drop the bomb was a strategy, not an opinion.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> That is your opinion.
> 
> The decision to drop the bomb was a strategy, not an opinion.


So no opinion about that strategy was ever considered?


Come on man....I'm trying to take you seriously


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "
> Contrary to popular belief, however, not all Pacific war veterans applaud the atomic annihilation of two Japanese cities.
> 
> Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it." "


^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." "


^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. "


^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


^^^


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Note the words completely unnecessary
> 
> Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir _The White House Years_:


Note, that you link to wikipedia where this quote is not made.


Vegasgiants said:


> So no opinion about that strategy was ever considered?
> Come on man....I'm trying to take you seriously


You are not trying to take anybody serious, so you can quit your act.

If you wish to discuss what happened and why, that is fine, but that is not what you are doing, you are trying to twist your opinion into a fact with semantics. 

Yes, dropping the atomic bomb was a strategy. No different then deciding to use a larger caliber of a bullet, or a larger artillery shell. 

It is pretty obvious, that once Japan realized that we had a big fucking bomb, they would surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Note, that you link to wikipedia where this quote is not made.
> 
> You are not trying to take anybody serious, so you can quit your act.
> 
> If you wish to discuss what happened and why, that is fine, but that is not what you are doing, you are trying to twist your opinion into a fact with semantics.
> 
> Yes, dropping the atomic bomb was a strategy. No different then deciding to use a larger caliber of a bullet, or a larger artillery shell.
> 
> It is pretty obvious, that once Japan realized that we had a big fucking bomb, they would surrender.


One should take good advice when making such decisions 


It seems truman had none


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> "Contrary to popular belief, however, not all Pacific war veterans applaud the atomic annihilation of two Japanese cities.
> Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it." "


The poor guy probably never received an education.

Had he done so, he would have known that the atomic bombs were dropped on vital military targets.

He should have taken advantage of the GI Bill when it was on offer.  A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Here are some of the warships that were built at the *Nagasaki* shipyards:

The Yamato-class super-battleship Musashi, one of the two largest battleships ever built.  Launched November 1, 1940.  Commissioned August 5, 1942.








						Japanese battleship Musashi - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Hiyō-class aircraft carrier Jun'yō.  Launched June 26, 1941.  Commissioned May 3, 1942.








						Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Unryū-class aircraft carrier Amagi.  Launched October 15, 1943.  Commissioned August 10, 1944.




__





						Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Unryū-class aircraft carrier Kasagi.  Launched October 19, 1944.  84% complete when Japan surrendered.  (Google Translate of Japanese Wikipedia)
https://ja-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/笠置_(空母)?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en


----------



## Open Bolt

Pumpkin Row said:


> Like I said, let's pretend your baseless assertion is reality,


No need to pretend.  Reality is not baseless.




Pumpkin Row said:


> since it has no affect of the Government's psychopathy in murdering thousands of innocent people.


No such murders.




Pumpkin Row said:


> The fact that there was a target there that the Government deems important is irrelevant to whether an action is ethical or not.


That is incorrect.  Wartime attacks against military targets are entirely ethical.




Pumpkin Row said:


> The fact that one in five people was an enemy of the murderer ALSO doesn't determine whether an action is ethical or not. You egoists are funny.


No murder took place.

If you would like an example of murder, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl harbor.




Pumpkin Row said:


> Soldiers killing soldiers in "wartime" IS murder.


No it isn't.




Pumpkin Row said:


> The murder is just, probably, justified in their minds, since they're being paid to cuck out to the Government that way. Just because the people being murdered are the "not we" doesn't make the murder suddenly justified, and politicians wanting those specific people dead doesn't make it justified. They are no more an arbiter of morality or ethics than any other random on the street, the only difference is that the politician wears a suit and speaks in Word Salads.


No murders occurred at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.




Pumpkin Row said:


> So, based on your geographical location, you just automatically cheer on mass murder of people in other geographical locations, and politicians you've never met before automatically have your consent to make decisions and speak for you. That's literally just location-based social justice.


No.  Wartime strikes on military targets are not murder.

For an example of mass murder, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl harbor.




Pumpkin Row said:


> I don't see a difference between Pearl Harbor and the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, besides the number of people murdered in the attack.


Yes.  There is a significant difference in the number of murders.

Zero people were murdered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.




Pumpkin Row said:


> I suppose the location would be the most important aspect to you, though.


No.  The fact that the attack took place in peacetime is the most important aspect.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Note the words completely unnecessary
> 
> Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir _The White House Years_:


Again, you linked to wikipedia where that quote is not to be found, but that is okay, I have the books. Have you read the books, seen the quote in complete context. Have you read more than one book. Have you cross referenced Eisenhower's statement with Stimson? And again, why would Stimson tell Eisenhower of a Top Secret weapon when Eisenhower has nothing to do with the pacific. When was your quote made? Do you have the book so you can tell us?

Dwight D. Eisenhower, seeings how you brought up Eisenhower as a source I am sure you will be satisfied that Eisenhower is truthful so I will quote Eisenhower






page 443, of Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe. 1948


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Again, you linked to wikipedia where that quote is not to be found, but that is okay, I have the books. Have you read the books, seen the quote in complete context. Have you read more than one book. Have you cross referenced Eisenhower's statement with Stimson? And again, why would Stimson tell Eisenhower of a Top Secret weapon when Eisenhower has nothing to do with the pacific. When was your quote made? Do you have the book so you can tell us?
> 
> Dwight D. Eisenhower, seeings how you brought up Eisenhower as a source I am sure you will be satisfied that Eisenhower is truthful so I will quote Eisenhower
> 
> View attachment 633714
> 
> page 443, of Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe. 1948


And it was absolutely unnecessary according to Eisenhower


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> One should take good advice when making such decisions
> 
> 
> It seems truman had none


Yet Truman ended the war as quick as possible. With more advice than any other commander of any war every had. 

The fact of the matter is, Eisenhower did not advice on the use of the Atomic Bomb.


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> The poor guy probably never received an education.
> 
> ...


Did YOU?


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Yet Truman ended the war as quick as possible. With more advice than any other commander of any war every had.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, Eisenhower did not advice on the use of the Atomic Bomb.


But not the advice the gunny says he needed


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war,"


I wasn't aware that we had launched our offensive against the Japanese home islands.

How many people ended up being killed when we invaded Japan?

I do recall learning how Halsey took his forces off their post to go chasing after a decoy, leaving our invasion of the Philippines precariously unprotected and able to be smashed by the Japanese Navy.

Admiral Clifton Sprague was able to save the day by using superior tactics to do Halsey's job for him using a much smaller force.








						Battle off Samar - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Where is, repeat, where is Task Force Thirty Four? The world wonders.*




__





						The world wonders - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				







Unkotare said:


> "publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." "


The poor guy didn't understand very much about wars.

When we go to war, we bomb the other country.




Unkotare said:


> "The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."


Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted to.

Japan was the one who chose to wait until August 10 before ever offering to surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> I wasn't aware that we had launched our offensive against the Japanese home islands.
> 
> How many were killed in the invasion??
> 
> I do recall learning how Halsey took his forces off their post to go chasing after a decoy, leaving our invasion of the Philippines precariously unprotected and able to be smashed by the Japanese Navy.
> 
> Admiral Clifton Sprague was able to save the day by using superior tactics to do Halsey's job for him using a much smaller force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle off Samar - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is, repeat, where is Task Force Thirty Four? The world wonders.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world wonders - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor guy didn't understand very much about wars.
> 
> When we go to war, we bomb the other country.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted to.
> 
> Japan was the one who chose to wait until August 10 before ever offering to surrender.


Your buddy here says they did not surrender until September


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Did YOU?


Of course.  Note the way I keep presenting loads of facts to correct all the untrue statements that you keep quoting.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Of course.  Note the way I keep presenting loads of facts to correct all the untrue statements that you keep quoting.


No you dont.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> "Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled."


Japan had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading troops.




Unkotare said:


> "He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." "


Japan's silly plot to end the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended) instead of surrendering was not something that was ever going to happen.

Japan needed to surrender in order to end the war.  Japan only did that after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




Unkotare said:


> President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."


Eisenhower and Leahy must have been the most tedious whiners in human history.

I'm surprised that people didn't slap them when they started sniveling.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Japan had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading troops.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's silly plot to end the war in a draw (like the Korean War later ended) instead of surrendering was not something that was ever going to happen.
> 
> Japan needed to surrender in order to end the war.  Japan only did that after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Eisenhower and Leahy must have been the most tedious whiners in human history.
> 
> I'm surprised that people didn't slap them when they started sniveling.


Quit whining.  We dont care


----------



## Open Bolt

MisterBeale said:


> Perhaps. . . we should have never provoked the war, or we should have not left ourselves open to purposely let ourselves BE attacked in the first place?


Perhaps Japan should not have provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then left them open to purposely let them be nuked.


----------



## Open Bolt

elektra said:


> The fact of the matter is, Eisenhower did not advice on the use of the Atomic Bomb.


Indeed.  No one ever gave Truman any sort of advice against using atomic bombs against Japanese military targets.


----------



## MisterBeale

Open Bolt said:


> Perhaps Japan should not have provoked us into nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then left them open to purposely let them be nuked.


Who introduced Japan to "gunboat diplomacy," and set them upon a coarse of imperialism in the first place?

Why not tell the forum a little about Commodore Matthew Perry?


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> Of course.  Note the way I keep presenting loads of facts ...


I note that you have provided ZERO evidence to support your "Nuh-uh!"


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Indeed.  No one ever gave Truman any sort of advice against using atomic bombs against Japanese military targets.


Well that was why he made a dumb decision


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> I note that you have provided ZERO evidence to support your "Nuh-uh!"


Nonsense.  I've provided plenty of evidence showing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vital military targets.

Here are some of the warships that were built at the *Nagasaki* shipyards:

The Yamato-class super-battleship Musashi, *one of the two largest battleships ever built*.  Launched November 1, 1940.  Commissioned August 5, 1942.








						Japanese battleship Musashi - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Hiyō-class *aircraft carrier* Jun'yō.  Launched June 26, 1941.  Commissioned May 3, 1942.








						Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Unryū-class *aircraft carrier* Amagi.  Launched October 15, 1943.  Commissioned August 10, 1944.




__





						Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The Unryū-class *aircraft carrier* Kasagi.  Launched October 19, 1944.  84% complete when Japan surrendered.  (Google Translate of Japanese Wikipedia)
https://ja-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/笠置_(空母)?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Nonsense.  I've provided plenty of evidence showing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vital military targets.
> 
> Here are some of the warships that were built at the *Nagasaki* shipyards:
> 
> The Yamato-class super-battleship Musashi, *one of the two largest battleships ever built*.  Launched November 1, 1940.  Commissioned August 5, 1942.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese battleship Musashi - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hiyō-class *aircraft carrier* Jun'yō.  Launched June 26, 1941.  Commissioned May 3, 1942.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Unryū-class *aircraft carrier* Amagi.  Launched October 15, 1943.  Commissioned August 10, 1944.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Unryū-class *aircraft carrier* Kasagi.  Launched October 19, 1944.  84% complete when Japan surrendered.  (Google Translate of Japanese Wikipedia)
> https://ja-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/笠置_(空母)?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en


None of this has to do with anything


----------



## Unkotare

"the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel."
..."Killing civilians was the primary purpose of the Hiroshima bombing. "

"At bottom, Stimson wanted to kill as many workers and their families possible. And he made no effort to ensure that the Interim Committee’s recommendation about dual targeting was followed. Ultimately, the crew of the Enola Gay was permitted to pick the aim point and chose the Aioi Bridge at the center of Hiroshima. More than 70,000 men, women and children were killed immediately. In a cruel irony, the munitions factories on the periphery of the city were left largely unscathed."

"
Those who perpetuate the myth of unconditional surrender forget that U.S. decision-makers in 1945 considered other ways of ending the war with Japan. Weighing the lives lost from the atomic bombings against the potential lives lost in an American invasion of Japan ignores the possibility that the war could end with neither an invasion nor nuclear attacks."

"At the Potsdam Conference, Stimson recommended that the U.S. modify the unconditional surrender terms to signal to the Japanese government that Emperor Hirohito would not be put on trial. Truman rejected this advice"









						Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender
					

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.




					www.lawfareblog.com


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese battleship Musashi - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hiyō-class *aircraft carrier* Jun'yō.  Launched June 26, 1941.  Commissioned May 3, 1942.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Unryū-class *aircraft carrier* Amagi.  Launched October 15, 1943.  Commissioned August 10, 1944.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese aircraft carrier Amagi - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Unryū-class *aircraft carrier* Kasagi.  Launched October 19, 1944.  84% complete when Japan surrendered.  (Google Translate of Japanese Wikipedia)
> https://ja-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/笠置_(空母)?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en


Wikipedia ...  What great scholarship, Junior.


----------



## elektra

MisterBeale said:


> Who introduced Japan to "gunboat diplomacy," and set them upon a coarse of imperialism in the first place?
> 
> Why not tell the forum a little about Commodore Matthew Perry?


Why not tell us about the gang rape of 12 year old virgin girls by the japanese soldiers. Certainly had they learned anything from Perry, morality would be one, but obviously, the japanese learned nothing and behaved as savages. 

The idea that primitive societies should of been left alone, was not an option in history.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Well that was why he made a dumb decision


dumb, that is your opinion, but the fact is that japan surrendered after two atomic bombs were dropped saving the lives of thousands of americans, that were dying in the Japanese prisoner of war camps. 

I dont know why I feel so bad for those souls, many died, many were crippled, but many died in agony, as a prisoner of war. 

I thank god we nuked those bastards that were torturing our men. And that is a literal statement. Those that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some of those people were guards at prisons. Japanese men tormenting, torturing, starving, demeaning, killing our men. 

How sick is the man or woman who fails to acknowledge the truth.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Wikipedia ...  What great scholarship, Junior.


sure, but in this case, are you stating wikipedia is wrong, or is wikipedia wrong every time, in which case we can reference many of your comments to wikipedia, and if wikipedia expresses the same sentiment as your source, by your rules we will dismiss your source as being a lie, for you have in this case stated wikipedia should not be used.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> dumb, that is your opinion, but the fact is that japan surrendered after two atomic bombs were dropped saving the lives of thousands of americans, that were dying in the Japanese prisoner of war camps.
> 
> I dont know why I feel so bad for those souls, many died, many were crippled, but many died in agony, as a prisoner of war.
> 
> I thank god we nuked those bastards that were torturing our men. And that is a literal statement. Those that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some of those people were guards at prisons. Japanese men tormenting, torturing, starving, demeaning, killing our men.
> 
> How sick is the man or woman who fails to acknowledge the truth.


I know you thank god we nuked them.  Yiu wish we would have killed every man woman and child in japan


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Why not tell us about the gang rape of 12 year old virgin girls by the japanese soldiers. Certainly had they learned anything from Perry, morality would be one, but obviously, the japanese learned nothing and behaved as savages.
> 
> The idea that primitive societies should of been left alone, was not an option in history.





			https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/worst-wwii-war-crimes-us.html?chrome=1


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Why not tell us about the gang rape of 12 year old virgin girls by the japanese soldiers. Certainly had they learned anything from Perry, morality would be one, but obviously, the japanese learned nothing and behaved as savages.
> 
> The idea that primitive societies should of been left alone, was not an option in history.


"Throughout the United States’ campaign in the Pacific theater, American soldiers indeed mutilated Japanese corpses and took trophies — not just skulls, but also teeth, ears, noses, even arms — so often that the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet himself had to issue an official directive against it in September 1942.

And when that didn’t take, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were forced to issue the same order again in January 1944.

Ultimately, however, neither order seemed to make much difference. While it’s understandably all but impossible to determine precisely how many incidents of corpse mutilation and trophy taking occurred, historians generally agree that the problem was widespread."









						The Worst War Crimes The U.S. Committed During World War II
					

Six appalling episodes from "The Good War" that rarely make the history books.




					allthatsinteresting.com


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Junior.


Given your vast and total ignorance of this subject, you are the only junior here.




Unkotare said:


> "the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.”


A military base is exactly what Hiroshima was.

Hiroshima's vast military districts held more than 40,000 Japanese soldiers.

Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion of Japan.




Unkotare said:


> Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel."


15% of the dead at Hiroshima were Japanese soldiers.




Unkotare said:


> ..."Killing civilians was the primary purpose of the Hiroshima bombing. "


Whoever you are quoting is lying.

The primary purpose of the Hiroshima bombing was to kill soldiers and destroy a military headquarters.




Unkotare said:


> "At bottom, Stimson wanted to kill as many workers and their families possible. And he made no effort to ensure that the Interim Committee’s recommendation about dual targeting was followed. Ultimately, the crew of the Enola Gay was permitted to pick the aim point and chose the Aioi Bridge at the center of Hiroshima.


Good aim point.  Easy to find from the air, and right next to the military headquarters and a huge military district.




Unkotare said:


> In a cruel irony, the munitions factories on the periphery of the city were left largely unscathed."


Hardly a cruel irony.  The atomic bomb was focused on a far more important target: a large military district that held thousands of soldiers and was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.




Unkotare said:


> Those who perpetuate the myth of unconditional surrender forget that U.S. decision-makers in 1945 considered other ways of ending the war with Japan. Weighing the lives lost from the atomic bombings against the potential lives lost in an American invasion of Japan ignores the possibility that the war could end with neither an invasion nor nuclear attacks."


Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted to.

Japan was the one who chose to wait until August 10 before ever offering to surrender.




Unkotare said:


> "At the Potsdam Conference, Stimson recommended that the U.S. modify the unconditional surrender terms to signal to the Japanese government that Emperor Hirohito would not be put on trial. Truman rejected this advice"


So what?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Given your vast and total ignorance of this subject, you are the only junior here.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  A military base is exactly what Hiroshima was.
> 
> Hiroshima's vast military districts held more than 40,000 Japanese soldiers.
> 
> Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  15% of the dead were Japanese soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever you are quoting is lying.
> 
> The primary purpose of the Hiroshima bombing was to kill soldiers and destroy a military headquarters.
> 
> 
> 
> Good aim point.  Easy to find from the air, and right next to Hiroshima's military headquarters and huge military district.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a cruel irony.  The atomic bomb was focused on a far more important target: the large military district that held more that 40,000 soldiers and was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted to.
> 
> Japan was the one who chose to wait until August 10 before ever offering to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> So what?


85% civilian casualty rate.  My god


----------



## Unkotare

Open Bolt said:


> ...
> 15% of the dead at Hiroshima were Japanese soldiers.
> ...


And that means what percent were NOT? Come on Junior, you can do this.


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Junior,


Given your vast and total ignorance of this subject, you are the only junior here.

Why don't you try reading a book and educating yourself?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Given your vast and total ignorance of this subject, you are the only junior here.
> 
> Why don't you try reading a book and educating yourself?


Your whining again


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> "Throughout the United States’ campaign in the Pacific theater, American soldiers indeed mutilated Japanese corpses and took trophies — not just skulls, but also teeth, ears, noses, even arms — so often that the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet himself had to issue an official directive against it in September 1942.
> 
> And when that didn’t take, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were forced to issue the same order again in January 1944.
> 
> Ultimately, however, neither order seemed to make much difference. While it’s understandably all but impossible to determine precisely how many incidents of corpse mutilation and trophy taking occurred, historians generally agree that the problem was widespread."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Worst War Crimes The U.S. Committed During World War II
> 
> 
> Six appalling episodes from "The Good War" that rarely make the history books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allthatsinteresting.com


The japanese deserved every bit of atrocity perpetrated upon them. And whatever that was, it was nothing compared to what the Japanese did. You are crying about dead japanese having an ear cut off? 

How about 10 year old girls raped, gang raped, by dozens of japanese, a hundred japanese, a 10 year old girl raped until she is so worn out, she simply dies. 

Personally, I think your opinion reflects yourself, and I see you as about the ugliest human being that exists. You are a lousy piece of shit who deserves what the Japanese did to Americans. You and and your shit loving sexual perversion. It really is a shame you were never a prisoner of the Japanese, you deserve that treatment. Of course given the shit stained perversion of your user name, you most likely would relish any sadistic perverted torture dished out by the japanese.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/worst-wwii-war-crimes-us.html?chrome=1


unkotare, japanese scat porn

good to know who you are


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> The japanese deserved every bit of atrocity perpetrated upon them. And whatever that was, it was nothing compared to what the Japanese did. You are crying about dead japanese having an ear cut off?
> 
> How about 10 year old girls raped, gang raped, by dozens of japanese, a hundred japanese, a 10 year old girl raped until she is so worn out, she simply dies.
> 
> Personally, I think your opinion reflects yourself, and I see you as about the ugliest human being that exists. You are a lousy piece of shit who deserves what the Japanese did to Americans. You and and your shit loving sexual perversion. It really is a shame you were never a prisoner of the Japanese, you deserve that treatment. Of course given the shit stained perversion of your user name, you most likely would relish any sadistic perverted torture dished out by the japanese.


Wow.  You really would have killed every man woman and child in japan


Holy cow


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Wow.  You really would have killed every man woman and child in japan
> 
> 
> Holy cow


Wow, you actually would join the japanese in raping 10 year old girls in china. Holy cow.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Wow.  You really would have killed every man woman and child in japan
> 
> 
> Holy cow


and you are on the same side of unkotare, go ahead and do a google search on that user name, I dare you


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> I know you thank god we nuked them.  Yiu wish we would have killed every man woman and child in japan


and you wish you could of been the last in line in that japanese gang bang of 10 year old chinese girls. The rape of nanking.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> and you are on the same side of unkotare, go ahead and do a google search on that user name, I dare you


Why bother?  I am debate the argument not the person.  Your upset your argument failed so you go for the personal attacks


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> and you wish you could of been the last in line in that japanese gang bang of 10 year old chinese girls. The rape of nanking.


Man you really wished all of japan was destroyed 


Wow


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Why bother?  I am debate the argument not the person.  Your upset your argument failed so you go for the personal attacks


I never personally attacked you? But hey, you have done nothing but lie, and lie, and lie, and try to trap me in an argument of semantics. 

Personal attack? You made claims against me, I can not make claims against you. You put words in my mouth, but I can not do the same to you? 

You lost your argument and now you try to make up some other bullshit and use that to say history is wrong. You are simply a lousy person. You lied through your teeth and am not man enough to admit. 

You debate the argument? You are full of shit. You posted dozens of comments that were full of nothing. When confronted with fact, you had one line, "but russia invaded". As if that one sentence defines an entire war fought over years and thousands of miles. 

And, between me and you, you began the personal attacks. Between me and unkotare, which is a perversion, that goes back far enough that dumbshit (no pun intended) should no better than to stray off topic and even hint at attacking me, which it, did. 

so fuck off, I entertained your nonsense full well knowing you were never sincere,


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> I never personally attacked you? But hey, you have done nothing but lie, and lie, and lie, and try to trap me in an argument of semantics.
> 
> Personal attack? You made claims against me, I can not make claims against you. You put words in my mouth, but I can not do the same to you?
> 
> You lost your argument and now you try to make up some other bullshit and use that to say history is wrong. You are simply a lousy person. You lied through your teeth and am not man enough to admit.
> 
> You debate the argument? You are full of shit. You posted dozens of comments that were full of nothing. When confronted with fact, you had one line, "but russia invaded". As if that one sentence defines an entire war fought over years and thousands of miles.
> 
> And, between me and you, you began the personal attacks. Between me and unkotare, which is a perversion, that goes back far enough that dumbshit (no pun intended) should no better than to stray off topic and even hint at attacking me, which it, did.
> 
> so fuck off, I entertained your nonsense full well knowing you were never sincere,


This whole post is about me.


You have completely abandoned the debate


Now it's all just personal attacks


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> This whole post is about me.
> 
> 
> You have completely abandoned the debate
> 
> 
> Now it's all just personal attacks


you never debated, are you really that stupid, to think any of us believe you are here to debate. You began the personal attack now you claim to be the victim?


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> you never debated, are you really that stupid, to think any of us believe you are here to debate. You began the personal attack now you claim to be the victim?


Oh look another post about me


You have nothing left


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> The japanese deserved every bit of atrocity perpetrated upon them. ...


Hypocrite.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> This whole post is about me.
> 
> 
> You have completely abandoned the debate
> 
> 
> Now it's all just personal attacks


do you have two user accounts here? Are you unkotare, which is a scat perversion in japan? Nothing personal, facts are facts, I can not even post what we find when I google the name unkotare.

It is funny, that you step into my comments with scat/porn, and begin an attack on me, then claim victory? 

The whole post is about you? Yet you step in, on comments not made in reply to you, and choose to personally attack me. And when I reply I lost the debate? What are you, a complete moron, me calling you an asshole after you attack me has nothing to do with debate. 

All you have done is trolled and flamed, nothing more, except one dumb copy and past that you fucked up, giving a link to wikipedia, when the quote was not from wikipedia.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> do you have two user accounts here? Are you unkotare, which is a scat perversion in japan? Nothing personal, facts are facts, I can not even post what we find when I google the name unkotare.
> 
> It is funny, that you step into my comments with scat/porn, and begin an attack on me, then claim victory?
> 
> The whole post is about you? Yet you step in, on comments not made in reply to you, and choose to personally attack me. And when I reply I lost the debate? What are you, a complete moron, me calling you an asshole after you attack me has nothing to do with debate.
> 
> All you have done is trolled and flamed, nothing more, except one dumb copy and past that you fucked up, giving a link to wikipedia, when the quote was not from wikipedia.


Oh look another post about me.


Yawn


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh look another post about me
> 
> 
> You have nothing left


what more is there to say, when you never said nothing, when you repeated the lame, "russia invaded", at least 20 times. 

Yes, you are a complete idiot, you never debated, all you did is troll and flame, and I have called you out on it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> what more is there to say, when you never said nothing, when you repeated the lame, "russia invaded", at least 20 times.
> 
> Yes, you are a complete idiot, you never debated, all you did is troll and flame, and I have called you out on it.


Oh look one more post about me.


You are done here


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> ...
> 
> How about 10 year old girls raped, gang raped, by dozens of japanese, a hundred japanese, a 10 year old girl raped until she is so worn out, she simply dies.
> ...


"One of the tragic tolls of war that is often glossed over is rape. This is an odious crime, and historians agree that American soldiers raped tens of thousands of women. These rapes occurred both during the war and in its immediate aftermath."

ALL crime is wrong or no crime is wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> The japanese deserved every bit of atrocity perpetrated upon them. And whatever that was, it was nothing compared to what the Japanese did. You are crying about dead japanese having an ear cut off?
> 
> How about 10 year old girls raped, gang raped, by dozens of japanese, a hundred japanese, a 10 year old girl raped until she is so worn out, she simply dies.
> 
> Personally, I think your opinion reflects yourself, and I see you as about the ugliest human being that exists. You are a lousy piece of shit who deserves what the Japanese did to Americans. You and and your shit loving sexual perversion. It really is a shame you were never a prisoner of the Japanese, you deserve that treatment. Of course given the shit stained perversion of your user name, you most likely would relish any sadistic perverted torture dished out by the japanese.


You seem to have some serious personal issues. Take it up with your shrink.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh look another post about me.
> Yawn


oh yes, you are bigger than life, just look in the mirror and tell yourself so, everything is about you, your constant trolling, your flaming, your personal attacks, and I do not mean your attacks against me, the personal attacks you made before I entered into the conversation. And it was never a debate with you. You ignorant opinion never rose to the level of something intelligent enough to debate. All you did was troll, yes a very big yawn. 

I am fine going tit for tat with you, and I will continue as long as you reply, I will continue to point out that your hundreds of comments were nothing more than trolling or flames. Nothing debatable, nothing scholarly.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> unkotare, japanese scat porn
> 
> good to know who you are


Keep your deviant obsessions to yourself.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> oh yes, you are bigger than life, just look in the mirror and tell yourself so, everything is about you, your constant trolling, your flaming, your personal attacks, and I do not mean your attacks against me, the personal attacks you made before I entered into the conversation. And it was never a debate with you. You ignorant opinion never rose to the level of something intelligent enough to debate. All you did was troll, yes a very big yawn.
> 
> I am fine going tit for tat with you, and I will continue as long as you reply, I will continue to point out that your hundreds of comments were nothing more than trolling or flames. Nothing debatable, nothing scholarly.


Oh look one more post about me


Moving on without you


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> You seem to have some serious personal issues. Take it up with your shrink.


You are extremely perverted, sick. And you pretend it is coincidence that your user name is literal japanese scat porn?


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The japanese deserved every bit of atrocity perpetrated upon them.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Japan did in fact deserve what they got.

They got off easy in fact.  We should have nuked Niigata and Kokura Arsenal too.




Unkotare said:


> ALL crime is wrong or no crime is wrong.


The atomic bombs were not crimes.  They were justice.


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Keep your deviant obsessions to yourself.


it is your user name, not mine, why purposely choose a name that is japanese scat porn, you are a sick fucking individual.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Szilárd, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:



> Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?[113]


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Hypocrite.


unkotare, japanese scat porn, as google and every search engine states, nothing else comes up


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Wow, you actually would join the japanese in raping 10 year old girls in china. Holy cow.


You have clearly lost control of your emotions to the extent that you are now reduced to lying and misrepresenting others. Are you capable of discussing the topic any longer? If you just want to flame, take it to the flame zone. Start a thread there and we can talk freely, but stop trolling here.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> it is your user name, not mine, why purposely choose a name that is japanese scat porn, you are a sick fucking individual.


Remember focus on the person... not the debate


Because you lose the debate


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> unkotare, japanese scat porn, as google and every search engine states, nothing else comes up


Your ignorance is not my problem, and is not the topic of this thread. Go to the FZ if you can't keep your emotions under control.


----------



## Vegasgiants

A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use. Led by Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying:



> If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.[115]


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Szilárd, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:


or, let us say you are president, did not drop the bombs, allowed all our prisoner of war to die, then lost another 200,000 men attacking Japan, and then we found out you could of ended the war a year earlier, is there any doubt we would impeach you and maybe charge you treason. 

Yes, you could of saved 100's of thousands but you sent them to their death. You are literally guilty of giving comfort and aid to the enemy.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> or, let us say you are president, did not drop the bombs, allowed all our prisoner of war to die, then lost another 200,000 men attacking Japan, and then we found out you could of ended the war a year earlier, is there any doubt we would impeach you and maybe charge you treason.
> 
> Yes, you could of saved 100's of thousands but you sent them to their death. You are literally guilty of giving comfort and aid to the enemy.


Or we could have waited three days


3 days



But you know this and pretend we were at war until 1952.  Lol


Dismissed


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Your ignorance is not my problem, and is not the topic of this thread. Go to the FZ if you can't keep your emotions under control.


if you do not like comments on your user name, change it, it is japanese scat porn, you knew that when you choose it. You know it know, you knew it yesterday, if your name is free for everyone to view, it certainly is a topic where it is seen.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> You are extremely perverted, sick. And you pretend it is coincidence that your user name is literal japanese scat porn?


Once again, your ignorance and deviant obsession are not my problem. Get back on topic or get to the FZ.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> if you do not like comments on your user name, change it, it is japanese scat porn, you knew that when you choose it. You know it know, you knew it yesterday, if your name is free for everyone to view, it certainly is a topic where it is seen.


Oh look another personal attack instead of debate


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Or we could have waited three days
> 3 days
> But you know this and pretend we were at war until 1952.  Lol
> Dismissed


Japan fought Russia for over 3 weeks

Japan did not surrender after Russia invaded Japan. 



> he *Treaty of San Francisco* (サンフランシスコ講和条約, _San-Furanshisuko kōwa-Jōyaku_), also called the *Treaty of Peace with Japan* (日本国との平和条約, _Nihon-koku to no Heiwa-Jōyaku_), re-established peaceful relations between Japan and the Allied Powers on behalf of the United Nations by ending the legal state of war and providing for redress for hostile actions up to and including World War II. It was signed by 49 nations on 8 September 1951, in San Francisco, California, U.S. at the War Memorial Opera House[2][_better source needed_]. Italy and China were not invited, the latter due to disagreements on whether the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China represented the Chinese people. Korea was also not invited due to a similar disagreement on whether South Korea or North Korea represented the Korean people.[3]
> 
> It came into force on 28 April 1952



you comments do not deserve a reply, your comment is a troll, nothing more, and it is easy me to show everyone how easy it is to prove you are ignorant on this topic. 

The treaty of san fransisco ended the war with japan in 1952


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> or, let us say you are president, did not drop the bombs, allowed all our prisoner of war to die,.....


How about the 20 WE killed with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima?


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> Japan fought Russia for over 3 weeks
> 
> Japan did not surrender after Russia invaded Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> you comments do not deserve a reply, your comment is a troll, nothing more, and it is easy me to show everyone how easy it is to prove you are ignorant on this topic.
> 
> The treaty of san fransisco ended the war with japan in 1952


Then stop replying.


We can move on without you


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> if you do not like comments on your user name, change it,...


Keep your sick interests to yourself. Your disgusting obsession is NOT the topic of this thread. You know where the FZ is, don't you?


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> Once again, your ignorance and deviant obsession are not my problem. Get back on topic or get to the FZ.


your name is the topic wherever it appears, it is a gross japanese scat porn name, if you dont wish it to be, change it and never ever attack me, even slightly. 

You live in the glass house, purposely, no doubt you get a perverted thrill out of being able to call yourself japanese scat porn and having people recognize you for it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> your name is the topic wherever it appears, it is a gross japanese scat porn name, if you dont wish it to be, change it and never ever attack me, even slightly.
> 
> You live in the glass house, purposely, no doubt you get a perverted thrill out of being able to call yourself japanese scat porn and having people recognize you for it.


Oh look another post that has nothing to do with the bombs


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Then stop replying.
> We can move on without you


ah, whats wrong, cant enter the debate no matter how many times I correct your pathetic attempt at copying the american hating revisionists. 

Yes, dont debate, just tell people to leave you alone, poor baby.


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh look another post that has nothing to do with the bombs


I am looking, your post has nothing to do with bombs


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> ah, whats wrong, cant enter the debate no matter how many times I correct your pathetic attempt at copying the american hating revisionists.
> 
> Yes, dont debate, just tell people to leave you alone, poor baby.


How many of this in a row now without once talking about the debate


----------



## elektra

Vegasgiants said:


> Then stop replying.
> 
> 
> We can move on without you


oh look a post that has nothing to do with bombs


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> your name is the topic .....


STOP TROLLING THIS THREAD. Why is this so hard to understand? Go to the FZ and you can troll all you want. Last time.


----------



## Vegasgiants

elektra said:


> I am looking, your post has nothing to do with bombs


Then lets get back to it.  Or leave


----------



## Unkotare

"Among the Navy brass, feelings ran strong against the bombings. Admiral Ernest King, the chief of naval operations, told his co-author that he did not like the atomic bomb “or any part of it,” and said that the air-sea blockade would have been enough to force a Japanese surrender. Several leading air commanders, including Generals Hap Arnold and Curtis LeMay, said that the atomic bombs were unnecessary because conventional bombing had already brought Japan to its knees. Remarks of this sort can be understood in the context of internal military politics and budgetary positioning. Yet it is clear that many military leaders thought the atomic bombings unjustified and even immoral. Admiral Bill Leahy, the senior most active-duty US officer of the Second World War, left a scathing passage in his memoir, charging that the United States 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 woman and children.”"









						The Atomic Bombings by Ian W. Toll | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans
					

Many Americans greeted the news of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima with jubilation. Beginning shortly after the war, however, a number of prominent US military leaders began to question the bomb's use.




					www.nationalww2museum.org


----------



## Vegasgiants

Unkotare said:


> "Among the Navy brass, feelings ran strong against the bombings. Admiral Ernest King, the chief of naval operations, told his co-author that he did not like the atomic bomb “or any part of it,” and said that the air-sea blockade would have been enough to force a Japanese surrender. Several leading air commanders, including Generals Hap Arnold and Curtis LeMay, said that the atomic bombs were unnecessary because conventional bombing had already brought Japan to its knees. Remarks of this sort can be understood in the context of internal military politics and budgetary positioning. Yet it is clear that many military leaders thought the atomic bombings unjustified and even immoral. Admiral Bill Leahy, the senior most active-duty US officer of the Second World War, left a scathing passage in his memoir, charging that the United States 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 woman and children.”"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Atomic Bombings by Ian W. Toll | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans
> 
> 
> Many Americans greeted the news of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima with jubilation. Beginning shortly after the war, however, a number of prominent US military leaders began to question the bomb's use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalww2museum.org


Yeah king is another one who came out against the bombs


I forgot about hin


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> "Among the Navy brass, feelings ran strong against the bombings. Admiral Ernest King, the chief of naval operations, told his co-author that he did not like the atomic bomb “or any part of it,” and said that the air-sea blockade would have been enough to force a Japanese surrender. Several leading air commanders, including Generals Hap Arnold and Curtis LeMay, said that the atomic bombs were unnecessary because conventional bombing had already brought Japan to its knees. Remarks of this sort can be understood in the context of internal military politics and budgetary positioning. Yet it is clear that many military leaders thought the atomic bombings unjustified and even immoral. Admiral Bill Leahy, the senior most active-duty US officer of the Second World War, left a scathing passage in his memoir, charging that the United States 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 woman and children.”"


Eisenhower and Leahy must have been the most tedious whiners in human history.

I'm surprised that people didn't slap them when they started sniveling.


----------



## Open Bolt

"The Second General Army was established on April 8, 1945 with the dissolution of the General Defense Command into the First and Second General Army. It was essentially a home guard and garrison, responsible for civil defense, anti-aircraft defenses, and for organizing guerilla warfare cells in anticipation of the projected Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands in Operation Downfall. Although its territory encompassed all of western Japan, its primary mission was to ensure the security of southern Kyūshū, which was regarded as the most probable target for invasion. Its forces consisted mostly of poorly trained reservists, conscripted students and home guard militia."

"After the fall of Okinawa, the command of the Second General Army was relocated to Hiroshima. When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, most of the military units, logistical arms, and command staff of the Second General Army were killed. Together with the Fifth Division, Fifty-Ninth Army, and other combat divisions in the city who were also hit, an estimated 20,000 Japanese combatants were killed."

"Survivors regrouped at Ujina Air Base at the outskirts of Hiroshima, where they organized relief efforts and maintained public order in Hiroshima once martial law was proclaimed. However, the atomic bombing ended the Second General Army as an effective military organization for Imperial Japanese Army units in western Japan."




__





						Second General Army (Japan) - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Unkotare

"Many historians have argued that the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of World War II was not necessary and unjustified.  There have been several key reasons developed to support this position, such as:

It was inhumane.
It caused too much destruction.
It killed too many innocent people, including children.
It was unnecessary as Japan was essentially defeated.
Japan was seeking surrender.
It was not universally supported in the United States.
The United States could have done something else.
The United States should have waited longer between the two bombs.
It was used more to scare the Soviet Union than to defeat Japan.
It led to the modern atomic age and the threat of nuclear warfare."









						Reasons Against the Atomic Bombing of Japan
					

Reasons Against the Atomic Bombing of Japan - The atomic bombing of Japan at the end of World War II by the United States is one of the most debated and controversial topics in all of history. Since the bombing in 1945, historians have debated whether or



					www.historycrunch.com


----------



## Unkotare

"On September 39, 1938, the League of Nations, “under the recognized principles of international law,” issued a unanimous resolution outlawing the intentional bombing of civilian populations, with special emphasis against bombing military objectives from the air.  The League warned, “Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence.”  Significantly, the resolution also reaffirmed that “the use of chemical or bacterial methods in the conduct of war is contrary to international law.”  In other words, a special category of illegal weapons had been recognized, a category today called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)."









						Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb - History
					

Critics argument many reasons against dropping the atomic bomb, pointing to international law, the impending surrender of Japan, and other reasons




					www.historyonthenet.com


----------



## Unkotare

"Walter Trohan, a reporter for the _Chicago Tribune_ with impeccable credentials for integrity and accuracy, reported that two days before President Roosevelt left for the Yalta conference with Churchill and Stalin in early February 1945, he was shown a forty-page memorandum drafted by General MacArthur outlining a Japanese offer for surrender almost identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, President Truman. The single difference was the Japanese insistence on retention of the emperor, which was not acceptable to the American strategists at the time, though it was ultimately allowed in the final peace terms. Trohan relates that he was given a copy of this communication by Admiral Leahy who swore him to secrecy with the pledge not to release the story until the war was over. Trohan honored his pledge and reported his story in the _Chicago Tribune_ and the _Washington Times-Herald _on August 19, 1945. According to historian Anthony Kubek, Roosevelt, in the presence of witnesses, read the memorandum and dismissed it with a curt "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician." 





__





						The Bomb Was Not Necessary |  History News         Network
					






					hnn.us


----------



## Unkotare

"Hiroshima was chosen as the primary target since it had remained largely untouched by bombing raids, and the bomb's effects could be clearly measured. While President Truman had hoped for a purely military target, some advisers believed that bombing an urban area might break the fighting will of the Japanese people. "





__





						Why Hiroshima?
					

The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima. At 5:29:45 a.m., July 16, 1945, a blinding flash and unbelievable heat seared the New Mexico desert...the world's first nuclear explosion.




					www.atomicarchive.com


----------



## Unkotare

Hiroshima - the truth about the bombing -
					

Written by Kate Hudson The city of Hiroshima stands on a flat river delta on the Japanese island of Honshu. At quarter past eight on the morning of 6 August 1945, the US plane Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the city centre, a busy residential and business district, crowded with people going...




					cnduk.org


----------



## Unkotare

The Bureaucrats Who Singled Out Hiroshima for Destruction
					

How committee meetings, memos, and largely arbitrary decisions ushered in the nuclear age




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> "Many historians have argued that the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of World War II was not necessary and unjustified.  There have been several key reasons developed to support this position, such as:
> 
> It was inhumane.
> It caused too much destruction.
> It killed too many innocent people, including children.
> It was unnecessary as Japan was essentially defeated.
> Japan was seeking surrender.
> It was not universally supported in the United States.
> The United States could have done something else.
> The United States should have waited longer between the two bombs.
> It was used more to scare the Soviet Union than to defeat Japan.
> It led to the modern atomic age and the threat of nuclear warfare."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons Against the Atomic Bombing of Japan
> 
> 
> Reasons Against the Atomic Bombing of Japan - The atomic bombing of Japan at the end of World War II by the United States is one of the most debated and controversial topics in all of history. Since the bombing in 1945, historians have debated whether or
> 
> 
> 
> www.historycrunch.com


They are idiots then.
It was far more humane to end the war quickly for both sides.   If the bombs weren't dropped, far more people both in the US military and of the Japanese military and civilian populations would been killed and starved in a protracted war.

The bombs did not cause too much destruction--what a retarded claim.  They destroy two military targets and the surrounding area ending the war---war is destructive by nature ending it with these two cities probably saved hundreds of cities and villages if a protracted conventional war was continued. 

Japan refused to completely surrender, they were by defination then not defeated.   Since when in the US do you get everyone to agree to anything.  The bombs were supported by most though----------the idiots you are trying to cite are morons.

The US could not have done something else--the other option was a protracted conventional war which would have caused the death of millions.   AGain the idiots you are trying to cite are beyond stupid.

Once the bombs were made----the cat was out of the bag about the atomic bombs---with or without Japan being bombed.   I sure hope that the bombs scared Russia into not harming others---how idiotic to think it is a bad thing that the bombs scared Russia into not starting  a war.  I mean comeon---


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima - the truth about the bombing -
> 
> 
> Written by Kate Hudson The city of Hiroshima stands on a flat river delta on the Japanese island of Honshu. At quarter past eight on the morning of 6 August 1945, the US plane Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the city centre, a busy residential and business district, crowded with people going...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnduk.org


ANOTHER idiotic article---as has been explained to you many times, Japan was not ready to surrender completely.  They wanted to save face to fight another day---dropping the bombs ended their attacks on others.


----------



## Open Bolt

Turtlesoup said:


> ANOTHER idiotic article---as has been explained to you many times, Japan was not ready to surrender completely.  They wanted to save face to fight another day---dropping the bombs ended their attacks on others.


Before the atomic bombs, Japan was not willing to surrender at all actually.


----------



## Unkotare

Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
					

View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> "Many historians have argued that the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of World War II was not necessary and unjustified."


The atomic bombings were entirely justified.  Japan was refusing to surrender and we had every right to attack vital military targets.




Unkotare said:


> "There have been several key reasons developed to support this position, such as:
> 
> It was inhumane.
> It caused too much destruction.
> It killed too many innocent people, including children."


Not valid reasons.




Unkotare said:


> "It was unnecessary as Japan was essentially defeated.
> Japan was seeking surrender."


Fake news.  Japan was refusing to surrender.




Unkotare said:


> "It was not universally supported in the United States.
> The United States could have done something else."


LOL!  That's no reason not to bomb military targets in an enemy nation that is refusing to surrender.




Unkotare said:


> "The United States should have waited longer between the two bombs."


We waited too long between the atomic bombs actually.

We should have nuked a target a day.  One after another.

Hiroshima, Kokura Arsenal, Niigata, Nagasaki.

And then Yokohama (which should have been spared conventional bombing so it could be an atomic target too).




Unkotare said:


> "It was used more to scare the Soviet Union than to defeat Japan."


Fake news.  The atomic bombs were used with the goal of making Japan surrender (which they were then refusing to do).




Unkotare said:


> "It led to the modern atomic age and the threat of nuclear warfare."


That's a good thing.




Unkotare said:


> "On September 39, 1938, the League of Nations, “under the recognized principles of international law,” issued a unanimous resolution outlawing the intentional bombing of civilian populations, with special emphasis against bombing military objectives from the air.  The League warned, “Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence.”  Significantly, the resolution also reaffirmed that “the use of chemical or bacterial methods in the conduct of war is contrary to international law.”  In other words, a special category of illegal weapons had been recognized, a category today called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)."


They did not have the power to outlaw bombing military objectives from the air.

As far as the illegality of targeting civilians goes, that is why we dropped the atomic bombs on vital military targets.




Unkotare said:


> "Walter Trohan, a reporter for the _Chicago Tribune_ with impeccable credentials for integrity and accuracy, reported that two days before President Roosevelt left for the Yalta conference with Churchill and Stalin in early February 1945, he was shown a forty-page memorandum drafted by General MacArthur outlining a Japanese offer for surrender almost identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, President Truman. The single difference was the Japanese insistence on retention of the emperor, which was not acceptable to the American strategists at the time, though it was ultimately allowed in the final peace terms. Trohan relates that he was given a copy of this communication by Admiral Leahy who swore him to secrecy with the pledge not to release the story until the war was over. Trohan honored his pledge and reported his story in the _Chicago Tribune_ and the _Washington Times-Herald _on August 19, 1945. According to historian Anthony Kubek, Roosevelt, in the presence of witnesses, read the memorandum and dismissed it with a curt "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician."


Fake news.  Never happened.




Unkotare said:


> "Hiroshima was chosen as the primary target since it had remained largely untouched by bombing raids, and the bomb's effects could be clearly measured. While President Truman had hoped for a purely military target, some advisers believed that bombing an urban area might break the fighting will of the Japanese people."


Do I smell a whiff of Gar Alperovitz lies?

Hiroshima was selected as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign when only a handful of cities had been bombed.  Thereafter it was off limits to conventional attack.

It is hard to think of a target as purely military as Hiroshima was.




Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima - the truth about the bombing -
> 
> 
> Written by Kate Hudson The city of Hiroshima stands on a flat river delta on the Japanese island of Honshu. At quarter past eight on the morning of 6 August 1945, the US plane Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the city centre, a busy residential and business district, crowded with people going...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnduk.org


Fake news.  That article is filled with many outright lies.




Unkotare said:


> The Bureaucrats Who Singled Out Hiroshima for Destruction
> 
> 
> How committee meetings, memos, and largely arbitrary decisions ushered in the nuclear age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com


There are a number of things that I like about that article, but it does contain a few falsehoods.




Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


Fake news.  Never happened.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima - the truth about the bombing -
> 
> 
> Written by Kate Hudson The city of Hiroshima stands on a flat river delta on the Japanese island of Honshu. At quarter past eight on the morning of 6 August 1945, the US plane Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the city centre, a busy residential and business district, crowded with people going...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnduk.org


^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> The Bureaucrats Who Singled Out Hiroshima for Destruction
> 
> 
> How committee meetings, memos, and largely arbitrary decisions ushered in the nuclear age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com


^^^


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


Fake news.  Never happened.




Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima - the truth about the bombing -
> 
> 
> Written by Kate Hudson The city of Hiroshima stands on a flat river delta on the Japanese island of Honshu. At quarter past eight on the morning of 6 August 1945, the US plane Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the city centre, a busy residential and business district, crowded with people going...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnduk.org


Fake news. This article is filled with many outright lies.




Unkotare said:


> The Bureaucrats Who Singled Out Hiroshima for Destruction
> 
> 
> How committee meetings, memos, and largely arbitrary decisions ushered in the nuclear age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com


There are a number of things that I like about this article (it clearly states Nagasaki's role in constructing large warships), but it does contain a few falsehoods.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> But not the advice the gunny says he needed


Liar I never said any such thing,


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "Walter Trohan, a reporter for the _Chicago Tribune_ with impeccable credentials for integrity and accuracy, reported that two days before President Roosevelt left for the Yalta conference with Churchill and Stalin in early February 1945, he was shown a forty-page memorandum drafted by General MacArthur outlining a Japanese offer for surrender almost identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, President Truman. The single difference was the Japanese insistence on retention of the emperor, which was not acceptable to the American strategists at the time, though it was ultimately allowed in the final peace terms. Trohan relates that he was given a copy of this communication by Admiral Leahy who swore him to secrecy with the pledge not to release the story until the war was over. Trohan honored his pledge and reported his story in the _Chicago Tribune_ and the _Washington Times-Herald _on August 19, 1945. According to historian Anthony Kubek, Roosevelt, in the presence of witnesses, read the memorandum and dismissed it with a curt "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bomb Was Not Necessary |  History News         Network
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hnn.us


And yet no such document appears anywhere in the US Government records nor any mention od such a document, Nor in the Japanese documents either,


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The military generals disagreed


Wasn't their call.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> But we didnt need the bombs to end the war


They weren't going to surrender any other way.  It was the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> They weren't going to surrender any other way.  It was the lesser of two evils.


Not according to our military leaders


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Not according to our military leaders


Path not taken.  It was the lesser of two evils.  Truman made the right call.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Path not taken.  It was the lesser of two evils.  Truman made the right call.


The military leaders disagree with you


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The military leaders disagree with you


Couldn't care less.  They followed their orders and that's all that mattered.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Couldn't care less.  They followed their orders and that's all that mattered.


Dont care.  Got it


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Dont care.  Got it


Exactly.  It was the lesser of two evils.  Now you are getting it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Exactly.  It was the lesser of two evils.  Now you are getting it.


I dont care


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont care


My work here is done.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> My work here is done.


Good.  See ya


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Good.  See ya


Count on it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Count on it.


Okay dokey pokey


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Okay dokey pokey


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> View attachment 633979


Ooooh a picture.   Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Ooooh a picture.   Lol


Yeah... in living color no less.  It was really the best thing that could have happened to Japan.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Yeah... in living color no less.  It was really the best thing that could have happened to Japan.


Not according to our military leaders


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Not according to our military leaders


You mean the ones who dropped not one nuclear bomb on Japan but two?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You mean the ones who dropped not one nuclear bomb on Japan but two?


No not that ONE


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> No not that ONE


Yep.  They dropped the bombs and then tried to wash their hands of it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Yep.  They dropped the bombs and then tried to wash their hands of it.


Awww.  You have an opinion


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Awww.  You have an opinion


Yep and it's that dropping two nukes on Japan was the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Yep and it's that dropping two nukes on Japan was the lesser of two evils.


Your opinion is noted and dismissed


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Your opinion is noted and dismissed


That's not a surprise to me.  You are overly emotional and not objective.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> That's not a surprise to me.  You are overly emotional and not objective.


Are you crying?


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Are you crying?


Because you aren't objective?  No.  That only affects you.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.  Being subjective as you are will lead to predictable surprises.  I don't dare wish that on anyone but I would be remiss if I didn't explain to you the consequences of your actions.  It's the least I can do.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Because you aren't objective?  No.  That only affects you.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.  Being subjective as you are will lead to predictable surprises.  I don't dare wish that on anyone but I would be remiss if I didn't explain to you the consequences of your actions.  It's the least I can do.


Dont cry


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Dont cry


You have to see it that way, bro.  But the ego knows better.  You'll be taking your frustrations out on someone close to you tonight.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You have to see it that way, bro.  But the ego knows better.  You'll be taking your frustrations out on someone close to you tonight.


Let's talk about me and not the debate


It's all you got.  Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Let's talk about me and not the debate
> 
> 
> It's all you got.  Lol


You were the one who took it down that path first, dummy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ding said:


> You were the one who took it down that path first, dummy.


Yup his go to is to insult and ignore.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You were the one who took it down that path first, dummy.


Oh look another post about me.  Lol


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup his go to is to insult and ignore.


I'm right here jarhead


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I'm right here jarhead


Ya totally off topic as usual and whining like a little baby


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya totally off topic as usual and whining like a little baby


Get em recon


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh look another post about me.  Lol


Still bites from the poison fruit you introduced when you tried to make it about me in post #5047.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Still bites from the poison fruit you introduced when you tried to make it about me in post #5047.





ding said:


> Still bites from the poison fruit you introduced when you tried to make it about me in post #5047.


The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


And dropping two nukes led to their UNCONDITIONAL surrender which the American people would have accepted nothing less nor should they.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> And dropping two nukes led to their UNCONDITIONAL surrender which the American people would have accepted nothing less nor should they.


The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]


ding said:


> And dropping two nukes led to their UNCONDITIONAL surrender which the American people would have accepted nothing less nor should they.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]


Except they unconditionally surrendered after the second bomb was dropped.  But didn't unconditionally surrender after the first bomb was dropped.

Do you even logic?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Except they unconditionally surrendered after the second bomb was dropped.  But didn't unconditionally surrender after the first bomb was dropped.
> 
> Do you even logic?


They surrendered after the Russian invasion


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> They surrendered after the Russian invasion


They surrendered after the second nuke was dropped.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> They surrendered after the second nuke was dropped.


And after the Russian invasion 


Deny that


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> And after the Russian invasion
> 
> 
> Deny that


Japan surrendered after the 2nd nuclear bomb proved to them that they had to surrender or be systematically annihilated because of America's nuclear capability.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Japan surrendered after the 2nd nuclear bomb proved to them that they had to surrender or be systematically annihilated because of America's nuclear capability.


And after the Russian invasion


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> And after the Russian invasion


Meaningless.  There was never going to be a conditional surrender.  Truman would have been impeached.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


I keep asking for the link to this attempt to by Japan to sue for peace...... If you mean the attempt through the Soviets that was an offer for a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China and we would never have agreed to that.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> I keep asking for the link to this attempt to by Japan to sue for peace...... If you mean the attempt through the Soviets that was an offer for a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China and we would never have agreed to that.


I keep asking if you are claiming he is lying....but you never answer


----------



## ding

RetiredGySgt said:


> I keep asking for the link to this attempt to by Japan to sue for peace...... If you mean the attempt through the Soviets that was an offer for a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China and we would never have agreed to that.


We would have never accepted anything short of unconditional surrender.  Period.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> I keep asking if you are claiming he is lying....but you never answer


There are voices which assert that the bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. ... I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives.

— Winston Churchill, leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the British House of Commons, August 1945[8]


----------



## ding

The U.S. anticipated losing many combatants in Downfall, although the number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate. U.S. President Harry S. Truman stated in 1953 he had been advised U.S. casualties could range from 250,000 to one million combatants.[12][13] Assistant Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, a member of the Interim Committee on atomic matters, stated that while meeting with Truman in the summer of 1945 they discussed the bomb's use in the context of massive combatant and non-combatant casualties from invasion, with Bard raising the possibility of a million Allied combatants being killed. As Bard opposed using the bomb without warning Japan first, he cannot be accused of exaggerating casualty expectations to justify the bomb's use, and his account is evidence that Truman was aware of, and government officials discussed, the possibility of one million casualties.[14]


----------



## ding

On 30 June 2007, Japan's defense minister Fumio Kyūma said the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the United States during World War II was an inevitable way to end the war. Kyūma said: "I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped (shikata ga nai) that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy." Kyūma, who is from Nagasaki, said the bombing caused great suffering in the city, but he does not resent the U.S. because it prevented the Soviet Union from entering the war with Japan.[53] Kyūma's comments were similar to those made by Emperor Hirohito when, in his first ever press conference given in Tokyo in 1975, he was asked what he thought of the bombing of Hiroshima, and answered: "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped (shikata ga nai) because that happened in wartime."[54]


----------



## ding

In early July 1945, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, he made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on strategic cities. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to save American lives, to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.[55]* In his speech to the Japanese people presenting his reasons for surrender on August 15, the Emperor referred specifically to the atomic bombs, stating if they continued to fight it would not only result in "an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization".**[56]*


----------



## ding

I think it is important to understand that war by nature is cruel.  And let's not forget who started that cruelty.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I keep asking if you are claiming he is lying....but you never answer


Either provide the link or admit you got nothing.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> I keep asking if you are claiming he is lying....but you never answer


It was his opinion which at best was wrong and at worst was posturing to protect himself from backlash.

The reality is that Japan was never going to unconditionally surrender without being invaded or convinced through overwhelming force; which dropping two nukes with advanced warning did.  So he was only right if we invaded Japan.  The reality is that dropping two nukes on Japan resulted in the fewest possible loss of lives for all participants than any other outcome.  Getting them to surrender by asking them to pretty please surrender wasn't going to happen.


----------



## ding

RetiredGySgt said:


> Either provide the link or admit you got nothing.











						Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> It was his opinion which at best was wrong and at worst was posturing to protect himself from backlash.
> 
> The reality is that Japan was never going to unconditionally surrender without being invaded or convinced through overwhelming force; which dropping two nukes with advanced warning did.  So he was only right if we invaded Japan.  The reality is that dropping two nukes on Japan resulted in the fewest possible loss of lives for all participants than any other outcome.  Getting them to surrender by asking them to pretty please surrender wasn't going to happen.


So I should take your opinion over his?


I get jokes


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Either provide the link or admit you got nothing.


I asked a simple question


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> There are voices which assert that the bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. ... I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives.
> 
> — Winston Churchill, leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the British House of Commons, August 1945[8]


We could have waited three days


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> I keep asking if you are claiming he is lying....but you never answer


Until you supply evidence for your claim its just a lib lie


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> Until you supply evidence for your claim its just a lib lie


Sure no problem 









						Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Sure no problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


Debate is not proof

its just someone’s opinion


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> Denate is not proof
> 
> its just someone’s opinion


It is the opinion of a military genius who was there and had more information than you or me


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> It is the opinion of a military genius who was there and had more information than you or me


There were great military and political minds on both sides of the debate

but more for bombing than against


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> There were great military and political minds on both sides of the debate
> 
> but more for bombing than against


Great.  Let's hear from some US military generals or admirals that you have


Love to hear it


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Great.  Let's hear from some US military generals or admirals that you have
> 
> 
> Love to hear it











						Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
					

The atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan were conducted by the United States during the final stages of World War II in 1945. The two events are the only use of nuclear weapons in war to date. Following a firebombing campaign that destroyed many Japanese cities, the...




					military-history.fandom.com
				





I think not using atomic bombs to end the war would have resulted in more japanese deaths and future misery

and further it saved thousands of American lives which should have been the priority


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> So I should take your opinion over his?
> 
> 
> I get jokes


No.  You should form your own opinion but you should look at all of the information.  And I was only making a joke to illustrate they weren't going to unconditionally surrender without being shown their defeat was imminent.  I also wasn't joking about generals covering their asses about having to drop nukes.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> No.  You should form your own opinion but you should look at all of the information.  And I was only making a joke to illustrate they weren't going to unconditionally surrender without being shown their defeat was imminent.  I also wasn't joking about generals covering their asses about having to drop nukes.


Oh good.

Then I dismiss your opinion.

Want to call me stupid?  It will make you feel better.  Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Great.  Let's hear from some US military generals or admirals that you have
> 
> 
> Love to hear it


What about the Emperor of Japan?  Should you believe him when he said, *In his speech to the Japanese people presenting his reasons for surrender on August 15, the Emperor referred specifically to the atomic bombs, stating if they continued to fight it would not only result in "an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization".**[56]*


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> What about the Emperor of Japan?  Should you believe him when he said, *In his speech to the Japanese people presenting his reasons for surrender on August 15, the Emperor referred specifically to the atomic bombs, stating if they continued to fight it would not only result in "an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization".**[56]*


No I dont believe him


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh good.
> 
> Then I dismiss your opinion.
> 
> Want to call me stupid?  It will make you feel better.  Lol


You mean that doesn't go without saying


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You mean that doesn't go without saying


You are a poopyhead 


Let's just do this


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> No I dont believe him


At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices.  Behaviors are not something that can be easily switched off like a light switch.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> You are a poopyhead
> 
> 
> Let's just do this


Sometimes


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices.  Behaviors are not something that can be easily switched off like a light switch.


You are a dingle berry.  Lol


----------



## percysunshine

Vegasgiants said:


> You are a poopyhead
> 
> 
> Let's just do this



Ding has two goals in life.

A) Play scratch golf.

B) Be a poopyhead.


----------



## Vegasgiants

percysunshine said:


> Ding has two goals in life.
> 
> A) Play scratch golf.
> 
> B) Be a poopyhead.


I'm guessing he is better at number 2 because he is a number 2.  Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> You are a dingle berry.  Lol


Sometimes 

No one is all good or all bad.


----------



## ding

percysunshine said:


> Ding has two goals in life.
> 
> A) Play scratch golf.
> 
> B) Be a poopyhead.


C'mon man.  I'm not unreasonable.  My goal is to be a 6.


----------



## Vegasgiants

No one knows how to debate anymore.


Sigh.  Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> I'm guessing he is better at number 2 because he is a number 2.  Lol


I'm pretty good at both but I have to practice at golf.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> We could have waited three days


We dropped leaflets.  If memory serves, fire bombing their wooden structures with white phosphorus killed more people than the nukes and that didn't dissuade them.  Even the 1st bomb didn't dissuade them.  The second one did though.  Their emperor even said so.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> No one knows how to debate anymore.
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Lol


Speak for yourself.  I skip the fighting and go straight to the winning.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> We dropped leaflets.  If memory serves, fire bombing their wooden structures with white phosphorus killed more people than the nukes and that didn't dissuade them.  Even the 1st bomb didn't dissuade them.  The second one did though.  Their emperor even said so.


They surrendered after the Russian invasion


Why not wait three days


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> They surrendered after the Russian invasion
> 
> 
> Why not wait three days


Pure coincidence.  You act like they didn't deliberate on it at all.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Pure coincidence.


In your opinion 


Why not wait and find out


I bet you dont know the answer


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> In your opinion
> 
> 
> Why not wait and find out
> 
> 
> I bet you dont know the answer


Yes, just as it's just your opinion.  But you have to dismiss Japan's own admission.  I don't.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Why not wait and find out


You act like they didn't deliberate on it at all.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Yes, just as it's just your opinion.  But you have to dismiss Japan's own admission.  I don't.


And you have to dismiss the opinions of 7 of our top generals and admirals.  Lol


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You act like they didn't deliberate on it at all.


Three days


Do you know why they coukdnt wait?


I do


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> And you have to dismiss the opinions of 7 of our top generals and admirals.  Lol


Who were covering their ass and preferred committing to dragging the war at great cost and deaths.  Invading Japan was never going to be a picnic.  Truman made the right call.  They started the war and we ended it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Who were covering their ass and preferred committing to dragging the war at great cost and deaths.  Invading Japan was never going to be a picnic.  Truman made the right call.  They started the war and we ended it.


In your opinion 

Dismissed


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Three days
> 
> 
> Do you know why they coukdnt wait?
> 
> 
> I do


Don't keep me in suspense.   Please share your revelation with me.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Don't keep me in suspense.   Please share your revelation with me.


Ask me nicely.   Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> In your opinion
> 
> Dismissed


From your own link (which you technically never provided)... *In his speech to the Japanese people presenting his reasons for surrender on August 15, the Emperor referred specifically to the atomic bombs, stating if they continued to fight it would not only result in "an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization".**[56]*


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> From your own link (which you technically never provided)... *In his speech to the Japanese people presenting his reasons for surrender on August 15, the Emperor referred specifically to the atomic bombs, stating if they continued to fight it would not only result in "an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization".**[56]*


Yep I saw that too


Dismissed


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Ask me nicely.   Lol


I'm not that interested.  I've already won this.  I'm just being polite now.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I'm not that interested.  I've already won this.  I'm just being polite now.


Okay dokey pokey.   Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Yep I saw that too
> 
> 
> Dismissed


On what grounds?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> On what grounds?


On the same grounds you dismiss 7 generals and admirals


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> On the same grounds you dismiss 7 generals and admirals


Well... the grounds I mentioned were that the generals were covering their asses for possible war crime charges and the generals were trying to get the president to commit to an invasion of Japan.  What was the Emperor's reason?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Well... the grounds I mentioned was that the generals were covering their asses for war crime charges.  What was the Emperor's reasons?


He was covering his ass because it was really the Russian invasion


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> He was covering his ass because it was really the Russian invasion


Why did he need to cover his ass?  What was it that he was afraid of saying?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Why did he need to cover his ass?


Because he would have to admit he lost a conventional war.  He was supposed to be a semi deity and could not win a conventional war


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Because he would have to admit he lost a conventional war.  He was supposed to be a semi deity and could not win a conventional war


But Japan didn't lose a conventional war.  They lost a nuclear war.  You might have heard about that in the news.  We dropped two nukes on them and then they surrendered unconditionally.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> But Japan didn't lose a conventional war.  They lost a nuclear war.  You might have heard about that in the news.  We dropped two nukes on them and then they surrendered unconditionally.


Not according to our military leaders.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Not according to our military leaders.


Your logic is staggering.  Two nukes - the likes of which were never seen before - unleashing devastating destruction isn't enough for Japan to surrender but the mere thought of the Russians are coming did.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Not according to our military leaders.


Actually that's not according to our military leaders.  What they said was that we could get Japan to surrender unconditionally without dropping nukes.  The generals did not say Japan surrendered because of Russia.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I asked a simple question


You made the claim support it or go the fuck away thats how it works


----------



## ding

According to historian Richard B. Frank,



> The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender.[61]


----------



## ding

The United States Department of Energy's history of the Manhattan Project lends some credence to these claims, saying that military leaders in Japan



> also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement.[62]


----------



## ding

While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to attempt peace negotiation, they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan could legally enter into a peace agreement only with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and in the summer of 1945, the Japanese Supreme War Council, consisting of representatives of the Army, the Navy, and the civilian government, could not reach a consensus on how to proceed.[60]

A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan, the military increasingly determined to fight despite all costs and odds and the civilian leadership seeking a way to negotiate an end to the war. Further complicating the decision was the fact no cabinet could exist without the representative of the Imperial Japanese Army. This meant the Army or Navy could veto any decision by having its Minister resign, thus making them the most powerful posts on the SWC. In early August 1945, the cabinet was equally split between those who advocated an end to the war on one condition, the preservation of the _kokutai_, and those who insisted on three other conditions:[63]


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Sure no problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


That supports us not you


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> That supports us not you


In your opinion 

Dismissed


----------



## ding

RetiredGySgt said:


> That supports us not you


Agreed.  He dismissed the emperor's statement saying the emperor used the nukes to save face from being afraid of Russians.  Which is silly.  Japan and Russia have been at war for as long time.  

What he can't dismiss thou are the intercepts....

According to historian Richard B. Frank,



> The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender.[61]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> In your opinion
> 
> Dismissed


You can't dismiss the intercepts.

According to historian Richard B. Frank,



> The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender.[61]


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> You made the claim support it or go the fuck away thats how it works


I did.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Agreed.  He dismissed the emperor's statement saying the emperor used the nukes to save face from being afraid of Russians.  Which is silly.  Japan and Russia have been at war for as long time.
> 
> What he can't dismiss thou are the intercepts....
> 
> According to historian Richard B. Frank,


What you cant dismiss

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I did.


No that is all opinion except for the intercepts at no point does it include a link or claim that Japanese Government attempted to negotiate before the bombs.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> No that is all opinion except for the intercepts at no point does it include a link or claim that Japanese Government attempted to negotiate before the bombs.


Do you think he was lying?

How about lemay?

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> What you cant dismiss
> 
> The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


You are having to dismiss a ton of evidence that has absolutely nothing to do with a Russian invasion.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Do you think he was lying?
> 
> How about lemay?
> 
> The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


Yes because they were covering their ass for potential war crime charges.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You are having to dismiss a ton of evidence that has absolutely nothing to do with a Russian invasion.


Was Lemay lying?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Yes because they were covering their ass for potential war crime charges.


By who?


That is freaking hilarious 


Some of those quotes are years after the war


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> What you cant dismiss
> 
> The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


I can dismiss that.  Two nukes were dropped and Japan surrendered unconditionally.  

The writing was on the wall so to speak.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Do you think he was lying?
> 
> How about lemay?
> 
> The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


I ask for a link to the Japanese Government negotiating before the bombs which is what you claim either provide it or admit you are wrong.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Was Lemay lying?


Yes.  He was covering his ass.  What did he say about Russians?


----------



## BackAgain

ding said:


> I can dismiss that.  Two nukes were dropped and Japan surrendered unconditionally.
> 
> The writing was on the wall so to speak.


Noting cause and effect bothers vegomatic.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> I ask for a link to the Japanese Government negotiating before the bombs which is what you claim either provide it or admit you are wrong.


I asked if he was lying


It's a simple question


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> By who?
> 
> 
> That is freaking hilarious
> 
> 
> Some of those quotes are years after the war
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA


Yes, they want to have clean hands and not being on the record for dropping nukes.


----------



## Vegasgiants

BackAgain said:


> Noting cause and effect bothers vegomatic.


Poopyheads!!!!!!  Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> I asked if he was lying
> 
> 
> It's a simple question


Yes.  He wants clean hands.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I asked if he was lying
> 
> 
> It's a simple question


Unless you can provide a link to the negotitions then yes he either lied or made it up.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> I asked if he was lying
> 
> 
> It's a simple question


What did he say about Russians?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Yes, they want to have clean hands and not being on the record for dropping nukes.


HAHAHAHA 


HAHAHAHAHA 


HAHAHAHAHA 


Only one had to give the order einstein.   Lol


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unless you can provide a link to the negotitions then yes he either lied or made it up.


So did lemay I guess.  Lol


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> What did he say about Russians?


He said they were poopyheads


----------



## ding

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unless you can provide a link to the negotitions then yes he either lied or made it up.


He didn't want his name on record for dropping the bomb but he knew it was going to be done anyway.  There was no benefit for him to come out supporting dropping the bomb.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> He said they were poopyheads


He didn't say anything about the Russians.  What did he say about why they didn't need to drop nukes?

The noose is tightening, bro.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> He didn't want his name on record for dropping the bomb but he knew it was going to be done anyway.  There was no benefit for him to come out supporting dropping the bomb.


Because he knew we never needed the bomb


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> So did lemay I guess.  Lol


YOU made a claim that Japan was trying to negotiate before the bombs you have not ONCE supported that claim.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> He didn't say anything about the Russians.  What did he say about why they didn't need to drop nukes?
> 
> The noose is tightening, bro.


No he said they were poopyheads.  Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Because he knew we never needed the bomb


Why?  What did he say would win the war?


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> YOU made a claim that Japan was trying to negotiate before the bombs you have not ONCE supported that claim.


I did NOT make the claim 


A fleet admiral did


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> No he said they were poopyheads.  Lol


I own you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I did NOT make the claim
> 
> 
> A fleet admiral did


And you can not support nor could he the claim that you say you believe.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Why?  What did he say would win the war?


Not the bomb.

Lemay initially said we should wait two weeks.  He then later said it would probably have been even less time


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> No he said they were poopyheads.  Lol


Assistant Secretary Bard was convinced that a standard bombardment and naval blockade would be enough to force Japan into surrendering. 

No mention of Russians.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I own you.


Free at last!  Free at last!!!!!!  Lol


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Here is the way debate works child, you make a claim then support it with facts. There are no facts supporting the claim that Japan negotiated before the bombs.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Assistant Secretary Bard was convinced that a standard bombardment and naval blockade would be enough to force Japan into surrendering.
> 
> No mention of Russians.


How nice for him


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Here is the way debate works child, you make a claim then support it with facts. There are no facts supporting the claim that Japan negotiated before the bombs.


Hey moron.  Here is the way debate works. Insult me over and over again......right?


----------



## gipper

Vegasgiants said:


> I did NOT make the claim
> 
> 
> A fleet admiral did


I’ve told the grunt many times over the years of documented evidence of Japan‘s efforts to surrender long before Dirty Harry committed his terrible crime. Unfortunately he stopped learning after fourth grade. So, nothing new gets in.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Not the bomb.
> 
> Lemay initially said we should wait two weeks.  He then later said it would probably have been even less time


No mention of Russians at all.  Which general said Japan surrendered because of Russia?  



> The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]


----------



## Vegasgiants

gipper said:


> I’ve told the grunt many times over the years of documented evidence of Japan‘s efforts to surrender long before Dirty Harry committed his terrible crime. Unfortunately he stopped learning after fourth grade. So, nothing new gets in.


Probably why he scored so poorly on the asvab


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> No mention of Russians at all.  Which general said Japan surrendered because of Russia?


Already defeated


----------



## gipper

Vegasgiants said:


> Hey moron.  Here is the way debate works. Insult me over and over again......right?


He lacks even rudimentary intelligence. Get use to it or put him on ignore.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Hey moron.  Here is the way debate works. Insult me over and over again......right?


You cant support your statements and arent even trying to so buzz off loser.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> You cant support your statements and arent even trying to so buzz off loser.


Settle down bullet stopper


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Already defeated


But your argument is that Japan surrender unconditionally because of a 1 day Russian invasion far away from the main island, right?  

You even said the generals said Japan surrendered because of the Russians.  

I just busted you on both of these lies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> I’ve told the grunt many times over the years of documented evidence of Japan‘s efforts to surrender long before Dirty Harry committed his terrible crime. Unfortunately he stopped learning after fourth grade. So, nothing new gets in.


LOL no you have not there is NOT a single link in this thread to a japanese offer to negotiate except the Soviet attempt and that was a ceasefire which we would never agree too.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> But your argument is that Japan surrender unconditionally because of a 1 day Russian invasion far away from the main island, right?
> 
> You even said the generals said Japan surrendered because of the Russians.
> 
> I just busted you on both of these lies.


No.  I said generals and admirals said the war was over and the bomb was not necessary 


I OWN YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!   LOL


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL no you have not there is NOT a single link in this thread to a japanese offer to negotiate except the Soviet attempt and that was a ceasefire which we would never agree too.


I given you many links. It’s not my fault you can’t read.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> No.  I said generals and admirals said the war was over and the bomb was not necessary
> 
> 
> I OWN YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!   LOL


You said the Generals said Japan surrendered because of Russia, dummy.

Let me tell you why Japan surrendered because you are either intellectually incapable of understanding this, dishonest or both.

Japan surrendered because the USA (not Russia) destroyed their navy.  Held air and sea superiority over their island and just dropped two bad ass bombs that wiped out two cities.  Never in the history of warfare has an enemy been as utterly and completely defeated than what America had done to Japan.

Your talk of Japan surrendering because Russia entered the war is idiotic and without merit.  Now do you understand?


----------



## ding

Who would have guessed Vegasgiants was a Russian


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You said the Generals said Japan surrendered because of Russia, dummy.
> 
> Let me tell you why Japan surrendered because you are either intellectually incapable of understanding this, dishonest or both.
> 
> Japan surrendered because the USA (not Russia) destroyed their navy.  Held air and sea superiority over their island and just dropped two bad ass bombs that wiped out two cities.  Never in the history of warfare has an enemy been as utterly and completely defeated than what America had done to Japan.
> 
> Your talk of Japan surrendering because Russia entered the war is idiotic and without merit.  Now do you understand?





ding said:


> You said the Generals said Japan surrendered because of Russia, dummy.
> 
> Let me tell you why Japan surrendered because you are either intellectually incapable of understanding this, dishonest or both.
> 
> Japan surrendered because the USA (not Russia) destroyed their navy.  Held air and sea superiority over their island and just dropped two bad ass bombs that wiped out two cities.  Never in the history of warfare has an enemy been as utterly and completely defeated than what America had done to Japan.
> 
> Your talk of Japan surrendering because Russia entered the war is idiotic and without merit.  Now do you understand?


It's cute you have an opinion 


So does this guy 

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. 

— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [103]


You are owned!!!!!!



HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Who would have guessed Vegasgiants was a Russian


Well you admitted you are a north korean


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> It's cute you have an opinion
> 
> 
> So does this guy
> 
> The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [103]
> 
> 
> You are owned!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA


I still can't get over you believing Japan made an unconditional surrender because the Russians joined the war. 

I mean seriously, you would think the US kicking Japan's ass in a 4 year war, destroying their navy, owning the air over Japan and dropping two nukes that wiped out two cities would have made more of an impression. 

But according to you it was the Russians are coming that made Japan shit their pants.

Doesn't this sound really stupid even to you?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I still can't get over you believing Japan made an unconditional surrender because the Russians joined the war.
> 
> I mean seriously, you would think the US kicking Japan's ass in a 4 year war, destroying their navy, owning the air over Japan and dropping two nukes would have made more of an impression.
> 
> But according to you it was the Russians are coming that made Japan shit their pants.
> 
> Doesn't this sound really stupid even to you?


So what is your life like in north korea?


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> So what is your life like in north korea?


All I can say is that I will forever be using this in our future discussions.  Something like...

Aren't you the dude that believed that after 4 years of war with US and the US destroying the Japanese navy, controlling the seas around Japan with their navy and controlling the air over Japan with their carriers and dropping not one nuke but two nukes which completely destroyed two cities, Japan surrendered unconditionally because Russia joined the war? 

<click> bookmark


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> All I can say is that I will forever be using this in our future discussions.  Something like...
> 
> Aren't you the dude that believed that after 4 years of war with US and the US destroying the Japanese navy, controlling the seas around Japan with their aircraft carriers and controlling the air over Japan with their carriers and dropping not one nuke but two nukes which completely destroyed two cities, Japan surrendered unconditionally because Russia joined the war?
> 
> <click> bookmark


 Is it cold now in north korea?

Are we not talking about where we live anymore?


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Is it cold now in north korea?
> 
> Are we not talking about where we live anymore?


You would think the US kicking Japan's ass in a 4 year war, destroying their navy, owning the air over Japan and dropping two nukes that wiped out two cities would have made more of an impression.

But according to you it was the Russians are coming that made Japan shit their pants.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You would think the US kicking Japan's ass in a 4 year war, destroying their navy, owning the air over Japan and dropping two nukes that wiped out two cities would have made more of an impression.
> 
> But according to you it was the Russians are coming that made Japan shit their pants.


So you dont want to talk about where we live?


You brought it up


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> So you dont want to talk about where we live?
> 
> 
> You brought it up


I'm sorry I can't hear this over my laughing at your silly belief that Japan surrendered because Russia entered the war.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I'm sorry I can't hear this over my laughing at your silly belief that Japan surrendered because Russia entered the war.


The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. 

— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [103]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [103]


Sorry but I still can't hear you over my laughing at your silly belief that Japan surrendered because Russia entered the war.

The USA (not Russia) destroyed their navy during a 4 year war.
The USA (not Russia) held air and sea superiority over their island and had Japan surrounded.
The USA (not Russia) just dropped two bad ass bombs that wiped out two cities.

Japan surrendered because the USA defeated them and nuking two cities was the straw that broke the camel's back.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Sorry but I still can't hear you over my laughing at your silly belief that Japan surrendered because Russia entered the war.
> 
> The USA (not Russia) destroyed their navy.
> The USA (not Russia) held air and sea superiority over their island and had Japan surrounded.
> The USA (not Russia) just dropped two bad ass bombs that wiped out two cities.
> 
> Japan surrendered because the USA defeated them and nuking two cities was the straw that broke the camel's back.





ding said:


> Sorry but I still can't hear you over my laughing at your silly belief that Japan surrendered because Russia entered the war.
> 
> The USA (not Russia) destroyed their navy during a 4 year war.
> The USA (not Russia) held air and sea superiority over their island and had Japan surrounded.
> The USA (not Russia) just dropped two bad ass bombs that wiped out two cities.
> 
> Japan surrendered because the USA defeated them and nuking two cities was the straw that broke the camel's back.


Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.[105] Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the Potsdam Declaration signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.[106] As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[107] Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:



> His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative to fight on with all its strength for the honour and existence of the Motherland ... It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoe to Moscow as a Special Envoy ...[108]


----------



## ding

The Russian navy consisted of a dinghy.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> The Russian navy consisted of a dinghy.


Truman had sex with chickens


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.[105] Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the Potsdam Declaration signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.[106] As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[107] Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:


Aren't you the dude that believed that after 4 years of war with US and the US destroying the Japanese navy, controlling the seas around Japan with their navy and controlling the air over Japan with their carriers and dropping not one nuke but two nukes which completely destroyed two cities, Japan surrendered unconditionally because Russia joined the war?


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Truman had sex with chickens


Well he was a Democrat.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Aren't you the dude that believed that after 4 years of war with US and the US destroying the Japanese navy, controlling the seas around Japan with their navy and controlling the air over Japan with their carriers and dropping not one nuke but two nukes which completely destroyed two cities, Japan surrendered unconditionally because Russia joined the war?


Yes I am that dude


I am the dude man!!!!!!



You are owned!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Well he was a Democrat.


And a idiot.  I agree


----------



## ding

The Russian military was funded by America but Japan was so scared that Russia announced they had joined the war that they shit their pants and surrendered to America.  Yes, very logical indeed.  If you are a Russian maybe.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes I am that dude
> 
> 
> I am the dude man!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> You are owned!!!!!!!!!!


Good to know.  Let's see how you feel the next 20 times I use it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> The Russian military was funded by America but Japan was so scared that Russia announced they had joined the war that they shit their pants and surrendered to America.  Yes, very logical indeed.  If you are a Russian maybe.


Say him to Kim for me.  Lol


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Good to know.


You are owned!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Say him to Kim for me.  Lol


Kim Vegasgiants?  Sure.  Will do.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> You are owned!!!!!!!!!!!!


You arguing Japan surrendered because of Russia says otherwise.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Kim Vegasgiants?  Sure.  Will do.


Okay dokey pokey.   Lol


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You arguing Japan surrendered because of Russia says otherwise.


HAHAHAHA


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Okay dokey pokey.   Lol


Tell me again how Japan surrendered because of Russia.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> HAHAHAHA


I agree.  That is funny.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Tell me again how Japan surrendered because of Russia.


Ok

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.[105] Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the Potsdam Declaration signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.[106] As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[107] Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:



> His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative to fight on with all its strength for the honour and existence of the Motherland ... It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoe to Moscow as a Special Envoy ...[108]


----------



## ding

Pro Tip: when someone makes a stupid claim, don't jump on them right away.  Give them a chance to expound upon their stupid.  Then after a few page of stupid, let it fly.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Pro Tip: when someone makes a stupid claim, don't jump on them right away.  Give them a chance to expound upon their stupid.  Then after a few page of stupid, let it fly.


And then I own you!!!!!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Ok
> 
> Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.[105] Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the Potsdam Declaration signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.[106] As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[107] Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:


Russia should have declared war sooner so Japan would have surrendered sooner.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Russia should have declared war sooner so Japan would have surrendered sooner.


Oh look a moron opinion 


HAHAHAHAHA 


You dont even know why they specifically chose that date.  Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> And then I own you!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA


Your ego needs for you to say that but your ego knows you arguing Japan surrendered because of Russia says otherwise.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Your ego needs for you to say that but your ego knows you arguing Japan surrendered because of Russia says otherwise.


Dont cry


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh look a moron opinion
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> You dont even know why they specifically chose that date.  Lol


The moron opinion is believing Japan surrendered because of Russia.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Dont cry


I'm not the one who argued Japan surrendered because of Russia.  That's you.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Now you bore me


Japanese Navy Admiral: The US has destroyed our navy.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Air Force General: The US has destroyed our air force.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Navy Admiral: The US has control of the seas surrounding Japan.

Emperor: No problem

 Japanese Air Force General: The US has control of the air over Japan.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Army General: The US has just unleashed a new technology - a nuclear bomb - that completely wiped out Hiroshima

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Army General: The US just dropped another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki which wiped Nagasaki off of the face of the earth.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Army General: The Russians just announced they are sending their navy which is just a dinghy to invade Japan.

Emperor: The Russians are coming!  Holy shit balls!  Really!  The Russians!  Holy Fuck we better surrender.


----------



## ding




----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Wrong. Dirty Harry won the war, then he massacred thousands of defenseless women and children of a defeated nation.


That is incorrect.  The atomic bombs were dropped on vital military targets.

And it was Japan's choice to wait until August 10 before offering to surrender.  If Japan was a defeated nation, then they should have surrendered earlier.




gipper said:


> You don’t think Americans would fight until the last man, if we were invaded.  Think.  Please think.


So you agree that Japan would have put up a bloody resistance to our invasion if the war had progressed to the point where we invaded??




gipper said:


> McArthur knew they wished to surrender.


No he didn't.  Before August 10, 1945, Japan was refusing to surrender.




gipper said:


> Are you too calling him a liar?


I've never heard MacArthur say that Japan wanted to surrender before August 10, 1945.

I suspect that MacArthur never said that, and people are lying about what MacArthur said.




gipper said:


> Oh brother. Are you capable of thinking?  Do you know how surrendering works. Both antagonists must agree. Jesus
> The Japanese people fighting knew nothing of their government’s efforts to surrender. They were merely trying to protect their country, just as Americans would.


There were no such efforts to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




gipper said:


> Since both Stalin’s Stooge and Dirty Harry stupidly demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese assumed the US would hang the emperor. All they asked of Dirty Harry is leave the emperor alone. He didn’t agree with those terms until AFTER he incinerated all those defenseless women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


You have made three major errors here.

First, Japan didn't even ask for those terms until _after_ Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Second, we never agreed to Japan's request even after they asked for it.

Third, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vital military targets.




gipper said:


> I’m guessing you’ve got dementia because several posters including me, have posted links for you to read. You can read, right?


Links to progressives spewing lies about America are not generally regarded as credible evidence.




gipper said:


> No. All they asked for was no harm to the emperor, by July 1945.


That is doubly wrong.

First, what Japan asked was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Second, Japan did not ask this until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.




gipper said:


> Dirty Harry said fuck you, then he nuked thousands of defenseless women and children and then he said okay.


Even more errors here.

The atomic bombs had already been dropped when Japan made their request.

The atomic bombs were dropped on vital military targets.

Mr. Truman never said OK to Japan's request.  Our reply was that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.




gipper said:


> What a guy.


Yes.  Mr. Truman did the right thing.




gipper said:


> Our government does that too.  Do you think it’s okay for your children and grandchildren to be massacred because our government murders?


That is incorrect.  The US government does not go on genocidal rampages.




gipper said:


> Mass murder defenseless innocent women and children to save lives.  Not logical.


Wartime strikes against vital military targets are not murder.

For an example of mass murder, look to the peacetime attack against Pearl Harbor.




gipper said:


> I’ve told the grunt many times over the years of documented evidence of Japan‘s efforts to surrender long before Dirty Harry committed his terrible crime.


You've done no such thing.  There is no such documented evidence.  The events in question never happened.




gipper said:


> I given you many links. It’s not my fault you can’t read.


Links to progressives spewing lies about America are not generally regarded as credible evidence.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  The atomic bombs were dropped on vital military targets.
> 
> And it was Japan's choice to wait until August 10 before offering to surrender.  If Japan was a defeated nation, then they should have surrendered earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that Japan would have put up a bloody resistance to our invasion if the war had progressed to the point where we invaded??
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't.  Before August 10, 1945, Japan was refusing to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard MacArthur say that Japan wanted to surrender before August 10.
> 
> I suspect that MacArthur never said that, and people are lying about what MacArthur said.
> 
> 
> 
> There were no such efforts to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> You have made three major errors here.
> 
> First, Japan didn't even ask for those terms until _after_ Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> Second, we never agreed to Japan's request even after they asked for it.
> 
> Third, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vital military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> Links to progressives spewing lies about America because they hate freedom are not generally regarded as credible evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> That is doubly wrong.
> 
> First, what Japan asked was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.
> 
> Second, Japan did not ask this until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> Even more errors here.
> 
> The atomic bombs had already been dropped when Japan made their request.
> 
> The atomic bombs were dropped on vital military targets.
> 
> Mr. Truman never said OK to Japan's request.  Our reply was that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Mr. Truman did the right thing.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect.  The US government does not go on genocidal rampages.
> 
> 
> 
> Wartime strikes against vital military targets are not murder.
> 
> For an example of mass murder look to the peacetime attack against Pearl Harbor.
> 
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing.  There is no such documented evidence.  The events in question never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Links to progressives spewing lies about America because they hate freedom are not generally regarded as credible evidence.


We could afford to wait three days


But truman had a bigger mission


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Then you're ignoring the vast amount of proof provided that there were Japanese overtures to surrender long before Okinawa; overtures that were willfully ignored by roosevelt.


Fake news.  No such proof has ever been offered.  No such proof exists.  No such thing ever happened.




Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


Fake news.  Filled with untrue claims.




Unkotare said:


> archive.ph





Unkotare said:


> archive.ph


Fake news.  Never happened.




Unkotare said:


> Can you find one quote from one political or military leader of that time indicating that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians as an act of revenge?


I would hope not, since what we really did was bomb vital military targets with the goal of making Japan surrender (which they were refusing to do at the time).




Unkotare said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> But the bombs had to fall
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Because Japan was refusing to surrender.




Unkotare said:


> Deliberately targeting and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is not what America is about.


That's why the atomic bombs were dropped on vital military targets.




Unkotare said:


> Want to try and focus on the discussion, champ? The bloodthirsty fdr had the opportunity to pursue peace via the surrender of Japan before Okinawa ever happened.


Fake news.  Never happened.

Japan refused to surrender until August 10, 1945.




Unkotare said:


> Do you have Biden Syndrome, old man? Read the article.


The article lies.




Unkotare said:


> There is even a list of terms offered - a list identical to the terms we eventually accepted after lackey truman carried out the ghoul fdr's last wishes from hell.


Fake news.  Never happened.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


^^^


----------



## Open Bolt

gipper said:


> Yeah sort of very similar to ruthlessly bombing a defenseless nation seeking surrender.


Except, Japan was not defenseless, and was refusing to surrender.

The atomic bombs may have been ruthless, but they were dropped on vital military targets.




gipper said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They were not "defenseless", they attacked us.
> 2. They were not "seeking surrender", they were "seeking peace on their own terms".
> 3. Sure, imperial powers are all the same (it is the simple result of evolution) , but we are best of the best.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously all wrong.
Click to expand...

No.  He is entirely correct.




gipper said:


> You know nothing.


His corrects statements indicate otherwise.




gipper said:


> Stop posting.


Why should he do that?  It is important to set the record straight when progressives lie about America.




gipper said:


> In your delusional world, the response to an attack on a military base is mass murdering thousands of defenseless women and children.
> I thought Americans were better than this.


The attack on Pearl Harbor came in peacetime.  That was the only mass murder here.

Wartime strikes on vital military targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not murder.




gipper said:


> It’s funny how Americans are so judgmental of other nations, but are completely unaware of the many heinous acts committed by their government. WTF!


That's because the US government doesn't actually commit said heinous acts.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Bullcrap. It is an ethnic slur. It was understood to be an ethnic slur in the 1940s, and it is understood to be an ethnic slur today. Undertaking the grueling task of typing 5 more letters will probably not give you a stroke.
> 
> At least have the sack to be honest about what you're doing. This playing coy nonsense is weak.


^^^


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


Fake news.  Filled with untrue claims.


----------



## Open Bolt

there4eyeM said:


> When it comes to 'what-ifing', the fundamental one is what if planners finally realized that there was no necessity of invading Japan, which was by then nothing but a besieged bastion with no means of supporting itself at any level.
> The Imperial Army in Manchuria? Just send over a few thousand T54s and M 48s and run over it.
> Nothing like hundreds of thousands had to die unless the Japanese chose it. Then it would all have been up to them. The Emperor would probably have died along with maybe millions of civilians and military, if only from starvation. That, at least, would have put the onus for the deaths of so many on the Japanese themselves, and would have absolved the U.S. of accusations of excessive use of power and racism. It would also have cleared the way for an egalitarian democracy, as in 1776.


If Japan had kept refusing to surrender, we were going to invade.  We were not going to sit around for years waiting for them to hypothetically surrender from starvation.

So if that is your "what if", what would have happened is we would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway.

If you mean "what if they were going to surrender immediately after the Soviets declared war and we knew it", *if* that was true then maybe we would have avoided dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

Then, when the Cuban Missile Crisis came around without the example of Hiroshima to restrain the US and USSR from nuclear war, the human race would have been wiped out (or at least set back to a stone age level of existence).

So it's a good thing that we nuked Hiroshima when we did.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> Fake news.  No such proof has ever been offered.  No such proof exists.  No such thing ever happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Filled with untrue claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> I would hope not, since what we really did was bomb vital military targets with the goal of making Japan surrender (which they were refusing to do at the time).
> 
> 
> 
> Because Japan was refusing to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why the atomic bombs were dropped on vital military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Never happened.
> 
> Japan refused to surrender until August 10, 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> The article lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake news.  Never happened.


Fake news I dont care


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> If Japan had kept refusing to surrender, we were going to invade.  We were not going to sit around for years waiting for them to hypothetically surrender from starvation.
> 
> So if that is your "what if", what would have happened is we would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway.
> 
> If you mean "what if they were going to surrender immediately after the Soviets declared war and we knew it", *if* that was true then maybe we would have avoided dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
> 
> Then, when the Cuban Missile Crisis came around without the example of Hiroshima to restrain the US and USSR from nuclear war, the human race would have been wiped out (or at least set back to a stone age level of existence).
> 
> So it's a good thing that we nuked Hiroshima when we did.


That is freaking hilarious.  LOL


----------



## ding

Open Bolt said:


> If Japan had kept refusing to surrender, we were going to invade.


I can tell you for a fact they were planning to invade Japan as my dad was a BAR man in Germany and got called back early with all the BAR men to prepare for the invasion.  

They weren't fucking around.  The Japanese had given them no indication that they intended to surrender.   In fact, they had given them every indication that they did not intend to surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I can tell you for a fact they were planning to invade Japan as my dad was a BAR man in Germany and got called back early with all the BAR men to prepare for the invasion.
> 
> They weren't fucking around.  The Japanese had given them no indication that they intended to surrender.   In fact, they had given them every indication that they did not intend to surrender.


Yet they did.  Hours after the russian invasion


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Yet they did.  Hours after the russian invasion


Japanese Navy Admiral: The US has destroyed our navy.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Air Force General: The US has destroyed our air force.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Navy Admiral: The US has control of the seas surrounding Japan.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Air Force General: The US has control of the air over Japan.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Army General: The US has just unleashed a new technology - a nuclear bomb - that completely wiped out Hiroshima

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Army General: The US just dropped another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki which wiped Nagasaki off of the face of the earth.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Army General: The Russians just announced they are sending their navy which is just a dinghy to invade Japan.

Emperor: The Russians are coming! Holy shit balls! Really! The Russians! Holy Fuck we better surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Japanese Navy Admiral: The US has destroyed our navy.
> 
> Emperor: No problem
> 
> Japanese Air Force General: The US has destroyed our air force.
> 
> Emperor: No problem
> 
> Japanese Navy Admiral: The US has control of the seas surrounding Japan.
> 
> Emperor: No problem
> 
> Japanese Air Force General: The US has control of the air over Japan.
> 
> Emperor: No problem
> 
> Japanese Army General: The US has just unleashed a new technology - a nuclear bomb - that completely wiped out Hiroshima
> 
> Emperor: No problem
> 
> Japanese Army General: The US just dropped another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki which wiped Nagasaki off of the face of the earth.
> 
> Emperor: No problem
> 
> Japanese Army General: The Russians just announced they are sending their navy which is just a dinghy to invade Japan.
> 
> Emperor: The Russians are coming! Holy shit balls! Really! The Russians! Holy Fuck we better surrender.


All I have are facts.  LOL


The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:



> There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
> 
> 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.[90][91]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> All I have are facts.  LOL
> 
> 
> The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:


You would have thought that the US kicking Japan's ass in a 4 year war, destroying their navy, owning the air over Japan and nuking two cities would have made more of an impression than the Russians announcing they were at war.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You would have thought that the US kicking Japan's ass in a 4 year war, destroying their navy, owning the air over Japan and nuking two cities would have made more of an impression than the Russians announcing they were at war.


yep.  All that was true BEFORE the bombs were dropped.  LOL


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> yep.  All that was true BEFORE the bombs were dropped.  LOL


I mean I would have thought that the US kicking Japan's ass in a 4 year war, destroying their navy, owning the air over Japan and nuking two cities would have made more of an impression than the Russians announcing they were at war.  It was in all the newspapers for like four years.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I mean I would have thought that the US kicking Japan's ass in a 4 year war, destroying their navy, owning the air over Japan and nuking two cities would have made more of an impression than the Russians announcing they were at war.  It was in all the newspapers for like four years.


Huh?

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:



> There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
> 
> 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.[90][91]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Huh?
> 
> The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:


Come to think of it I know who would have thought that the US kicking Japan's ass in a 4 year war, destroying their navy, owning the air over Japan and nuking two cities wouldn't have made more of an impression than the Russians announcing they were at war.... the Russians.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Come to think of it I know who would have thought that the US kicking Japan's ass in a 4 year war, destroying their navy, owning the air over Japan and nuking two cities wouldn't have made more of an impression than the Russians announcing they were at war.... the Russians.


 

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir _The White House Years_:



> In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his 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.[98]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir _The White House Years_:


Path not taken.  Truman made the right call.  It was the time to end it.  Glad he did.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Path not taken.  Truman made the right call.  It was the time to end it.  Glad he did.


Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[99][100] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet), and even the man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay:



> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
> — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[99][100] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet), and even the man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay:


Good thing it wasn't their call.  But aren't you the dude that believed that after 4 years of war with US and the US destroying the Japanese navy, controlling the seas around Japan with their navy and controlling the air over Japan with their carriers and dropping not one nuke but two nukes which completely destroyed two cities, Japan surrendered unconditionally because Russia joined the war?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Good thing it wasn't their call.  But aren't you the dude that believed that after 4 years of war with US and the US destroying the Japanese navy, controlling the seas around Japan with their navy and controlling the air over Japan with their carriers and dropping not one nuke but two nukes which completely destroyed two cities, Japan surrendered unconditionally because Russia joined the war?


The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]


History says otherwise.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> History says otherwise.


The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


History says otherwise.  It brought Japan to her knees.  That is unquestionable.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> History says otherwise.  It brought Japan to her knees.  That is unquestionable.


The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. 

— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [103]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [103]


We know it was the nukes that was the straw that broke the camel's back because Japan surrender to the United States of America and not Russia.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> We know it was the nukes that was the straw that broke the camel's back because Japan surrender to the United States of America and not Russia.


Hasegawa's view is, when the Soviet Union declared war on 8 August,[109] it crushed all hope in Japan's leading circles that the Soviets could be kept out of the war and also that reinforcements from Asia to the Japanese islands would be possible for the expected invasion.[110] Hasegawa wrote:



> On the basis of available evidence, however, it is clear that the two atomic bombs ... alone were not decisive in inducing Japan to surrender. Despite their destructive power, the atomic bombs were not sufficient to change the direction of Japanese diplomacy. The Soviet invasion was. Without the Soviet entry in the war, the Japanese would have continued to fight until numerous atomic bombs, a successful allied invasion of the home islands, or continued aerial bombardments, combined with a naval blockade, rendered them incapable of doing so.[105]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Hasegawa's view is, when the Soviet Union declared war on 8 August,[109] it crushed all hope in Japan's leading circles that the Soviets could be kept out of the war and also that reinforcements from Asia to the Japanese islands would be possible for the expected invasion.[110] Hasegawa wrote:


Soviet invasion or no, the US had already defeated Japan.  Pretty sure we had been telling those fuckers to get into the game much earlier and they waited until we did all the heavy lifting and you want to give them the credit?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Soviet invasion or no, the US had already defeated Japan.  Pretty sure we had been telling those fuckers to get into the game much earlier and they waited until we did all the heavy lifting and you want to give them the credit?


Ward Wilson wrote that "after Nagasaki was bombed only four major cities remained which could readily have been hit with atomic weapons", and that the Japanese Supreme Council did not bother to convene after the atomic bombings because they were barely more destructive than previous bombings. He wrote that instead, the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and South Sakhalin removed Japan's last diplomatic and military options for negotiating a _conditional_ surrender, and this is what prompted Japan's surrender. He wrote that attributing Japan's surrender to a "miracle weapon", instead of the start of the Soviet invasion, saved face for Japan and enhanced the United States' world standing.[111]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Ward Wilson wrote that "after Nagasaki was bombed only four major cities remained which could readily have been hit with atomic weapons", and that the Japanese Supreme Council did not bother to convene after the atomic bombings because they were barely more destructive than previous bombings. He wrote that instead, the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and South Sakhalin removed Japan's last diplomatic and military options for negotiating a _conditional_ surrender, and this is what prompted Japan's surrender. He wrote that attributing Japan's surrender to a "miracle weapon", instead of the start of the Soviet invasion, saved face for Japan and enhanced the United States' world standing.[111]


Good thing they surrendered after two.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Good thing they surrendered after two.


A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner and Leó Szilárd, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner and Leó Szilárd, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt.


I read that too.  History has recorded it as the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I read that too.  History has recorded it as the lesser of two evils.


Szilárd, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:



> Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?[113]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Szilárd, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:


I read that too.  I read the whole thing.  Even the side you aren't presenting.

Why is it that the US has never been accused of war crimes by Japan?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I read that too.  I read the whole thing.  Even the side you aren't presenting.
> 
> Why is it that the US has never been accused of war crimes by Japan?


A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use. Led by Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying:



> If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.[115]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use. Led by Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying:


I read that too.  

Are you going to answer my question or not?  Why is it that the US has never been accused of war crimes by Japan?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I read that too.
> 
> Are you going to answer my question or not?  Why is it that the US has never been accused of war crimes by Japan?


Mark Selden writes, "Perhaps the most trenchant contemporary critique of the American moral position on the bomb and the scales of justice in the war was voiced by the Indian jurist Radhabinod Pal, a dissenting voice at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, who balked at accepting the uniqueness of Japanese war crimes. Recalling Kaiser Wilhelm II's account of his duty to bring World War I to a swift end—"everything must be put to fire and sword; men, women and children and old men must be slaughtered and not a tree or house be left standing." Pal observed:



> This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision ... If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Mark Selden writes, "Perhaps the most trenchant contemporary critique of the American moral position on the bomb and the scales of justice in the war was voiced by the Indian jurist Radhabinod Pal, a dissenting voice at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, who balked at accepting the uniqueness of Japanese war crimes. Recalling Kaiser Wilhelm II's account of his duty to bring World War I to a swift end—"everything must be put to fire and sword; men, women and children and old men must be slaughtered and not a tree or house be left standing." Pal observed:


That's Japanese war crimes.  Why hasn't America been charged with war crimes for dropping two nukes?

Pro Tip: history recorded it as the lesser of two evils


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> That's Japanese war crimes.  Why hasn't America been charged with war crimes for dropping two nukes?
> 
> Pro Tip: history recorded it as the lesser of two evils


Mark Selden writes, "Perhaps the most trenchant contemporary critique of the American moral position on the bomb and the scales of justice in the war was voiced by the Indian jurist Radhabinod Pal, a dissenting voice at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, who balked at accepting the uniqueness of Japanese war crimes. Recalling Kaiser Wilhelm II's account of his duty to bring World War I to a swift end—"everything must be put to fire and sword; men, women and children and old men must be slaughtered and not a tree or house be left standing." Pal observed:



> This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision ... If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Mark Selden writes, "Perhaps the most trenchant contemporary critique of the American moral position on the bomb and the scales of justice in the war was voiced by the Indian jurist Radhabinod Pal, a dissenting voice at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, who balked at accepting the uniqueness of Japanese war crimes. Recalling Kaiser Wilhelm II's account of his duty to bring World War I to a swift end—"everything must be put to fire and sword; men, women and children and old men must be slaughtered and not a tree or house be left standing." Pal observed:


Read that too.  Still not seeing the issue.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Vegasgiants said:


> Mark Selden writes, "Perhaps the most trenchant contemporary critique of the American moral position on the bomb and the scales of justice in the war was voiced by the Indian jurist Radhabinod Pal, a dissenting voice at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, who balked at accepting the uniqueness of Japanese war crimes. Recalling Kaiser Wilhelm II's account of his duty to bring World War I to a swift end—"everything must be put to fire and sword; men, women and children and old men must be slaughtered and not a tree or house be left standing." Pal observed:





ding said:


> Read that too.  Still not seeing the issue.


Selden mentions another critique of the nuclear bombing, which he says the U.S. government effectively suppressed for twenty-five years, as worth mention. On 11 August 1945, the Japanese government filed an official protest over the atomic bombing to the U.S. State Department through the Swiss Legation in Tokyo, observing:



> Combatant and noncombatant men and women, old and young, are massacred without discrimination by the atmospheric pressure of the explosion, as well as by the radiating heat which result therefrom. Consequently there is involved a bomb having the most cruel effects humanity has ever known ... The bombs in question, used by the Americans, by their cruelty and by their terrorizing effects, surpass by far gas or any other arm, the use of which is prohibited. Japanese protests against U.S. desecration of international principles of war paired the use of the atomic bomb with the earlier firebombing, which massacred old people, women and children, destroying and burning down Shinto and Buddhist temples, schools, hospitals, living quarters, etc ... They now use this new bomb, having an uncontrollable and cruel effect much greater than any other arms or projectiles ever used to date. This constitutes a new crime against humanity and civilization.[116]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Selden mentions another critique of the nuclear bombing, which he says the U.S. government effectively suppressed for twenty-five years, as worth mention. On 11 August 1945, the Japanese government filed an official protest over the atomic bombing to the U.S. State Department through the Swiss Legation in Tokyo, observing:


And?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Selden concludes, "the Japanese protest correctly pointed to U.S. violations of internationally accepted principles of war with respect to the wholesale destruction of populations".[116]

In 1963, the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in _Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State_ in Japan.[117]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Selden concludes, "the Japanese protest correctly pointed to U.S. violations of internationally accepted principles of war with respect to the wholesale destruction of populations".[116]
> 
> In 1963, the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in _Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State_ in Japan.[117]


So the Japanese government filed a protest with the country they were at war with on 11 August 1945 before the war was over?

Again... why were no charges of war crimes brought against the US by Japan after the war?


----------



## Vegasgiants

In the documentary _The Fog of War_, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recalls General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan,[121] said:



> "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?[122]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> In the documentary _The Fog of War_, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recalls General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan,[121] said:


I'll tell you why Japan never charged thye US with war crimes after the war... because Japan started this war with a sneak attack and when they were obviously defeated wouldn't surrender and kept getting nuked until they did.  In other words, they got exactly what the deserved.  They controlled their destiny and we controlled ours.  This was a war of their making and this was a war of our ending.


----------



## Vegasgiants

As the first combat use of nuclear weapons, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent to some the crossing of a crucial barrier. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, wrote of President Truman: "He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species."[123] Kuznick said the atomic bombing of Japan "was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."[123]


----------



## RetiredGySgt

gipper said:


> I given you many links. It’s not my fault you can’t read.


No you have not and your lying about it isnt the solution to that lack of a link. For one thing you couldnt have linked to any offers since the only 2 that exist one was in Sweden and the Government of Japan sent a cease and desist telegram to them to stop since the Government intended to fight to the end  and the other was an attempt to get the Soviets to broker a ceasefire which the US would never have accepted.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.[105] Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the Potsdam Declaration signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.[106] As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[107] Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:


Yes and what they would have offered was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China with a promise to the Soviets to ally with them against the US.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes and what they would have offered was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China with a promise to the Soviets to ally with them against the US.


That is called a starting place.  Not the end of negotriations


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> That is called a starting place.  Not the end of negotriations


Nope retard it is all they offered. They wanted a ceasefire.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Nope retard it is all they offered. They wanted a ceasefire.


Then we should have counter offered you moronic shot in the head VA headcase


----------



## ding

Nuclear bombs were going to be reality whether or not the US nuked Japan to end the war.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> You are as uneducated as gripper.  Japan is a country, not a race.





Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins
> 
> 
> Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of  impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> origins.osu.edu


^^^


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> No you have not and your lying about it isnt the solution to that lack of a link. For one thing you couldnt have linked to any offers since the only 2 that exist one was in Sweden and the Government of Japan sent a cease and desist telegram to them to stop since the Government intended to fight to the end  and the other was an attempt to get the Soviets to broker a ceasefire which the US would never have accepted.


I did it multiple times years ago. What makes you think you’d get it this time?


----------



## Open Bolt

ding said:


> Good thing they surrendered after two.


We had a lot more atomic bombs on the way.  Japan was only days away from being nuked a third time when they gave up and surrendered.

Kokura Arsenal and Niigata were still on the official atomic target list.

I personally think Yokosuka Arsenal could have used a good atomic bombing as well.  That would have given the Emperor a nice view of a live mushroom cloud.

At some point we were going to start saving up atomic bombs so we could use a barrage of them to clear the way ahead of our invasion.


----------



## DudleySmith

P@triot said:


> You have to realize OB, Unkatore is a piece of shit who defends vicious, oppressive, totalitarian states. He defends China's CCP all the time. And 80 fuck'n years later, he's _still_ crying that his beloved Japanese totalitarian state got exactly what they deserved.



His Dad blew the family's reparations check on Enron stock. Unk is trying to weasel some more out of Uncle Sammy for non-existent trauma.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> We had a lot more atomic bombs on the way.  Japan was only days away from being nuked a third time when they gave up and surrendered.
> 
> Kokura Arsenal and Niigata were still on the official atomic target list.
> 
> I personally think Yokosuka Arsenal could have used a good atomic bombing as well.  That would have given the Emperor a nice view of a live mushroom cloud.
> 
> At some point we were going to start saving up atomic bombs so we could use a barrage of them to clear the way ahead of our invasion.


Wow.   You would have killed every man woman and child in Japan if given the chance


----------



## Stryder50

Open Bolt said:


> We had a lot more atomic bombs on the way.  Japan was only days away from being nuked a third time when they gave up and surrendered.
> 
> Kokura Arsenal and Niigata were still on the official atomic target list.
> 
> I personally think Yokosuka Arsenal could have used a good atomic bombing as well.  That would have given the Emperor a nice view of a live mushroom cloud.
> 
> At some point we were going to start saving up atomic bombs so we could use a barrage of them to clear the way ahead of our invasion.


Not really!
USA atomic/nuclear bomb production rates in 1945 were about 1-2 per month and would remain such for several months to a couple of years after.

In essence, the USA might have had another bomb or two to use later in August of 1945, and one or two bombs per month thereafter for several next months.

The following linked chart gives details on USA nuclear bomb production and those used against Japan are the Mark-I and Mark-III types.  Mark-IV types begin appearing in 1949.

Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons​




__





						List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons
					





					nuclearweaponarchive.org
				



~~~~~~~~~~~~
One might consider using facts and data rather than conjecture and "wishing" when dealing with a subject such as this.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Wow.   You would have killed every man woman and child in Japan if given the chance


You were arguing dropping the bombs didn't do anything to end the war.  Now you are arguing they could have killed every man, woman and child in Japan.  Make up your mind.


----------



## Open Bolt

Stryder50 said:


> Not really!


_"The next bomb of the implosion type had been scheduled to be ready for delivery on the target on the first good weather after 24 August 1945.  We have gained 4 days in manufacture and expect to ship from New Mexico on 12 or 13 August the final components.  Providing there are no unforeseen difficulties in manufacture, in transportation to the theatre or after arrival in the theatre, *the bomb should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August*."_


			http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/67.pdf
		





Stryder50 said:


> USA atomic/nuclear bomb production rates in 1945 were about 1-2 per month and would remain such for several months to a couple of years after.
> In essence, the USA might have had another bomb or two to use later in August of 1945, and one or two bombs per month thereafter for several next months.


_"4. The final components of the first gun type bomb have arrived at Tinian, those of the first implosion type should leave San Francisco by airplane early on 30 July.  I see no reason to change our previous readiness predictions on the first three bombs.  *In September, we should have three or four bombs.*  One of those will be made from 235 material and will have a smaller effectiveness, about two-thirds that of the test type, but by November, we should be able to bring that up to full power.  *There should be either four or three bombs in October,* one of the lesser size.  *In November there should be at least five bombs* and *the rate will rise to seven in December and increase decidedly in early 1946.*  By some time in November, we should have the effectiveness of the 235 implosion type bomb equal to that of the tested plutonium implosion type."_


			http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/45.pdf
		





Stryder50 said:


> The following linked chart gives details on USA nuclear bomb production and those used against Japan are the Mark-I and Mark-III types.  Mark-IV types begin appearing in 1949.
> Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nuclearweaponarchive.org







__





						Section 8.0 The First Nuclear Weapons
					





					nuclearweaponarchive.org
				







Stryder50 said:


> One might consider using facts and data rather than conjecture and "wishing" when dealing with a subject such as this.


One might.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You were arguing dropping the bombs didn't do anything to end the war.  Now you are arguing they could have killed every man, woman and child in Japan.  Make up your mind.


No you are just lying now.  Nuclear bombs can end every war


You are arguing they should be dropped on the first day of battle


----------



## Stryder50

Open Bolt said:


> _"The next bomb of the implosion type had been scheduled to be ready for delivery on the target on the first good weather after 24 August 1945.  We have gained 4 days in manufacture and expect to ship from New Mexico on 12 or 13 August the final components.  Providing there are no unforeseen difficulties in manufacture, in transportation to the theatre or after arrival in the theatre, *the bomb should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August*."_
> 
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/67.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"4. The final components of the first gun type bomb have arrived at Tinian, those of the first implosion type should leave San Francisco by airplane early on 30 July.  I see no reason to change our previous readiness predictions on the first three bombs.  *In September, we should have three or four bombs.*  One of those will be made from 235 material and will have a smaller effectiveness, about two-thirds that of the test type, but by November, we should be able to bring that up to full power.  *There should be either four or three bombs in October,* one of the lesser size.  *In November there should be at least five bombs* and *the rate will rise to seven in December and increase decidedly in early 1946.*  By some time in November, we should have the effectiveness of the 235 implosion type bomb equal to that of the tested plutonium implosion type."_
> 
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/45.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 8.0 The First Nuclear Weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nuclearweaponarchive.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One might.


Well, ... thanks.
Had Japan not surrendered, those production rates would have continued.  Note that it's a slow incremental increase over the span of the next few months.  The USA did not have a huge stockpile to bomb several Japanese cities with in August, or even September of 1945.*

As it was, the production rates were slowed a bit, but would increase once it was known Russia had acquired nuclear bomb tech.

See the chart I linked.

* Note also that only a handful of Japanese cities were spared from the massive fire-bombing campaign targeting so that real effects of use of nuclear bombs could be measured.  Also note that many of the fire-bombings resulted in greater damage and loss of life than either of the nuclear bombings did.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> No you are just lying now.  Nuclear bombs can end every war
> 
> 
> You are arguing they should be dropped on the first day of battle


Aren't you the dude that believed that after 4 years of war with US and the US destroying the Japanese navy, controlling the seas around Japan with their navy and controlling the air over Japan with their carriers and dropping not one nuke but two nukes which completely destroyed two cities, Japan surrendered unconditionally because Russia joined the war?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Aren't you the dude that believed that after 4 years of war with US and the US destroying the Japanese navy, controlling the seas around Japan with their navy and controlling the air over Japan with their carriers and dropping not one nuke but two nukes which completely destroyed two cities, Japan surrendered unconditionally because Russia joined the war?


Arent you the dude who wanted to kill every man woman and child in Japan?


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> This whole post is about me.
> 
> 
> You have completely abandoned the debate
> 
> 
> Now it's all just personal attacks


Well, to be fair, you are an obnoxious jerk who doesn’t understand either history or international law, but continues to argue and insult other posters.


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> Well, to be fair, you are an obnoxious jerk who doesn’t understand either history or international law, but continues to argue and insult other posters.


I accept your concession


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Arent you the dude who wanted to kill every man woman and child in Japan?


Only if that's what it took to make them unconditionally surrender to end the war that they started.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Only if that's what it took to make them unconditionally surrender to end the war that they started.


Holy cow.  That is absolutely disgusting


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Holy cow.  That is absolutely disgusting


Why?  That's exactly what would happened.  Of course no one expected it would have to come to that.  And it didn't because they surrendered after we dropped the second nuclear bomb.

But that was the will of the people.  Japan started the war.  America ended the war.


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> Holy cow.  That is absolutely disgusting


Yet it is reality which you deny and can't accept.
Your delusions run deep!


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> No you are just lying now.  Nuclear bombs can end every war
> 
> 
> You are arguing they should be dropped on the first day of battle


Nuclear bombs might, or might not end any~every war.
Too many variables to gauge here.

Nor should such be used/dropped on "first day of battle" given the extreme range of devastation and radiation effects they could produce, among others.  However, this can vary with the type of nuclear device/bomb/weapon used, and the time and place of use.

Let's consider a current example; the "Islamic War of Jihad Against Infidels~non-Islamic Fundamentalists".

It's possible that the use of a singular bomb/device dropped upon Mecca/Kaaba might invalidate the Koran and foundation of Islamic Jihad and hence "Win the War".  Then again, it might strengthen resolve and energy of the Jihadists and enlarge~prolong the War.  

Whom can say from our current perspective how such might play out ??? !!!

What are the variables and percentages of such a strategy of use ???

Will such be worth the chance or not ???

Then again, there is the matter of tailored nuclear device usage.
Some can be designed, built, used to say enhance the EMP* effect while making minamimunal of destructive and radioactive effects, hence giving the employer a regional to strategic advantage.

*EMP = Electro-Magnetic Pulse Event/Effect.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> Yet it is reality which you deny and can't accept.
> Your delusions run deep!


That is absolutely disgusting that you would kill every man woman and child to get an UNCONDITIONAL surrender


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> That is absolutely disgusting that you would kill every man woman and child to get an UNCONDITIONAL surrender


Only fractionally disgusting compared to your endorsement of Japan's pillaging and raping of several nations and millions of people during the 1930's to mid 1940's in their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" of war starting and destruction.

Only fractionally disgusting compared to your support of Evil, Destruction and Death as engaged in by Japan and other Axis Powers during World War Two. !!!

Why do you Loonie Leftist~Socialist~Communist supporters always support and allow death, destruction , and misery from the Evil tyrannies of humanity but oppose the efforts of others to end such. ???

Persons such as you are the real disgusting dregs of humanity hardly worth the waste of human skin you embody!!!


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> Only fractionally disgusting compared to your endorsement of Japan's pillaging and raping of several nations and millions of people during the 1930's to mid 1940's in their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" of war starting and destruction.
> 
> Only fractionally disgusting compared to your support of Evil, Destruction and Death as engaged in by Japan and other Axis Powers during World War Two. !!!
> 
> Why do you Loonie Leftist~Socialist~Communist supporters always support and allow death, destruction , and misery from the Evil tyrannies of humanity but oppose the efforts of others to end such. ???
> 
> Persons such as you are the real disgusting dregs of humanity hardly worth the waste of human skin you embody!!!


Well since you are lying because I never said any of that I can easily dismiss you and accept your concession


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> Well since you are lying because I never said any of that I can easily dismiss you and accept your concession


You may not have said such "explicitly", but such is strongly implied by your responses and stances.

Try not lying and engaging CYA!

You clearly are a supporter of Evil and inhumanity towards fellow humans!


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> You may not have said such "explicitly", but such is strongly implied by your responses and stances.
> 
> Try not lying and engaging CYA!
> 
> You clearly are a supporter of Evil and inhumanity towards fellow humans!


Well when you strongly implied that you wished we wiped the japanese off the planet naturally I found that genocide disgusting


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> Well when you strongly implied that you wished we wiped the japanese off the planet naturally I found that genocide disgusting


Except I did not imply that and if you had scientific knowledge on scale you think you do, you'd know that one or two atomic bombs of 1945 tech level could not destroy all of the Japanese on the planet.

Also, if you had a clue on my scale of strategic knowledge and applications you'd know that only the limited number of militant leadership of Japan in the 1940's needed to be affected and changed.

However, since you are grossly ignorant of history, science, and knowledge in general, your incompetence and ignorance (stupidity) is completely understandable !!!


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> Except I did not imply that and if you had scientific knowledge on scale you think you do, you'd know that one or two atomic bombs of 1945 tech level could not destroy all of the Japanese on the planet.
> 
> Also, if you had a clue on my scale of strategic knowledge and applications you'd know that only the limited number of militant leadership of Japan in the 1940's needed to be affected and changed.
> 
> However, since you are grossly ignorant of history, science, and knowledge in general, your incompetence and ignorance (stupidity) is completely understandable !!!


Well you get to say what I imply then I get to say what you imply.  See how that works?


Do you still hate the japanese?


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> Well when you strongly implied that you wished we wiped the japanese off the planet naturally I found that genocide disgusting


Meanwhile you seem to fail to find the genocide of the Nazi Germans or the Imperialist Japanese disgusting, which puts in the same disgusting league as they were !!!


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> Well you get to say what I imply then I get to say what you imply.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> Do you still hate the japanese?


How could I when some of my children/grandchildren are part Japanese ???

Keep proving yourself a blatant idiot and dufus !!!


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> Meanwhile you seem to fail to find the genocide of the Nazi Germans or the Imperialist Japanese disgusting, which puts in the same disgusting league as they were !!!


Well you seem to hate the japanese and clearly would like us to wipe them off the planet even today.


Which is disgusting


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> Well you get to say what I imply then I get to say what you imply.  See how that works?
> 
> 
> Do you still hate the japanese?


Except I don't "imply", I specifically state!
Which you fail to do.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> How could I when some of my children/grandchildren are part Japanese ???
> 
> Keep proving yourself a blatant idiot and dufus !!!


Look you want to play this game I can play too


I said or implied NONE of the stuff you said


You are just flat out lying because you lost a debate


Dismissed


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> Except I don't "imply", I specifically state!
> Which you fail to do.


You lost the minute you made it about me  Move on


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> Well you seem to hate the japanese and clearly would like us to wipe them off the planet even today.
> 
> 
> Which is disgusting


Wrong!

But you've already proved you can't think clearly nor express your self honestly, so what you say has no validity !!!


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> Wrong!
> 
> But you've already proved you can't think clearly nor express your self honestly, so what you say has no validity !!!


Play silly games you get it right back


Dismissed


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> Play silly games you get it right back
> 
> 
> Dismissed


No great loss considering the non-sense of the source. !!!


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> No great loss considering the non-sense of the source. !!!


OK.  But I can't support your desire to commit a genocide on present day japan


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> OK.  But I can't support your desire to commit a genocide on present day japan


I didn't say such.

That's your loonie Leftist distortion, to be expected since you can't think clearly nor logically.

Consider repeating grades K-8 to get a basic education you clearly failed to receive.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> I didn't say such.
> 
> That's your loonie Leftist distortion, to be expected since you can't think clearly nor logically.
> 
> Consider repeating grades K-8 to get a basic education you clearly failed to receive.


Well you implied it.....and thats all that matters ....right?


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> OK.  But I can't support your desire to commit a genocide on present day japan


You are wrecking your autoimmune system.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You are wrecking your autoimmune system.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Laughing leads to crying.

Our flight or fight physiology was never intended to be used 24/7 like you are doing.  There's science on it and you are wrecking yours.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Laughing leads to crying.
> 
> Our flight or fight physiology was never intended to be used 24/7 like you are doing.  There's science on it and you are wrecking yours.


I accept your concession


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> I accept your concession


You need to see it that way.

Textbook external locus of control.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> You need to see it that way.
> 
> Textbook external locus of control.


You'll get em next time


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> You'll get em next time


I have no preference for an outcome so I never lose.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I have no preference for an outcome so I never lose.


Dont start crying


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Dont start crying


Why would I?


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Why would I?


What?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Well you implied it.....and thats all that matters ....right?


Look dumb ass he neither said it NOR implied it. That is your delusional ranting.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look dumb ass he neither said it NOR implied it. That is your delusional ranting.


So did I say or imply what he said about me?


Just be honest for once in your life


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> So did I say or imply what he said about me?
> 
> 
> Just be honest for once in your life


You have stated we should have given a settlement short of total defeat to Japan so ya you kinda did.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have stated we should have given a settlement short of total defeat to Japan so ya you kinda did.


You are a flat out liar.  You are a disgrace to everyone who served....like me


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> You are a flat out liar.  You are a disgrace to everyone who served....like me


LOL you deny after all these posts that you advocated we should have settled for less then complete unconditional surrender of Japan? Shall I quote you?


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL you deny after all these posts that you advocated we should have settled for less then complete unconditional surrender of Japan? Shall I quote you?


That is NOT what he said I said

Shall I quote him?


You are a flat out liar


You should be ashamed of yourself


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> That is NOT what he said I said
> 
> Shall I quote him?
> 
> 
> You are a flat out liar
> 
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself


By advocating we settle with Japan short of total defeat you are in effect advocating we forgive their atrocities and genocide. Thats what he said you did.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> By advocating we settle with Japan short of total defeat you are in effect advocating we forgive their atrocities and genocide. Thats what he said you did.


You are a flat out liar and if that is the game you want to play expect it back ten fold


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> You are a flat out liar and if that is the game you want to play expect it back ten fold


Did you or did you not advocate repeatedly we should have settled with Japan short of total defeat? A simple yes or no will do and dont forget we have your posts to refer too.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Did you or did you not advocate repeatedly we should have settled with Japan short of total defeat? A simple yes or no will do and dont forget we have your posts to refer too.


What the hell does that have to do with forgiving atrocities?  How many members of the imperial family were tried for war crimes?


My god you lie


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> What the hell does that have to do with forgiving atrocities?  How many members of the imperial family were tried for war crimes?
> 
> 
> My god you lie


I already explained it to you get a 6 year old to read my response and fill you in,


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> I already explained it to you get a 6 year old to read my response and fill you in,


Yeah you are a liar.  We tried no members of the imperial family for war crimes and I said we should have just done what we actually did....just upfront 


You are a total and complete liar


----------



## ding

^^^ he mad


----------



## Stryder50

Vegasgiants said:


> Yeah you are a liar.  We tried no members of the imperial family for war crimes and I said we should have just done what we actually did....just upfront
> 
> 
> You are a total and complete liar


The Imperial Family were puppets and stooges of the ruling military junta/click.  That is one of the major lessons of the history connected to World War Two in the Pacific.

If you had a real education and understood such, you'd know that.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Stryder50 said:


> The Imperial Family were puppets and stooges of the ruling military junta/click.  That is one of the major lessons of the history connected to World War Two in the Pacific.
> 
> If you had a real education and understood such, you'd know that.


Do you hate all Japanese people?


----------



## Open Bolt

Stryder50 said:


> Had Japan not surrendered, those production rates would have continued.  Note that it's a slow incremental increase over the span of the next few months.  The USA did not have a huge stockpile to bomb several Japanese cities with in August, or even September of 1945.*


If they had not played it safe and built Little Boy just in case implosion did not work, they could have made four implosion cores from Little Boy's uranium.  That would have given us a total of six atomic bombs by the end of August.

Seven more bombs over the course of September and October and then five more bombs in November would have given us another twelve atomic bombs.




Stryder50 said:


> Note also that only a handful of Japanese cities were spared from the massive fire-bombing campaign targeting so that real effects of use of nuclear bombs could be measured.


Kokura Arsenal and Niigata were still on the official atomic target list.

I personally think Yokosuka Arsenal could have used a good atomic bombing as well.  That would have given the Emperor a nice view of a live mushroom cloud.

Ideally Truman would have overruled Stimson and had Kyoto on the atomic target list.

And ideally they would have kept Yokohama on the atomic target list so that it would never have been conventionally bombed.  That as well would have given the Emperor a nice view of a live mushroom cloud.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Open Bolt said:


> If they had not played it safe and built Little Boy just in case implosion did not work, they could have made four implosion cores from Little Boy's uranium.  That would have given us a total of six atomic bombs by the end of August.
> 
> Seven more bombs over the course of September and October and then five more bombs in November would have given us another twelve atomic bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Kokura Arsenal and Niigata were still on the official atomic target list.
> 
> I personally think Yokosuka Arsenal could have used a good atomic bombing as well.  That would have given the Emperor a nice view of a live mushroom cloud.
> 
> Ideally Truman would have overruled Stimson and had Kyoto on the atomic target list.
> 
> And ideally they would have kept Yokohama on the atomic target list so that it would never have been conventionally bombed.  That as well would have given the Emperor a nice view of a live mushroom cloud.


You wish they dropped all seven


----------



## ding

^^^ he still mad


----------



## Vegasgiants

HAHAHAHA


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> You are a flat out liar and if that is the game you want to play expect it back ten fold


What does a leftwing screen beret know about it, anyway?  That's my question.


----------



## candycorn

good lord, is this thread still going?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> What does a leftwing screen beret know about it, anyway?  That's my question.


I know.  He probably wasnt even in the marines.


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> I know.  He probably wasnt even in the marines.


Guys, just so you know,  Vegas never served in the military.  That was found out in the other forum we were both in.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Guys, Vegas never served in the military.  That was found out in the other forum we were both in.


The one where you admitted to being a gay man?  That one?


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> The one where you admitted to being a gay man?  That one?


Oh, I'm not gay.  I'm married with five children.  But why, Vegas,  do you lie about serving in the military?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Oh, I'm not gay.  I'm married with five children.  But why, Vegas,  do you lie about serving in the military?


Oh so now you change your story.  Ok sweetie


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh so now you change your story.  Ok sweetie


I'm just very disappointed you would lie about your military service,  then try to divert the topic by calling me gay.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> I'm just very disappointed you would lie about your military service,  then try to divert the topic by calling me gay.


Dude it's fine if you are gay.  No one cares


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> How many members of the imperial family were tried for war crimes?



None, because as is typical in Japan, the Imperial Family had little to no actual power.

Prince Yashuhito (younger brother of Emperor Showa) was diagnosed with tuberculosis in 1940, and spent most of the war in Japan.  Prince Nobuhito  (third son) was part of the Naval Staff in Tokyo during the war.  The youngest brother was Prince Takahito (youngest son) served in China early on, but was also known as being strongly against the excesses of the Japanese Army, and spent much of the war trying to end the brutalities of the Occupation.

So please tell us, exactly who in the Imperial Family should have been tried?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> None, because as is typical in Japan, the Imperial Family had little to no actual power.
> 
> Prince Yashuhito (younger brother of Emperor Showa) was diagnosed with tuberculosis in 1940, and spent most of the war in Japan.  Prince Nobuhito  (third son) was part of the Naval Staff in Tokyo during the war.  The youngest brother was Prince Takahito (youngest son) served in China early on, but was also known as being strongly against the excesses of the Japanese Army, and spent much of the war trying to end the brutalities of the Occupation.
> 
> So please tell us, exactly who in the Imperial Family should have been tried?


Yet only the emperor could surrender 


Only he had that power


----------



## Mashmont

candycorn said:


> good lord, is this thread still going?


Yeah, I needed to set the record straight about Vegas.  I saw him popping off to a real veteran.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Yeah, I needed to set the record straight about Vegas.  I saw him popping off to a real veteran.


As opposed to you.  Lol

Dont ask dont tell.  Lol


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> None, because as is typical in Japan, the Imperial Family had little to no actual power.
> 
> Prince Yashuhito (younger brother of Emperor Showa) was diagnosed with tuberculosis in 1940, and spent most of the war in Japan.  Prince Nobuhito  (third son) was part of the Naval Staff in Tokyo during the war.  The youngest brother was Prince Takahito (youngest son) served in China early on, but was also known as being strongly against the excesses of the Japanese Army, and spent much of the war trying to end the brutalities of the Occupation.
> 
> So please tell us, exactly who in the Imperial Family should have been tried?


He doesn't actually know anything about this.


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> He doesn't actually know anything about this.


But hes trying to learn


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> Yet only the emperor could surrender



No, the Emperor could not surrender.

Only the Big Six could surrender.  If they refused, all the Emperor could do is smile and follow their directives.

To put it in perspective in a European context, Emperor Showa "Reigned, but did not rule".

If at the end of September 1945 the Big Six were still voting 4-2 to continue the war, the war would have continued.  Even as the third, forth, and later bombs fell on the nation and into November when Operation Olympic started the invasion of Kyushu in November.  You do not seem to get, the Emperor was largely a puppet, and had no actual power.

And yes, I have noticed you have ignored every single factual statement I have made, and continued on your fantasy that Emperor Showa actually "ruled" the nation.  He did not.  He was a "Spiritual Ruler", not unlike the Dali Lama, or Pope.  He had spiritual power, but he spoke through his advisors, and they had the ultimate say.  Hell, he was forbidden by tradition rom saying anything in his own Imperial Council!


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> No, the Emperor could not surrender.
> 
> Only the Big Six could surrender.  If they refused, all the Emperor could do is smile and follow their directives.
> 
> To put it in perspective in a European context, Emperor Showa "Reigned, but did not rule".
> 
> If at the end of September 1945 the Big Six were still voting 4-2 to continue the war, the war would have continued.  Even as the third, forth, and later bombs fell on the nation and into November when Operation Olympic started the invasion of Kyushu in November.  You do not seem to get, the Emperor was largely a puppet, and had no actual power.
> 
> And yes, I have noticed you have ignored every single factual statement I have made, and continued on your fantasy that Emperor Showa actually "ruled" the nation.  He did not.  He was a "Spiritual Ruler", not unlike the Dali Lama, or Pope.  He had spiritual power, but he spoke through his advisors, and they had the ultimate say.  Hell, he was forbidden by tradition rom saying anything in his own Imperial Council!


Nope.  We would NEVER accept a surrender without the emperor. 


He went on the radio to declare surrender 


If he did not surrender the war continued


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> No, the Emperor could not surrender.
> 
> Only the Big Six could surrender.  If they refused, all the Emperor could do is smile and follow their directives.
> 
> To put it in perspective in a European context, Emperor Showa "Reigned, but did not rule".
> 
> If at the end of September 1945 the Big Six were still voting 4-2 to continue the war, the war would have continued.  Even as the third, forth, and later bombs fell on the nation and into November when Operation Olympic started the invasion of Kyushu in November.  You do not seem to get, the Emperor was largely a puppet, and had no actual power.
> 
> And yes, I have noticed you have ignored every single factual statement I have made, and continued on your fantasy that Emperor Showa actually "ruled" the nation.  He did not.  He was a "Spiritual Ruler", not unlike the Dali Lama, or Pope.  He had spiritual power, but he spoke through his advisors, and they had the ultimate say.  Hell, he was forbidden by tradition rom saying anything in his own Imperial Council!


This was actually in a link he was quoting from but never actually referenced or linked.


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> But hes trying to learn


Ding was talking about YOU, screen beret.  Stop pretending his quote was meant for somebody else.  That's a dishonest trick you commonly do.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Ding was talking about YOU, screen beret.  Stop pretending his quote was meant for somebody else.


Settle down gay boy.  Lol


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> He doesn't actually know anything about this.



Oh, that was obvious when he tried to say that Emperor Showa could get on the radio.

Apparently not even knowing that the voice of the Emperor had never been heard on the radio prior to the Golden Voice broadcast.  That even his knowledge of Japanese was so far removed form that of the common people that he actually needed a fricking translator so that the people would know what he had actually said!

That the radio crew had to go to the Imperial Palace to make the recording.  And that without the express permission of the Big Six, that never would have happened.  The Emperor (as had been Emperors for centuries before Showa) were not Emperors as Westerners think of them.  They did not rule, they always spoke through others who made all the decisions.  That did end briefly during what was known as the "Meiji Restoration", when the power of the Tokogawa Daimo was finally purged and Emperor Meiji took actual power.  But that was short lived, as in 1912 he died and Emperor Taisho took the throne.

Who was weak, sickly, and some report possibly having mental or emotional impairments.  Which led the government to resume the previous status of running the nation and pushing the Emperor back into at most an observer of the nation itself.  Which is the state when Emperor Showa assumed the throne in 1926.

The problem is, no matter what he simply refuses to admit that Emperor Showa had no actual power.  He had about as much power during the war as the Pope had in ordering the Italian Armies to stop fighting during WWII.  Except, the Pope could actually speak on the radio.  The Emperor was forbidden from doing so.


----------



## ding

Mashmont said:


> Ding was talking about YOU, screen beret.  Stop pretending his quote was meant for somebody else.  That's a dishonest trick you commonly do.


He was referring to himself in the third person.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Oh, that was obvious when he tried to say that Emperor Showa could get on the radio.
> 
> Apparently not even knowing that the voice of the Emperor had never been heard on the radio prior to the Golden Voice broadcast.  That even his knowledge of Japanese was so far removed form that of the common people that he actually needed a fricking translator so that the people would know what he had actually said!
> 
> That the radio crew had to go to the Imperial Palace to make the recording.  And that without the express permission of the Big Six, that never would have happened.  The Emperor (as had been Emperors for centuries before Showa) were not Emperors as Westerners think of them.  They did not rule, they always spoke through others who made all the decisions.  That did end briefly during what was known as the "Meiji Restoration", when the power of the Tokogawa Daimo was finally purged and Emperor Meiji took actual power.  But that was short lived, as in 1912 he died and Emperor Taisho took the throne.
> 
> Who was weak, sickly, and some report possibly having mental or emotional impairments.  Which led the government to resume the previous status of running the nation and pushing the Emperor back into at most an observer of the nation itself.  Which is the state when Emperor Showa assumed the throne in 1926.
> 
> The problem is, no matter what he simply refuses to admit that Emperor Showa had no actual power.  He had about as much power during the war as the Pope had in ordering the Italian Armies to stop fighting during WWII.  Except, the Pope could actually speak on the radio.  The Emperor was forbidden from doing so.


And yet the emperor did get on the radio


Because only he could surrender


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> Oh, that was obvious when he tried to say that Emperor Showa could get on the radio.
> 
> Apparently not even knowing that the voice of the Emperor had never been heard on the radio prior to the Golden Voice broadcast.  That even his knowledge of Japanese was so far removed form that of the common people that he actually needed a fricking translator so that the people would know what he had actually said!
> 
> That the radio crew had to go to the Imperial Palace to make the recording.  And that without the express permission of the Big Six, that never would have happened.  The Emperor (as had been Emperors for centuries before Showa) were not Emperors as Westerners think of them.  They did not rule, they always spoke through others who made all the decisions.  That did end briefly during what was known as the "Meiji Restoration", when the power of the Tokogawa Daimo was finally purged and Emperor Meiji took actual power.  But that was short lived, as in 1912 he died and Emperor Taisho took the throne.
> 
> Who was weak, sickly, and some report possibly having mental or emotional impairments.  Which led the government to resume the previous status of running the nation and pushing the Emperor back into at most an observer of the nation itself.  Which is the state when Emperor Showa assumed the throne in 1926.
> 
> The problem is, no matter what he simply refuses to admit that Emperor Showa had no actual power.  He had about as much power during the war as the Pope had in ordering the Italian Armies to stop fighting during WWII.  Except, the Pope could actually speak on the radio.  The Emperor was forbidden from doing so.


Exactly.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Oh, that was obvious when he tried to say that Emperor Showa could get on the radio.
> 
> Apparently not even knowing that the voice of the Emperor had never been heard on the radio prior to the Golden Voice broadcast.  That even his knowledge of Japanese was so far removed form that of the common people that he actually needed a fricking translator so that the people would know what he had actually said!
> 
> That the radio crew had to go to the Imperial Palace to make the recording.  And that without the express permission of the Big Six, that never would have happened.  The Emperor (as had been Emperors for centuries before Showa) were not Emperors as Westerners think of them.  They did not rule, they always spoke through others who made all the decisions.  That did end briefly during what was known as the "Meiji Restoration", when the power of the Tokogawa Daimo was finally purged and Emperor Meiji took actual power.  But that was short lived, as in 1912 he died and Emperor Taisho took the throne.
> 
> Who was weak, sickly, and some report possibly having mental or emotional impairments.  Which led the government to resume the previous status of running the nation and pushing the Emperor back into at most an observer of the nation itself.  Which is the state when Emperor Showa assumed the throne in 1926.
> 
> The problem is, no matter what he simply refuses to admit that Emperor Showa had no actual power.  He had about as much power during the war as the Pope had in ordering the Italian Armies to stop fighting during WWII.  Except, the Pope could actually speak on the radio.  The Emperor was forbidden from doing so.


The pope was not the leader of italy.  Lol


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> Nope. We would NEVER accept a surrender without the emperor.
> 
> He went on the radio to declare surrender



Once again, you refuse to accept reality.

Who got on the radio?  Because until that moment, nobody had ever heard his voice on the Radio.

You simply refuse to accept reality.  And I can't help you understand it, nor do you seem to take any effort to try and learn the truth.

Tell me, how do we know that was the Emperor?  Point out to me a single time prior to then he said anything on the radio.

It could have been Momotaro for all we know.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Once again, you refuse to accept reality.
> 
> Who got on the radio?  Because until that moment, nobody had ever heard his voice on the Radio.
> 
> You simply refuse to accept reality.  And I can't help you understand it, nor do you seem to take any effort to try and learn the truth.
> 
> Tell me, how do we know that was the Emperor?  Point out to me a single time prior to then he said anything on the radio.
> 
> It could have been Momotaro for all we know.


You deny the emperor was the one who surrendered on the radio?????



Holy cow!!!!!!  Lol


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> The pope was not the leader of italy. Lol



And Emperor Showa was not the true leader of Japan.

You just do not get it.  His authority came from Shinto.  Which placed him as the "Head of the Religion", akin to the Pope with Catholics, or the ruler of England for the Anglican Church.

He had no temporal power.  None.  That had not existed for almost a thousand years, other than during the brief reign of Emperor Meiji decades before.  He was a figurehead, his Cabinet spoke for him, he did not speak for himself.

He had no power, the "Physical world" was not of his concern, he was the intermediator  between the people and the Gods.  The Gods spoke to him, he spoke to the Cabinet (if they were ever deadlocked), then they spoke to the people.

As I say over and over, you completely fail to grasp this simple idea.  He was not Napoleon, he was a guy in robes that sat behind a screen and did what his advisors told him to do.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> And Emperor Showa was not the true leader of Japan.
> 
> You just do not get it.  His authority came from Shinto.  Which placed him as the "Head of the Religion", akin to the Pope with Catholics, or the ruler of England for the Anglican Church.
> 
> He had no temporal power.  None.  That had not existed for almost a thousand years, other than during the brief reign of Emperor Meiji decades before.  He was a figurehead, his Cabinet spoke for him, he did not speak for himself.
> 
> He had no power, the "Physical world" was not of his concern, he was the intermediator  between the people and the Gods.  The Gods spoke to him, he spoke to the Cabinet (if they were ever deadlocked), then they spoke to the people.
> 
> As I say over and over, you completely fail to grasp this simple idea.  He was not Napoleon, he was a guy in robes that sat behind a screen and did what his advisors told him to do.


Yet only the emperor could surrender 


Facts are stubborn things


----------



## Mashmont

ding said:


> He was referring to himself in the third person.


I think so.


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> You deny the emperor was the one who surrendered on the radio?????



Only because the Big Six were deadlocked, and for the first time ever in the entire history of the Showa Era (which started in 1901) actually had an actual vote in how his government was run.

If they were not deadlocked and the vote was 4-2, the war would have continued.  No matter what he wanted.

*Because the Emperor had no power.*

And I do not deny that, that is your idiocy talking.

Hell, his Japanese was so archaic that he needed a translator!

Tell me, how much do you know of Japanese culture and history?  Because in case you did not notice, I speak of actual people, eras, and events.  You just scream nonsense.  Which is obvious to anybody that has an even superficial knowledge of Japan.  Even an Otaku knows more of Japan than you do.

Oh, and technically, The Emperor never surrendered.  He simply said they would accept Potsdam.  Which in itself never demanded a surrender.



> We have ordered our government to communicate to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.



And notice, that is the closest he ever came to saying "surrender".  He never said "surrender", simply that he accepted the declaration.  Which also never demanded a surrender.

You are so far from the truth, you have no idea.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Only because the Big Six were deadlocked, and for the first time ever in the entire history of the Showa Era (which started in 1901) actually had an actual vote in how his government was run.
> 
> If they were not deadlocked and the vote was 4-2, the war would have continued.  No matter what he wanted.
> 
> *Because the Emperor had no power.*
> 
> And I do not deny that, that is your idiocy talking.
> 
> Hell, his Japanese was so archaic that he needed a translator!
> 
> Tell me, how much do you know of Japanese culture and history?  Because in case you did not notice, I speak of actual people, eras, and events.  You just scream nonsense.  Which is obvious to anybody that has an even superficial knowledge of Japan.  Even an Otaku knows more of Japan than you do.


Yet the big six did not surrender 


Only the emperor could do that


Only he had that power


----------



## ding




----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> Yet the big six did not surrender
> 
> 
> Only the emperor could do that



Then tell me, exactly when did he "surrender".


There is the actual speech.  Kindly point to me the minute and second when he "surrendered".


----------



## ding

Bam!


----------



## Rigby5

Dayton3 said:


> If the Japanese were "defenseless" they would not be shooting at Americans any longer.



They were not shooting at us.
Why do you think we could send in a lone B-29 and not have it get shot down?
That is because they had already run out of planes, fuel, and pilots.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Then tell me, exactly when did he "surrender".
> 
> 
> There is the actual speech.  Kindly point to me the minute and second when he "surrendered".


Please tell me you are kidding


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


>



This is the problem when people only took High School history, and think that told them everything they need to know.

I have studied this war for over 40 years, and my late uncle was actually was a teacher and had a Masters in "Oriental History", specifically in the Showa era.  And before he died just over a year ago, we had a great many talks about this very subject.  And even though I do not have a degree like he did, I impressed him with my knowledge and understanding of the Era.  I even took him aback when he first heard me call him the "Showa Emperor".  As I was actually living in Japan at the end of the Showa Era, and at the start of the Heisei Era (Emperor Akihito for those not aware of Japanese naming).

We are now under Emperor Naruhito, who will be known as Emperor Reiwa once he passes


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> Please tell me you are kidding



No, I am not kidding.  Where exactly did he "surrender"?


----------



## Rigby5

Open Bolt said:


> Not before the Soviets declared war.
> 
> Up until that point Japan was trying to secure Soviet aid to help them end the war in a draw instead of surrendering.



That is ridiculously stupid.
The Japanese hated the Russians.
They had just fought the Russo Sino war not long before, and were total enemies.
The Japanese never considered the Russians as being able to help them negotiate any sort of better peace than just surrendering.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> No, I am not kidding.  Where exactly did he "surrender"?


We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration [Potsdam Declaration].

I cant believe you never even read the speech


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration [Potsdam Declaration].



And now kindly tell me where that ever demanded that they surrender?

And how he could have even given that speech, if the Big Six did not let him give it.

As I have been saying over and over, your knowledge of this is superficial at best.


----------



## Open Bolt

Rigby5 said:


> They were not shooting at us.
> Why do you think we could send in a lone B-29 and not have it get shot down?


How did Japan manage to chase the second atomic bomb away from Kokura Arsenal?




Rigby5 said:


> That is because they had already run out of planes, fuel, and pilots.


Japan had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading forces.




Rigby5 said:


> That is ridiculously stupid.


I know.  But it is what Japan was doing.




Rigby5 said:


> The Japanese hated the Russians.
> They had just fought the Russo Sino war not long before, and were total enemies.


Nonetheless, Japan was trying to enlist Soviet aid in ending the war in a draw so Japan could escape it without surrendering.




Rigby5 said:


> The Japanese never considered the Russians as being able to help them negotiate any sort of better peace than just surrendering.


That is incorrect.  Japan thought the Soviets could help them to end the war in a draw so Japan could escape it without surrendering.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect. Japan thought the Soviets could help them to end the war in a draw so Japan could escape it without surrendering.



The problem here is that so many idiots can not comprehend the difference between an "Armistice" and a "Surrender".

An Armistice is a truce, a cease-fire.  That is what Japan wanted.  Ultimately, with the lines drawn back to those of mid-1941, but still in their favor.

What the Allies wanted was for Japan to surrender all occupied territories, and to remove their capability to start another major conflict.

The biggest problem, is as so many who do not understand, they are not the same.  WWI did not end in a surrender of Germany, it ended in an armistice.  That is why it is called "Armistice Day", and not "Surrender Day". 

However, by that time the "German Empire" and the "Austrian Empire" had literally ceased to exist.  So what started as an armistice ended up being a surrender.  For a more realistic example of an armistice, look no farther than the Korean War.  The "Active War" ended with an armistice in 1953, but technically the two nations are still at war.  There has never been a peace treaty between the two, and as recently as 2010 North Korea was still attacking South Korea.


If Japan had gotten what they wanted, we might still be technically at war with them.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> And now kindly tell me where that ever demanded that they surrender?
> 
> And how he could have even given that speech, if the Big Six did not let him give it.
> 
> As I have been saying over and over, your knowledge of this is superficial at best.


You make me laugh


----------



## ding

The winner by knockout.... Mushroom


----------



## Vegasgiants

Those who oppose the bombings argue it was militarily unnecessary,[3] inherently immoral, a war crime, or a form of state terrorism.[4] Critics believe a naval blockade and conventional bombings would have forced Japan to surrender unconditionally.[5] Some critics believe Japan was more motivated to surrender by the Soviet Union's invasion of Manchuria and other Japanese-held areas.[6][7]


----------



## ding

mikegriffith1 said:


> Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.


No one ever claimed it was moral.  Just that it was the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Vegasgiants

In 1963, the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in _Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State_ in Japan.[117] On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found, "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war."[118]

In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923[119] and was therefore illegal.[12


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> In 1963, the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in _Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State_ in Japan.[117] On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found, "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war."[118]
> 
> In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923[119] and was therefore illegal.[12


What did the japanese court say about the Rape of Nanking?
Or the forced prostitution of Comfort Women?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> What did the japanese court say about the Rape of Nanking?
> Or the forced prostitution of Comfort Women?


Horrible atrocities.  I dont defend what japan did in the slightest


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Horrible atrocities.  I dont defend what japan did in the slightest


But typically all the fuss by you has been about a command decision that ended the war and brought japanese criminals to justice


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> But typically all the fuss by you has been about a command decision that ended the war and brought japanese criminals to justice


I dont think the women and children of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were war criminals


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont think the women and children of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were war criminals


Interestingly, the only nuclear attack in history was launched by Democrats.  They have no regard for human life whatsoever.  They're butchers.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Interestingly, the only nuclear attack in history was launched by Democrats.


Fascinating


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> Fascinating


Also horrific.  But that's what the left is.


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont think the women and children of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were war criminals


Or Berlin, Hamberg, or London?

war is a dirty business and the US didnt start it

Japan did


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Also horrific.  But that's what the left is.


I'm glad you agree the bombs were horrific.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> Or Berlin, Hamberg, or London?
> 
> war is a dirty business and the US didnt start it
> 
> Japan did


Not relevant to the point


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Not relevant to the point


I disagree

using the atomic bomb on japan saved lives


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> I disagree
> 
> using the atomic bomb on japan saved lives


Not according to our military leaders


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Not according to our military leaders


Some military leaders but not all


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> Some military leaders but not all


Name a US general or admiral that agrees with you and provide his quote


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Name a US general or admiral that agrees with you and provide his quote


I cant at this moment since all the sources on the internet are anti

In classic “man bites dog” journalism the historians only mention dissenters

I doubt if they even bothered to search for a balanced opinion

yes japan was defeated militarily

But without their surrender an invasion would have occurred that would have killed far more Americans and Japanese


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> I cant at this moment since all the sources on the internet are anti
> 
> In classic “man bites dog” journalism the historians only mention dissenters
> 
> I doubt if they even bothered to search for a balanced opinion
> 
> yes japan was defeated militarily
> 
> But without their surrender an invasion would have occurred that would have killed far more Americans and Japanese


I have searched for every opinion I can find


The consensus is clear 


Our military leaders thought the bomb was not necessary


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> I have searched for every opinion I can find
> 
> 
> The consensus is clear
> 
> 
> Our military leaders thought the bomb was not necessary


Not so

you have only offered 2 or three military men who opposed the bombing

and all assume that an invasion was unnecessary

but without immediate surrender of japan what would have happened if they didnt surrender ?

the consequences of a US invasion are horrific

But the consequences of not ending the war sooner are worse

would korea be better off as a communist country? 

How about japan as a divided nation half communist and half free?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> Not so
> 
> you have only offered 2 or three military men who opposed the bombing
> 
> and all assume that an invasion was unnecessary
> 
> but without immediate surrender of japan what would have happened if they didnt surrender ?
> 
> the consequences of a US invasion are horrific
> 
> But the consequences of not ending the war sooner are worse
> 
> would korea be better off as a communist country?
> 
> How about japan as a divided nation half communist and half free?


I have offered 7.

Lemay said just wait 2 weeks.  Actually we could have just waited 3 days for the Russian invasion

Our military leaders were pretty clear that an a invasion was unnecessary 


Surrender was inevitable


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> I have offered 7.
> 
> Lemay said just wait 2 weeks.  Actually we could have just waited 3 days for the Russian invasion
> 
> Our military leaders were pretty clear that an a invasion was unnecessary
> 
> 
> Surrender was inevitable


Militarily japan was defeated

which is all military leaders like lemay were qualified to comment on

but the japanese knew that also and it didnt matter to them

they planned to fight on no matter what

not even two atomic bombs changed their mind about that


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> Militarily japan was defeated
> 
> which is all military leaders like lemay were qualified to comment on
> 
> but the japanese knew that also and it didnt matter to them
> 
> they planned to fight on no matter what
> 
> not even two atomic bombs changed their mind about that


It is your opinion that the bombs were necessary for surrender 


I have presented expert opinion from the people who knew the situation best in japan at the time


I will go with their opinion


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Name a US general or admiral that agrees with you and provide his quote


Again dumb FUCK those that agreed had no reason to make a statement.


----------



## gipper

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again dumb FUCK those that agreed had no reason to make a statement.


Please stop posting here. You add nothing.


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> Not according to our military leaders


Military leaders were the ones who had the bombs dropped, genius.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again dumb FUCK those that agreed had no reason to make a statement.


You're a disgrace.

If you served you at least learned right from wrong


Now to be exposed as a flat out liar you have lost all credibility 

You are dismissed


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Military leaders were the ones who had the bombs dropped, genius.


Which ones?  Name them


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> Which ones?  Name them


How about the CIC?  lol.  But I guess a non-vet like yourself wouldn't think of that.


----------



## gipper

Mashmont said:


> Military leaders were the ones who had the bombs dropped, genius.


Thats new. I thought Truman gave the order to drop the two bombs. Do you have any proof to back your assertion that military leaders gave the order?





lmfao


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> How about the CIC?  lol.


How about him?


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> How about him?


LOL.  Cat got your tongue?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> LOL.  Cat got your tongue?


Is that another gay reference?  Lol


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> I'm glad you agree the bombs were horrific.


I do agree with that.


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> It is your opinion that the bombs were necessary for surrender
> 
> 
> I have presented expert opinion from the people who knew the situation best in japan at the time
> 
> 
> I will go with their opinion


You have presented opinions from some 
experts at the time

none whom can say what would have happened without the bomb

I have tried to fill in that question for you and its not a pretty picture


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> You have presented opinions from some
> experts at the time
> 
> none whom can say what would have happened without the bomb
> 
> I have tried to fill in that question for you and its not a pretty picture


Well they were the BEST experts available. 


I hold their opinion in high regard


You do not


----------



## Mashmont

Had Republicans dropped the bomb,  every Aug 6 and 9,  we'd have worldwide demonstrations and protests, people wearing skeleton suits, etc.   But since it was a Democrat,  not a peep is said.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Had Republicans dropped the bomb,  every Aug 6 and 9,  we'd have worldwide demonstrations and protests, people wearing skeleton suits, etc.   But since it was a Democrat,  not a peep is said.


You gay guys just make stuff up


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Well they were the BEST experts available.
> 
> 
> I hold their opinion in high regard
> 
> 
> You do not


I do value their opinion

But not so much as to ignore all the other factors surrounding that decision

such as suspending 1 million US soldiers in limbo for weeks or months while hirohito makes up his mind

or opening the door for a joint occupation with the Soviets of japan

plus the total loss of korea

and thats assuming an invasion was not needed as lemay thought at the tome


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> I do value their opinion
> 
> But not so much as to ignore all the other factors surrounding that decision
> 
> such as suspending 1 million in limbo while hirohito makes up his mind
> 
> or opening the door for a joint occupation with the Soviets of japan
> 
> plus the total loss of korea
> 
> and thats assuming an invasion was not needed as lemay thought at the tome


I think waiting 3 days for the Russian invasion is not too much to ask


But truman did not want a quick surrender....he had a message for Russia first


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> I think waiting 3 days for the Russian invasion is not too much to ask
> 
> 
> But truman did not want a quick surrender....he had a message for Russia first


The wait could have been weeks or months

the generals running japan were unwilling to surrender


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> The wait could have been weeks or months
> 
> the generals running japan were unwilling to surrender


Or it could have been 3 days.  Japan surrendered as soon as it found out about the Russian invasion 


Why not just wait those three days?


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Or it could have been 3 days.  Japan surrendered as soon as it found out about the Russian invasion
> 
> 
> Why not just wait those three days?


Why should the russian invasion of manchuria impress the japanese?

the Code of Bushido still applied


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> Why should the russian invasion of manchuria impress the japanese?
> 
> the Code of Bushido still applied


And yet they surrendered right after the Russian invasion.


The emperor surrendered....despite the code of bushido


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Well they were the BEST experts available.
> 
> 
> I hold their opinion in high regard
> 
> 
> You do not


Again RETARD not the best none of them had direct fighting Knowledge of the Japanese soldier or Marine.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again RETARD not the best none of them had direct fighting Knowledge of the Japanese soldier or Marine.


You are dismissed marine


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> And yet they surrendered right after the Russian invasion.
> 
> 
> The emperor surrendered....despite the code of bushido


If Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not force Japan to surrender then why did russia invading manchuria force them to?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Or it could have been 3 days.  Japan surrendered as soon as it found out about the Russian invasion
> 
> 
> Why not just wait those three days?


They did no such thing, if they were afraid of the Soviets why did they fight them for a month and why did the GOVERNMENT of Japan REFUSE to surrender? Again RETARD the only reason Japan surrendered to the US was that the Emperor over rode the Government which DID NOT VOTE to surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> If Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not force Japan to surrender then why did russia invading manchuria force then to?


Because japan held out hope that russia would intercede on its behalf to negotiate terms.  Japan knew that russia hated America and hoped they would at least be part of the negotiations 


The invasion ended that


----------



## Mashmont

Mashmont said:


> Had Republicans dropped the bomb,  every Aug 6 and 9,  we'd have worldwide demonstrations and protests, people wearing skeleton suits, etc.   But since it was a Democrat,  not a peep is said.


Yeah, so Truman vaporizes hundreds of thousands,  but the hypocritical left doesn't lay a glove on him.  Leftwing history authors instead treat Truman as a tough-minded independent no-nonsense midwestern values leader.   Notice not one leftwinger in here is condemns Truman.  Remember how the left absolutely crucified George W. Bush for war atrocities, even though Bush did everything possible to avoid them.   Remember the silly Gitmo furor?  Remember their handwringing over waterboarding Islamic terrorist leaders in order to extract critical information?  As I said, had Trump, Bush, or Ike dropped the bomb,  they and the right would be absolutely crucified every August 6 and 9.  Worldwide annual protests.  The take-home here is that the left doesn't care one iota about human loss of life.  They were silent as the leftwing atheists murdered 150 million in the last century.  They are silent at the 73 million _annual _abortions in the world, they don't care about genocide of Christian in the Muslim worlds, and they don't care that blacks kill 15,000 other blacks in the US each year.  What killings are the left "outraged" about?  The relatively few blacks who are killed by white cops.  That's it! 

  Listening to leftwingers mewl about Nagasaki while not condemning Truman in no uncertain terms illustrates their true goal...which is to hammer America and conservatives.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> They did no such thing, if they were afraid of the Soviets why did they fight them for a month and why did the GOVERNMENT of Japan REFUSE to surrender? Again RETARD the only reason Japan surrendered to the US was that the Emperor over rode the Government which DID NOT VOTE to surrender.


You are dismissed son


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> You are dismissed son


You can pretend all you want you lost and can not accept the FACTS as presented.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can pretend all you want you lost and can not accept the FACTS as presented.


You got caught flat out lying.  Until you admit your error you are dismissed


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Because japan held out hope that russia would intercede on its behalf to negotiate terms.  Japan knew that russia hated America and hoped they would at least be part of the negotiations
> 
> 
> The invasion ended that


You are still overlooking the Code of Bushido that was very real to japanese military officers

and you are trying assign rationality to the japanese that didnt exist


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> You are still overlooking the Code of Bushido that was very real to japanese military officers
> 
> and you are trying assign rationality to the japanese that didnt exist


Japanese military officers did not surrender.  In fact they tried to stop him with a coup


Only the emperor could surrender.....and he did


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Vegas does this in every thread, every forum.  He was booted out of the last forum he was in.  I know, because I saw it happen.  Wonder why he suddenly appeared on the scene here six days ago?  Wonder no more.
> 
> Just so everybody knows.


You mad because you admitted you had gay sex in college but now love to attack gay people 


I called you out on it


----------



## ding

Japanese Navy Admiral: The US has destroyed our navy.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Air Force General: The US has destroyed our air force.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Navy Admiral: The US has control of the seas surrounding Japan.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Air Force General: The US has control of the air over Japan.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Army General: The US has just unleashed a new technology - a nuclear bomb - that completely wiped out Hiroshima

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Army General: The US just dropped another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki which wiped Nagasaki off of the face of the earth.

Emperor: No problem

Japanese Army General: The Russians just announced they are sending their navy which is just a dinghy to invade Japan.

Emperor: The Russians are coming! Holy shit balls! Really! The Russians! Holy Fuck we better surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> You mad because you admitted you had gay sex in college but now love to attack gay people
> 
> 
> I called you out on it


You will have to provide a link for that

and I doubt if you can


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> You will have to provide a link for that
> 
> and I doubt if you can


I dont think you can link to other forums on here


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


Link not found


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> Link not found


Happy to help.  Reference 91 for original source









						Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants: But but but but... I said the Russians were going to intercede on Japan's behalf...

ding:  Really?  The Russians that had been warring with Japan since 1904?  

Vegasgiants:  Yes, those Russians

ding:  Why would they do that?

Vegasgiants: because they were going to get something for it or they are just really nice guys.

ding: Yes, Russians are known for being nice.  That's what they are best known for.  So why would we let Russia swoop in and benefit from our being sneak attacked by Japan and fighting a bloody war in the Pacific on our own for four years?

Vegasgiants:  I don't have to answer your questions.

ding:  You are partially right, you don't have answers to my questions.


----------



## Vegasgiants

The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> You mad because you admitted you had gay sex in college but now love to attack gay people
> 
> 
> I called you out on it


See what I mean?  Same trolling.  24 hours a day.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> See what I mean?  Same trolling.  24 hours a day.


Dude really it's fine if you are gay.  You may not even be gay....but you probably are


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Happy to help.  Reference 91 for original source
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


You should read it yourself

The reference makes a strong argument for using the atomic bomb


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> You should tead ot yourself
> 
> ot makes a strong argument for using the atomic bomb


It offers both sides of the debate.  I agree


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]


President Truman to Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff:  I disagree.  Drop the fucking bomb.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Truman was a putz


----------



## ding

Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was *purely military*. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President.





__





						The Decision to Drop the Bomb [ushistory.org]
					





					www.ushistory.org


----------



## ding

The President rejected a demonstration of the atomic bomb to the Japanese leadership. He knew there was no guarantee the Japanese would surrender if the test succeeded, and he felt that a failed demonstration would be worse than none at all. Even the scientific community failed to foresee the awful effects of RADIATION SICKNESS. Truman saw little difference between atomic bombing Hiroshima and FIRE BOMBING Dresden or Tokyo.





__





						The Decision to Drop the Bomb [ushistory.org]
					





					www.ushistory.org


----------



## Vegasgiants

Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb - History
					

Critics argument many reasons against dropping the atomic bomb, pointing to international law, the impending surrender of Japan, and other reasons




					www.historyonthenet.com


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb - History
> 
> 
> Critics argument many reasons against dropping the atomic bomb, pointing to international law, the impending surrender of Japan, and other reasons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historyonthenet.com


The ethical debate over the decision to drop the atomic bomb will never be resolved. *The bombs did, however, bring an end to the most destructive war in history.* The Manhattan Project that produced it demonstrated the possibility of how a nation's resources could be mobilized.





__





						The Decision to Drop the Bomb [ushistory.org]
					





					www.ushistory.org


----------



## Vegasgiants

Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb — Argument 1: The Bomb Was Made For Defense Only​


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb — Argument 1: The Bomb Was Made For Defense Only​


What Did Harry S Truman Have to Say About His Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb?​At the time, the president seemed conflicted over his decision.  The day after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, Truman received a telegram from Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia, encouraging the president to use as many atomic bombs as possible on Japan, claiming the American people believed “that we should continue to strike the Japanese until they are brought groveling to their knees.”  Truman responded, “I know that Japan is a terribly cruel and uncivilized nation in warfare but I can't bring myself to believe that because they are beasts, we should ourselves act in that same manner.  For myself I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the ‘pigheadedness’ of the leaders of a nation, and, for your information, I am not going to do it unless absolutely necessary.”

On August 9, the day the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, Truman received a telegram from Samuel McCrea Cavert, a Protestant clergyman, who pleaded with the president to stop the bombing “before any further devastation by atomic bomb is visited upon her [Japan’s] people.”  Two days later, Truman replied, “The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.  When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.”

Looking back, President Truman never shirked personal responsibility for his decision, but neither did he apologize.  He asserted that he would not use the bomb in later conflicts, such as Korea.  Nevertheless, given the same circumstances and choices that confronted him in Japan in 1945, he said he would do exactly the same thing.





__





						Harry S Truman’s Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (U.S. National Park Service)
					






					www.nps.gov


----------



## Vegasgiants

The origins of the Manhattan Project go back to 1939, when Hungarian-born physicist Leo Szilard, who had moved to the U.S. in 1938 to conduct research at Columbia University, became convinced of the feasibility of using nuclear chain reactions to create new, powerful bombs. German scientists had just conducted a successful nuclear fission experiment, and based on those results, Szilard was able to demonstrate that uranium was capable of producing a nuclear chain reaction.  Szilard noted that Germany had stopped the exportation of uranium from Czechoslovakian mines which they had taken over in 1938.


He feared that Germany was trying to build an atomic bomb, while the United States was sitting idle.  Although WWII had not yet started, Germany was clearly a threat, and if the Germans had a monopoly on the atomic bomb, it could be deployed against anyone, including the United States, without warning. Szilard worked with Albert Einstein, whose celebrity gave him access to the president, to produce a letter informing Roosevelt of the situation.  Their warning eventually resulted in the Manhattan Project.  Bomb opponents argue that the atomic bomb was built as a defensive weapon, not an offensive one.  It was intended to be a deterrent, to make Germany or any other enemy think twice before using such a weapon against the United States.  To bolster their argument, these critics point out that ever since WWII, the weapon has been used only as a deterrent.










						Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb - History
					

Critics argument many reasons against dropping the atomic bomb, pointing to international law, the impending surrender of Japan, and other reasons




					www.historyonthenet.com


----------



## ding




----------



## ding

It was heavy burden to bear.  Speaking of himself as president, Truman said, “And he alone, in all the world, must say Yes or No to that awesome, ultimate question, ‘Shall we drop the bomb on a living target?’”





__





						Harry S Truman’s Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (U.S. National Park Service)
					






					www.nps.gov


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The origins of the Manhattan Project go back to 1939, when Hungarian-born physicist Leo Szilard, who had moved to the U.S. in 1938 to conduct research at Columbia University, became convinced of the feasibility of using nuclear chain reactions to create new, powerful bombs. German scientists had just conducted a successful nuclear fission experiment, and based on those results, Szilard was able to demonstrate that uranium was capable of producing a nuclear chain reaction.  Szilard noted that Germany had stopped the exportation of uranium from Czechoslovakian mines which they had taken over in 1938.
> 
> 
> He feared that Germany was trying to build an atomic bomb, while the United States was sitting idle.  Although WWII had not yet started, Germany was clearly a threat, and if the Germans had a monopoly on the atomic bomb, it could be deployed against anyone, including the United States, without warning. Szilard worked with Albert Einstein, whose celebrity gave him access to the president, to produce a letter informing Roosevelt of the situation.  Their warning eventually resulted in the Manhattan Project.  Bomb opponents argue that the atomic bomb was built as a defensive weapon, not an offensive one.  It was intended to be a deterrent, to make Germany or any other enemy think twice before using such a weapon against the United States.  To bolster their argument, these critics point out that ever since WWII, the weapon has been used only as a deterrent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb - History
> 
> 
> Critics argument many reasons against dropping the atomic bomb, pointing to international law, the impending surrender of Japan, and other reasons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historyonthenet.com


Less than two weeks after being sworn in as president, Harry S. Truman received a long report from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. “Within four months,” it began, “we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history.” Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted from the interplay of his temperament and several other factors, including his perspective on the war objectives defined by his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the expectations of the American public, an assessment of the possibilities of achieving a quick victory by other means, and the complex American relationship with the Soviet Union. *Although in later decades there was considerable debate about whether the bombings were ethically justified, virtually all of America’s political and military leadership, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman’s decision was correct.*









						The decision to use the atomic bomb
					

Less than two weeks after being sworn in as president, Harry S. Truman received a long report from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. “Within four months,” it began, “we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history.” Truman’s decision to use the...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## Vegasgiants

Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb — Argument 3: Use of the Atomic Bombs Was Racially Motivated​Opponents of President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb argue that racism played an important role in the decision; that had the bomb been ready in time it never would have been used against Germany. All of America’s enemies were stereotyped and caricatured in home front propaganda, but there was a clear difference in the nature of that propaganda.  Although there were crude references to Germans as “krauts,” and Italians as “Tonies” or “spaghettis,” the vast majority of ridicule was directed at their political leadership.  Hitler, Nazis, and Italy’s Mussolini were routinely caricatured, but the German and Italian people weren’t.

By contrast, anti-Japanese racism in American society targeted the Japanese as a race of people and demonstrated a level of hatred comparable with Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda.  The Japanese were universally caricatured as having huge buck teeth, massive fangs dripping with saliva, and monstrous thick glasses through which they leered with squinty eyes. They were further dehumanized as being snakes, cockroaches, and rats, and their entire culture was mocked, including language, customs, and religious beliefs. Anti-Japanese imagery was everywhere—in Bugs Bunny cartoons, popular music, postcards, children’s toys, magazine advertisements, and in a wide array of novelty items ranging from ashtrays to “Jap Hunting License” buttons.  Even Tarzan, in one of the last novels written by his creator Edgar Rice Burroughs, spent time in the Pacific hunting and killing Japs.  Numerous songs advocated killing all Japanese.  The popular novelty hit, “Remember Pearl Harbor” by Carson Robison, for example, urges Americans to “wipe the Jap from the map.”  It continues:

_Remember how we used to call them our “little brown brothers?”
What a laugh that turned out to be
Well, we can all thank God that we’re not related
To that yellow scum of the sea
They talked of peace, and of friendship
We found out just what all that talk was worth
All right, they’ve asked for it, and now they’re going to get it
We’ll blow every one of them right off of the face of the Earth_

Americans didn’t like Mussolini, Hitler, and Nazis, but many hated the Japanese race.  The official magazine of the US Marine Corps, The Leatherneck, in May 1945 called the Japanese a “pestilence,” and called for “a giant task of extermination.” The American historian Steven Ambrose, a child during the war, has said that because of the propaganda, he grew up thinking that the only good Jap was a dead Jap.  That hatred began with Pearl Harbor and increased when news broke of the Bataan Death March, and with each act of defiance against America’s “island-hopping” campaign.  Killing became too easy, and the dehumanizing of the enemy commonplace. Some American soldiers in the Pacific sent home to their girlfriends the skulls of Japanese soldiers, to be displayed on their desks at work. American soldiers did not send home Nazi skulls as trophies or sweetheart gifts. In 1944 a US Congressman presented President Roosevelt with a letter-opener purportedly made from the arm bone of a Japanese soldier.

American racism led to a failure to distinguish between the Japanese government, dominated by hard-line militarists, and the Japanese civilian who was caught up in their government’s war.  Racists viewed all Japanese as threats not because of their political education, but because of their genetics. As further evidence, bomb opponents point to US policy toward the Japanese-Americans living in California at the time.  They were rounded up, denied their basic liberties under the Constitution (even though many of them were American citizens), and sent to isolated camps in the deserts, surrounded by barbed wire, until the war’s end.

Nothing on this scale was done to the Germans during WWII, or even during the First World War, when there were millions of German and Austrian immigrants and their children living in the United States. In May 1944 Life magazine reported on the hardships of George Yamamoto, a Japanese-American who had immigrated to the US in 1920 at the age of 17 to work on his family’s farm. In 1942 Mr. Yamamoto worked at a fish market, ran a sporting goods store, and was a solid member of his community, along with his wife and children.

They were interned, but Mr. Yamamoto applied for a relocation program, was cleared by the US government as loyal and trustworthy, and was packed off to Delaware to find work. He was run out of town before he could even start, and was relocated to New Jersey, where he was to work on a farm owned by Eddie Kowalick. But the citizens of New Jersey were no more accommodating. They feared an influx of Jap workers and didn’t want their kids sitting next to “yellow” children in school. A petition to evict Yamamoto was circulated, there were multiple threats of violence against him, and one of Mr. Kowalick’s barns was burned to the ground. After threats were made against the life of Mr. Kowalick’s baby, he felt he had no choice but to ask Mr. Yamamoto to move on. Three weeks after Life printed this story, they printed letters written in response.  Most of those selected by the editorial staff for publication were supportive of Mr. Yamamoto and expressed embarrassment at the ignorance of some Americans. But the magazine also published this letter, written by William M. Hinds of Birmingham, Alabama:

_Sirs, there are many of us who believe that the deceit, treachery, and bestiality inherent in the Japanese we are fighting in the Pacific are traits not automatically removed from members of the race merely by accident of birth in the US. There are many of us who believe, quite sincerely and simply, that Japanese immigrants to the US and their American-born children will deliberately live an impeccable American life while awaiting an opportunity to perpetrate a Pearl Harbor of their own dimensions. Cheers for the public-spirited citizens of New Jersey who ran Mr. Yamamoto away. _

While it’s easy to see that extreme racism toward the Japanese existed, it’s much more difficult to assess the role racism may have played in President Truman’s decision. However, there are a few instances in the historical record where the President does refer to the Japanese in questionable terms.  In his July 25, 1945 diary entry, as Truman is writing about the bomb, he refers to the “Japs” as “savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic.” On August 11, after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been devastated, an American clergyman named Samuel McCrea Cavert wrote the President urging him to give the Japanese time to surrender before using any more atomic bombs.  Truman replied, “When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.” Whether these comments are racist about the Japanese people or only express the President’s opinion about the Japanese military is a matter of interpretation.










						Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb - History
					

Critics argument many reasons against dropping the atomic bomb, pointing to international law, the impending surrender of Japan, and other reasons




					www.historyonthenet.com


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb — Argument 3: Use of the Atomic Bombs Was Racially Motivated​Opponents of President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb argue that racism played an important role in the decision; that had the bomb been ready in time it never would have been used against Germany. All of America’s enemies were stereotyped and caricatured in home front propaganda, but there was a clear difference in the nature of that propaganda.  Although there were crude references to Germans as “krauts,” and Italians as “Tonies” or “spaghettis,” the vast majority of ridicule was directed at their political leadership.  Hitler, Nazis, and Italy’s Mussolini were routinely caricatured, but the German and Italian people weren’t.
> 
> By contrast, anti-Japanese racism in American society targeted the Japanese as a race of people and demonstrated a level of hatred comparable with Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda.  The Japanese were universally caricatured as having huge buck teeth, massive fangs dripping with saliva, and monstrous thick glasses through which they leered with squinty eyes. They were further dehumanized as being snakes, cockroaches, and rats, and their entire culture was mocked, including language, customs, and religious beliefs. Anti-Japanese imagery was everywhere—in Bugs Bunny cartoons, popular music, postcards, children’s toys, magazine advertisements, and in a wide array of novelty items ranging from ashtrays to “Jap Hunting License” buttons.  Even Tarzan, in one of the last novels written by his creator Edgar Rice Burroughs, spent time in the Pacific hunting and killing Japs.  Numerous songs advocated killing all Japanese.  The popular novelty hit, “Remember Pearl Harbor” by Carson Robison, for example, urges Americans to “wipe the Jap from the map.”  It continues:
> 
> _Remember how we used to call them our “little brown brothers?”
> What a laugh that turned out to be
> Well, we can all thank God that we’re not related
> To that yellow scum of the sea
> They talked of peace, and of friendship
> We found out just what all that talk was worth
> All right, they’ve asked for it, and now they’re going to get it
> We’ll blow every one of them right off of the face of the Earth_
> 
> Americans didn’t like Mussolini, Hitler, and Nazis, but many hated the Japanese race.  The official magazine of the US Marine Corps, The Leatherneck, in May 1945 called the Japanese a “pestilence,” and called for “a giant task of extermination.” The American historian Steven Ambrose, a child during the war, has said that because of the propaganda, he grew up thinking that the only good Jap was a dead Jap.  That hatred began with Pearl Harbor and increased when news broke of the Bataan Death March, and with each act of defiance against America’s “island-hopping” campaign.  Killing became too easy, and the dehumanizing of the enemy commonplace. Some American soldiers in the Pacific sent home to their girlfriends the skulls of Japanese soldiers, to be displayed on their desks at work. American soldiers did not send home Nazi skulls as trophies or sweetheart gifts. In 1944 a US Congressman presented President Roosevelt with a letter-opener purportedly made from the arm bone of a Japanese soldier.
> 
> American racism led to a failure to distinguish between the Japanese government, dominated by hard-line militarists, and the Japanese civilian who was caught up in their government’s war.  Racists viewed all Japanese as threats not because of their political education, but because of their genetics. As further evidence, bomb opponents point to US policy toward the Japanese-Americans living in California at the time.  They were rounded up, denied their basic liberties under the Constitution (even though many of them were American citizens), and sent to isolated camps in the deserts, surrounded by barbed wire, until the war’s end.
> 
> Nothing on this scale was done to the Germans during WWII, or even during the First World War, when there were millions of German and Austrian immigrants and their children living in the United States. In May 1944 Life magazine reported on the hardships of George Yamamoto, a Japanese-American who had immigrated to the US in 1920 at the age of 17 to work on his family’s farm. In 1942 Mr. Yamamoto worked at a fish market, ran a sporting goods store, and was a solid member of his community, along with his wife and children.
> 
> They were interned, but Mr. Yamamoto applied for a relocation program, was cleared by the US government as loyal and trustworthy, and was packed off to Delaware to find work. He was run out of town before he could even start, and was relocated to New Jersey, where he was to work on a farm owned by Eddie Kowalick. But the citizens of New Jersey were no more accommodating. They feared an influx of Jap workers and didn’t want their kids sitting next to “yellow” children in school. A petition to evict Yamamoto was circulated, there were multiple threats of violence against him, and one of Mr. Kowalick’s barns was burned to the ground. After threats were made against the life of Mr. Kowalick’s baby, he felt he had no choice but to ask Mr. Yamamoto to move on. Three weeks after Life printed this story, they printed letters written in response.  Most of those selected by the editorial staff for publication were supportive of Mr. Yamamoto and expressed embarrassment at the ignorance of some Americans. But the magazine also published this letter, written by William M. Hinds of Birmingham, Alabama:
> 
> _Sirs, there are many of us who believe that the deceit, treachery, and bestiality inherent in the Japanese we are fighting in the Pacific are traits not automatically removed from members of the race merely by accident of birth in the US. There are many of us who believe, quite sincerely and simply, that Japanese immigrants to the US and their American-born children will deliberately live an impeccable American life while awaiting an opportunity to perpetrate a Pearl Harbor of their own dimensions. Cheers for the public-spirited citizens of New Jersey who ran Mr. Yamamoto away. _
> 
> While it’s easy to see that extreme racism toward the Japanese existed, it’s much more difficult to assess the role racism may have played in President Truman’s decision. However, there are a few instances in the historical record where the President does refer to the Japanese in questionable terms.  In his July 25, 1945 diary entry, as Truman is writing about the bomb, he refers to the “Japs” as “savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic.” On August 11, after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been devastated, an American clergyman named Samuel McCrea Cavert wrote the President urging him to give the Japanese time to surrender before using any more atomic bombs.  Truman replied, “When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.” Whether these comments are racist about the Japanese people or only express the President’s opinion about the Japanese military is a matter of interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb - History
> 
> 
> Critics argument many reasons against dropping the atomic bomb, pointing to international law, the impending surrender of Japan, and other reasons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historyonthenet.com



A skilled politician who knew when to compromise, Truman respected decisiveness. Meeting with Anthony Eden, the British foreign secretary, in early May, he declared: “I am here to make decisions, and whether they prove right or wrong I am going to make them,” an attitude that implied neither impulsiveness nor solitude. After being presented with Stimson’s report, he appointed a blue-ribbon “Interim Committee” to advise him on how to deal with the atomic bomb. Headed by Stimson and James Byrnes, whom Truman would soon name secretary of state, *the Interim Committee was a group of respected statesmen and scientists closely linked to the war effort. After five meetings between May 9 and June 1, it recommended use of the bomb against Japan as soon as possible *and rejected arguments for advance warning. Clearly in line with Truman’s inclinations, the recommendations of the Interim Committee amounted to a prepackaged decision.









						The decision to use the atomic bomb
					

Less than two weeks after being sworn in as president, Harry S. Truman received a long report from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. “Within four months,” it began, “we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history.” Truman’s decision to use the...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The origins of the Manhattan Project go back to 1939, when Hungarian-born physicist Leo Szilard, who had moved to the U.S. in 1938 to conduct research at Columbia University, became convinced of the feasibility of using nuclear chain reactions to create new, powerful bombs. German scientists had just conducted a successful nuclear fission experiment, and based on those results, Szilard was able to demonstrate that uranium was capable of producing a nuclear chain reaction.  Szilard noted that Germany had stopped the exportation of uranium from Czechoslovakian mines which they had taken over in 1938.
> 
> 
> He feared that Germany was trying to build an atomic bomb, while the United States was sitting idle.  Although WWII had not yet started, Germany was clearly a threat, and if the Germans had a monopoly on the atomic bomb, it could be deployed against anyone, including the United States, without warning. Szilard worked with Albert Einstein, whose celebrity gave him access to the president, to produce a letter informing Roosevelt of the situation.  Their warning eventually resulted in the Manhattan Project.  Bomb opponents argue that the atomic bomb was built as a defensive weapon, not an offensive one.  It was intended to be a deterrent, to make Germany or any other enemy think twice before using such a weapon against the United States.  To bolster their argument, these critics point out that ever since WWII, the weapon has been used only as a deterrent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb - History
> 
> 
> Critics argument many reasons against dropping the atomic bomb, pointing to international law, the impending surrender of Japan, and other reasons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historyonthenet.com


This one is priceless.  

Scientists and the atomic bomb​Among those who had full knowledge of the Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb, most agreed that the weapon should be used. However, sharp dissent came from a group of scientists at the project’s facilities at the University of Chicago. Their leader, Leo Szilard, along with two prestigious colleagues, Walter Bartkey, a dean of the University of Chicago, and Harold Urey, director of the project’s research in gaseous diffusion at Columbia University, sought a meeting with Truman but were diverted to Byrnes, who received them with polite skepticism. As he listened to them argue that the United States should refrain from using the bomb and that it should share its atomic secrets with the rest of the world after the war, Byrnes felt that he was dealing with unworldly intellectuals who had no grasp of political and diplomatic realities. He neither took their suggestions seriously nor discussed them with Truman, who most likely would have shared his attitude anyway. Szilard and his associates seem to have represented only a small minority of the many hundreds of scientists who worked on the bomb project. In July 1945 project administrators polled 150 of the 300 scientists working at the Chicago site and could find only 19 who rejected any military use of the bomb and another 39 who supported an experimental demonstration with representatives of Japan present, followed by an opportunity for surrender. Most of the scientists, however, supported some use of the bomb: 23 supported using it in a way that was militarily “most effective,” and 69 opted for a “military demonstration in Japan” with an opportunity for surrender “before full use of the weapons.” In later years, several key figures, including General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William Leahy, and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, claimed to have opposed using the bomb, but there is no firm evidence of any substantial contemporary opposition.









						The decision to use the atomic bomb
					

Less than two weeks after being sworn in as president, Harry S. Truman received a long report from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. “Within four months,” it began, “we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history.” Truman’s decision to use the...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## ding

Most of the scientists, civilian leaders, and military officials responsible for the development of the bomb clearly assumed that its military use, however unpleasant, was the inevitable outcome of the project. Although they were forced to formulate an opinion before a single bomb had been built or tested, it is unlikely that a more precise knowledge of the weapon’s power would have changed many minds. Truman faced almost no pressure whatever to reexamine his own inclinations.









						The decision to use the atomic bomb
					

Less than two weeks after being sworn in as president, Harry S. Truman received a long report from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. “Within four months,” it began, “we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history.” Truman’s decision to use the...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## ding

He's reading the link.  

He's not going to like what is coming.


----------



## ding

Britannica put a fork in Vegasgiants .  He done.


----------



## Vegasgiants

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
> 
> — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [102]


Although in later decades there was considerable debate about whether the bombings were ethically justified, virtually all of America’s political and *military leadership*, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman’s decision was correct.






The decision to use the atomic bomb​


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> Although in later decades there was considerable debate about whether the bombings were ethically justified, virtually all of America’s political and *military leadership*, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman’s decision was correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The decision to use the atomic bomb​


Prove it


Watch this folks


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> What did the japanese court say about the Rape of Nanking?
> Or the forced prostitution of Comfort Women?



Even more amazingly, look at Okinawa into at least the early 1990s.

Until that time the Japanese military were confined to base if they were on Okinawa.  Not by anything to do with the Americans, but they were that hated by the people of Okinawa.

That is who they blamed for decades after the war ended for the death on the islands.  They were the ones that slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians with hand grenades and bayonets', and forced them to lead suicide charges to soak up bullets and protect those with guns.  Who would find caved full of families trying to hide from the fighting, and kill them all so they would not suffer the humiliation of surrender.

On Okinawa, I met a lot of very friendly people.  And at that time a lot who survived the battle.  But amazingly, they did not blame us.  They blamed their own military, which is why they were confined to base.  Even over 40 years later.

I have been told that was lifted in the late 1990s, as by then the WWII generation was dying off and the old hatred of the Japanese military was also dying.  But that should tell some how their own people saw the military of their own country.  I also know that today most are proud to call themselves "Japanese".  That also was not the case 40 years ago.  Many would get mad at that, and insist they were "Okinawans".

Because of their twisted form of Bushido, Japan was the most brutal of occupiers during WWII.  Even making the Germans look like nice guys.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Even more amazingly, look at Okinawa into at least the early 1990s.
> 
> Until that time the Japanese military were confined to base if they were on Okinawa.  Not by anything to do with the Americans, but they were that hated by the people of Okinawa.
> 
> That is who they blamed for decades after the war ended for the death on the islands.  They were the ones that slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians with hand grenades and bayonets', and forced them to lead suicide charges to soak up bullets and protect those with guns.  Who would find caved full of families trying to hide from the fighting, and kill them all so they would not suffer the humiliation of surrender.
> 
> On Okinawa, I met a lot of very friendly people.  And at that time a lot who survived the battle.  But amazingly, they did not blame us.  They blamed their own military, which is why they were confined to base.  Even over 40 years later.
> 
> I have been told that was lifted in the late 1990s, as by then the WWII generation was dying off and the old hatred of the Japanese military was also dying.  But that should tell some how their own people saw the military of their own country.  I also know that today most are proud to call themselves "Japanese".  That also was not the case 40 years ago.  Many would get mad at that, and insist they were "Okinawans".
> 
> Because of their twisted form of Bushido, Japan was the most brutal of occupiers during WWII.  Even making the Germans look like nice guys.


And yet they surrendered


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Prove it
> 
> 
> Watch this folks


I thought you were big on authority?  Britannica is the authority.









						The decision to use the atomic bomb
					

Less than two weeks after being sworn in as president, Harry S. Truman received a long report from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. “Within four months,” it began, “we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history.” Truman’s decision to use the...



					www.britannica.com
				




"...In later years, several key figures, including General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William Leahy, and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, claimed to have opposed using the bomb, but there is no firm evidence of any substantial contemporary opposition.

Most of the scientists, civilian leaders, and military officials responsible for the development of the bomb clearly assumed that its military use, however unpleasant, was the inevitable outcome of the project. Although they were forced to formulate an opinion before a single bomb had been built or tested, it is unlikely that a more precise knowledge of the weapon’s power would have changed many minds. Truman faced almost no pressure whatever to reexamine his own inclinations.

When Truman became president, a long and bitter military campaign in the Pacific, marked by fanatical Japanese resistance and strongly held racial and cultural hostilities on both sides, was nearing its conclusion. In February 1945, about a month after he was sworn in as vice president, American troops invaded the small island of Iwo Jima, located 760 miles (1,220 km) from Tokyo. The Americans took four weeks to defeat the Japanese forces and suffered nearly 30,000 casualties. On April 1, 12 days before he became president, the United States invaded Okinawa, located just 350 miles (560 km) south of the Japanese home island of Kyushu. The battle of Okinawa was one of the fiercest of the Pacific war. The small island was defended by 100,000 Japanese troops, and Japanese military leaders attempted—with some success—to mobilize the island’s entire civilian population. Offshore, Japanese kamikaze planes inflicted severe losses on the American fleet. After nearly 12 weeks of fighting, the United States secured the island on June 21 at a cost of nearly 50,000 American casualties. Japanese casualties were staggering, with approximately 90,000 defending troops and at least 100,000 civilians killed.

The Americans considered Okinawa a dress rehearsal for the invasion of the Japanese home islands, for which the United States was finalizing a two-stage plan. The first phase, code-named Olympic, was scheduled for late October 1945, with a landing on Kyushu, defended by an estimated 350,000 Japanese troops backed by at least 1,000 kamikaze planes. Olympic entailed the use of nearly 800,000 American assault troops and an enormous naval fleet. The scale of the operation was to be similar to that of the Normandy invasion in France in June 1944, which involved 156,000 Allied troops in the first 24 hours and approximately 850,000 others by the end of the first week of July. Estimates of casualties from an invasion of Japan varied, but nearly everyone involved in the planning assumed that they would be substantial; mid-range estimates projected 132,000 American casualties, with 40,000 deaths. Truman told his military advisers that he hoped “there was a possibility of preventing an Okinawa from one end of Japan to another.”

The second phase of the plan, code-named Coronet, envisioned a landing near Tokyo on the home island of Honshu in the spring of 1946 and a Japanese surrender sometime before the end of the year. The same mid-range estimate that predicted 132,000 casualties for Olympic projected 90,000 for Coronet. If both invasions were necessary, by the most conservative estimates the United States would suffer 100,000 killed, wounded, or missing, as compared to a Pacific War total that by mid-June was approaching 170,000. Thus, the best estimates available to Truman predicted that the war would continue for a year or longer and that casualties would increase by 60 to 100 percent or more.

But would Japan have surrendered without either invasion? By mid-1945, an American naval blockade had effectively cut off the home islands from the rest of the world. Moreover, regular incendiary bombing raids were destroying huge portions of one city after another, food and fuel were in short supply, and millions of civilians were homeless. General Curtis LeMay, the commander of American air forces in the Pacific, estimated that by the end of September he would have destroyed every target in Japan worth hitting. The argument that Japan would have collapsed by early fall is speculative but powerful. Nevertheless, all the evidence available to Washington indicated that Japan planned to fight to the end. Throughout July, intelligence reports claimed that troop strength on Kyushu was steadily escalating. Moreover, American leaders learned that Japan was seeking to open talks with the Soviet Union in the hopes of making a deal that would forestall Soviet entry into the Pacific war..."


----------



## ding

Bam!


----------



## Vegasgiants

ding said:


> I thought you were big on authority?  Britannica is the authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The decision to use the atomic bomb
> 
> 
> Less than two weeks after being sworn in as president, Harry S. Truman received a long report from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. “Within four months,” it began, “we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history.” Truman’s decision to use the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...In later years, several key figures, including General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William Leahy, and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, claimed to have opposed using the bomb, but there is no firm evidence of any substantial contemporary opposition.
> 
> Most of the scientists, civilian leaders, and military officials responsible for the development of the bomb clearly assumed that its military use, however unpleasant, was the inevitable outcome of the project. Although they were forced to formulate an opinion before a single bomb had been built or tested, it is unlikely that a more precise knowledge of the weapon’s power would have changed many minds. Truman faced almost no pressure whatever to reexamine his own inclinations.
> 
> When Truman became president, a long and bitter military campaign in the Pacific, marked by fanatical Japanese resistance and strongly held racial and cultural hostilities on both sides, was nearing its conclusion. In February 1945, about a month after he was sworn in as vice president, American troops invaded the small island of Iwo Jima, located 760 miles (1,220 km) from Tokyo. The Americans took four weeks to defeat the Japanese forces and suffered nearly 30,000 casualties. On April 1, 12 days before he became president, the United States invaded Okinawa, located just 350 miles (560 km) south of the Japanese home island of Kyushu. The battle of Okinawa was one of the fiercest of the Pacific war. The small island was defended by 100,000 Japanese troops, and Japanese military leaders attempted—with some success—to mobilize the island’s entire civilian population. Offshore, Japanese kamikaze planes inflicted severe losses on the American fleet. After nearly 12 weeks of fighting, the United States secured the island on June 21 at a cost of nearly 50,000 American casualties. Japanese casualties were staggering, with approximately 90,000 defending troops and at least 100,000 civilians killed.
> 
> The Americans considered Okinawa a dress rehearsal for the invasion of the Japanese home islands, for which the United States was finalizing a two-stage plan. The first phase, code-named Olympic, was scheduled for late October 1945, with a landing on Kyushu, defended by an estimated 350,000 Japanese troops backed by at least 1,000 kamikaze planes. Olympic entailed the use of nearly 800,000 American assault troops and an enormous naval fleet. The scale of the operation was to be similar to that of the Normandy invasion in France in June 1944, which involved 156,000 Allied troops in the first 24 hours and approximately 850,000 others by the end of the first week of July. Estimates of casualties from an invasion of Japan varied, but nearly everyone involved in the planning assumed that they would be substantial; mid-range estimates projected 132,000 American casualties, with 40,000 deaths. Truman told his military advisers that he hoped “there was a possibility of preventing an Okinawa from one end of Japan to another.”
> 
> The second phase of the plan, code-named Coronet, envisioned a landing near Tokyo on the home island of Honshu in the spring of 1946 and a Japanese surrender sometime before the end of the year. The same mid-range estimate that predicted 132,000 casualties for Olympic projected 90,000 for Coronet. If both invasions were necessary, by the most conservative estimates the United States would suffer 100,000 killed, wounded, or missing, as compared to a Pacific War total that by mid-June was approaching 170,000. Thus, the best estimates available to Truman predicted that the war would continue for a year or longer and that casualties would increase by 60 to 100 percent or more.
> 
> But would Japan have surrendered without either invasion? By mid-1945, an American naval blockade had effectively cut off the home islands from the rest of the world. Moreover, regular incendiary bombing raids were destroying huge portions of one city after another, food and fuel were in short supply, and millions of civilians were homeless. General Curtis LeMay, the commander of American air forces in the Pacific, estimated that by the end of September he would have destroyed every target in Japan worth hitting. The argument that Japan would have collapsed by early fall is speculative but powerful. Nevertheless, all the evidence available to Washington indicated that Japan planned to fight to the end. Throughout July, intelligence reports claimed that troop strength on Kyushu was steadily escalating. Moreover, American leaders learned that Japan was seeking to open talks with the Soviet Union in the hopes of making a deal that would forestall Soviet entry into the Pacific war..."


Opinion noted and dismissed


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont think the women and children of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were war criminals



Then their government should not have attacked Manchuria.  And China.  And French Indochina, and Burma.  And India.  And the Dutch East Indies.  And the Philippines.  And the US outposts in the Pacific.  And Australia.  And all of the other countries they attacked and brutalized during the war.

Here, let me put the numbers into perspective.  During the Pacific War, the civilian death toll is around 18 million.

Around 330,000 were Japanese.

Now just think about that for a few minutes.  Out of 18 million dead civilians in that conflict, almost all of them were by the Japanese, in nations invaded and occupied by Japan.  The vast majority of them were in China.  Around 14 million dead in that nation alone.  Almost all women and children, sometimes entire villages.  Orgies of murder that would last for days and weeks, simply because they could.

And you whine about the Japanese in two cities?

Here is the amazing thing, even in Japan they do not blame the US for that.  They blame their own leaders, they are the ones that started the war, then refused to end it until the nation was faced with utter destruction.  And if not for the bombs, they would have willingly sacrificed the entire nation in actual battle.

You are John Snow.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Opinion noted and dismissed


Truman faced almost no pressure whatever to reexamine his own inclinations.  That's straight from Britannica.  Bam!


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> you have only offered 2 or three military men who opposed the bombing



Most of which actually wanted an invasion.  They were begging for an invasion, and thought it would be a walk in the park.


----------



## ding

Virtually all of America’s political and *military leadership*, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman’s decision was correct.  That's straight from Britannica. Bam!


----------



## Mushroom

gipper said:


> I thought Truman gave the order to drop the two bombs.



Did you not know he was a Colonel in the Army Reserve during WWII?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Then their government should not have attacked Manchuria.  And China.  And French Indochina, and Burma.  And India.  And the Dutch East Indies.  And the Philippines.  And the US outposts in the Pacific.  And Australia.  And all of the other countries they attacked and brutalized during the war.
> 
> Here, let me put the numbers into perspective.  During the Pacific War, the civilian death toll is around 18 million.
> 
> Around 330,000 were Japanese.
> 
> Now just think about that for a few minutes.  Out of 18 million dead civilians in that conflict, almost all of them were by the Japanese, in nations invaded and occupied by Japan.  The vast majority of them were in China.  Around 14 million dead in that nation alone.  Almost all women and children, sometimes entire villages.  Orgies of murder that would last for days and weeks, simply because they could.
> 
> And you whine about the Japanese in two cities?
> 
> Here is the amazing thing, even in Japan they do not blame the US for that.  They blame their own leaders, they are the ones that started the war, then refused to end it until the nation was faced with utter destruction.  And if not for the bombs, they would have willingly sacrificed the entire nation in actual battle.
> 
> You are John Snow.


3 days wait


That's all



3 days


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> If Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not force Japan to surrender then why did russia invading manchuria force them to?



In reality, the Soviets were their last hope.

They had been hoping that through Russia they could make an armistice work.  And even work through the Soviets to act as observers during the pullbacks of an armistice, and leave mainland Asia through their territory.

However, their declaring war removed that, and showed that they really were alone and surrounded by hostiles.  That even their hopes for an armistice were moot (just as their own Ambassador to the Soviet Union told them), and they were only being played with for the gain of the Soviet Union.

It must be remembered by then they had tried to go through the Swiss, the Swedes, the Dutch, and several other countries.  Nobody would present their offers of an armistice to the Allies because they knew it would be rejected.  The Soviets were literally their last hope.  But they did not know that they were already planning to invade themselves, and were just playing with them to kill time until they were ready to invade themselves.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> In reality, the Soviets were their last hope.
> 
> They had been hoping that through Russia they could make an armistice work.  And even work through the Soviets to act as observers during the pullbacks of an armistice, and leave mainland Asia through their territory.
> 
> However, their declaring war removed that, and showed that they really were alone and surrounded by hostiles.  That even their hopes for an armistice were moot (just as their own Ambassador to the Soviet Union told them), and they were only being played with for the gain of the Soviet Union.
> 
> It must be remembered by then they had tried to go through the Swiss, the Swedes, the Dutch, and several other countries.  Nobody would present their offers of an armistice to the Allies because they knew it would be rejected.  The Soviets were literally their last hope.  But they did not know that they were already planning to invade themselves, and were just playing with them to kill time until they were ready to invade themselves.


Yes and they surrendered when that last hope was gone.  Within hours actually


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb — Argument 1: The Bomb Was Made For Defense Only



Bombs are not, and can never be a defense.  They are only a deterrent.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Bombs are not, and can never be a defense.  They are only a deterrent.


Uh.....nope


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes and they surrendered when that last hope was gone. Within hours actually



Wrong.

At 4 in the morning Tokyo Time on 9 August, the Big Six plus one were still meeting.  That is when they learned of the Invasion by the Soviets.

Until that time, the decision of the Big Six was still 4-2 to continue the war no matter what.  But within hours they learned of the second bomb, and the Soviets declaring war and invading.

*And it still took them a full day to surrender!*

It was not "hours", unless you call 24 of them simply "hours".  And it took another 3 days until they made the official announcement (and an attempted coup).


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945



Because he believed bombers ended the war, and would end any future war.

He claimed that Korea and Vietnam would be short easy wars, that bombers would destroy any opposition without losses to the US.

Tell me, how seriously should we take that claim, in light of his predictions afterwards?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Because he believed bombers ended the war, and would end any future war.
> 
> He claimed that Korea and Vietnam would be short easy wars, that bombers would destroy any opposition without losses to the US.
> 
> Tell me, how seriously should we take that claim, in light of his predictions afterwards?


Actually he advocated strongly for nuclear weapons in korea


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Wrong.
> 
> At 4 in the morning Tokyo Time on 9 August, the Big Six plus one were still meeting.  That is when they learned of the Invasion by the Soviets.
> 
> Until that time, the decision of the Big Six was still 4-2 to continue the war no matter what.  But within hours they learned of the second bomb, and the Soviets declaring war and invading.
> 
> *And it still took them a full day to surrender!*
> 
> It was not "hours", unless you call 24 of them simply "hours".  And it took another 3 days until they made the official announcement (and an attempted coup).


A full day


That's your response?  Lol


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> A full day
> 
> 
> That's your response? Lol



And once again, yours is predictable.

Proven wrong, simply shrug and ignore it.

Hell, I bet you even believe I am actually talking to you when I make these responses.  I am not, I gave that up long ago as being completely pointless.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> And once again, yours is predictable.
> 
> Proven wrong, simply shrug and ignore it.
> 
> Hell, I bet you even believe I am actually talking to you when I make these responses.  I am not, I gave that up long ago as being completely pointless.


They sure didnt surrender a day after we dropped a nuclear weapon on them



HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes and they surrendered when that last hope was gone.  Within hours actually


I dont think anything we say here will change your mind

and we have said a lot

hopefully this information will not be wiped from the internet leaving only old books tucked away somewhere for future Americans to learn from


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> They sure didnt surrender a day after we dropped a nuclear weapon on them
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA


"...The ethical debate over the decision to drop the atomic bomb will never be resolved. *The bombs did, however, bring an end to the most destructive war in history*..."

The Decision to Drop the Bomb [ushistory.org]

"...Although in later decades there was considerable debate about whether the bombings were ethically justified, virtually all of America’s political and *military leadership*, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman’s decision was correct..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​
"...Truman faced almost no pressure whatever to reexamine his own inclinations..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​
"...all the evidence available to Washington indicated that Japan planned to fight to the end. Throughout July, intelligence reports claimed that troop strength on Kyushu was steadily escalating. Moreover, American leaders learned that Japan was seeking to open talks with the Soviet Union in the hopes of making a deal that would forestall Soviet entry into the Pacific war..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> I dont think anything we say here will change your mind
> 
> and we have said a lot
> 
> hopefully this information will not be wiped from the internet leaving only old books tucked away somewhere for future Americans to learn from


And I dont think anything said here will change your mind.


You know that is not the point of this....right?


This is just for fun


But if I got strong evidence I would concede.  I have before.


I just havent seen any here


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> I dont think anything we say here will change your mind



Nothing will.  He is a bigot who hates the military, and only seems to drag them out when they support his beliefs.

Laughingly, even when they then go against his beliefs at a later time.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Nothing will.  He is a bigot who hates the military, and only seems to drag them out when they support his beliefs.
> 
> Laughingly, even when they then go against his beliefs at a later time.


There it is.  The personal attack concession used when your argument fails

Nobody in my battalion would ever say I hated the military.  I loved it!  Lol


My favorite part.   Lol


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> And I dont think anything said here will change your mind.
> 
> 
> You know that is not the point of this....right?
> 
> 
> This is just for fun
> 
> 
> But if I got strong evidence I would concede.  I have before.
> 
> 
> I just havent seen any here


“This second demonstration of the power of the atomic bomb apparently threw Tokyo into a panic, for the next morning brought the first indication that the Japanese Empire was ready to surrender,” Truman later wrote in his memoirs. On August 15, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan’s unconditional surrender, bringing World War II to a close.

According to Truman and others in his administration, the use of the atomic bomb was intended to cut the war in the Pacific short, avoiding a U.S. invasion of Japan and saving hundreds of thousands of American lives.









						Hiroshima, Then Nagasaki: Why the US Deployed the Second A-Bomb
					

The explicit reason was to swiftly end the war with Japan. But it was also intended to send a message to the Soviets.




					www.history.com


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> And I dont think anything said here will change your mind.
> 
> 
> You know that is not the point of this....right?
> 
> 
> This is just for fun
> 
> 
> But if I got strong evidence I would concede.  I have before.
> 
> 
> I just havent seen any here


There is probably no more controversial issue in 20th-century American history than President Harry S. Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.  Many historians argue that it was necessary to end the war and that in fact it saved lives, both Japanese and American, by avoiding a land invasion of Japan that might have cost hundreds of thousands of lives.  Other historians argue that Japan would have surrendered even without the use of the atomic bomb and that in fact Truman and his advisors used the bomb only in an effort to intimidate the Soviet Union.  The United States did know from intercepted messages between Tokyo and Moscow that the Japanese were seeking a _conditional_ surrender.  American policy-makers, however, were not inclined to accept a Japanese "surrender" that left its military dictatorship intact and even possibly allowed it to retain some of its wartime conquests.  Further, American leaders were anxious to end the war as soon as possible.  It is important to remember that July-August 1945 was no bloodless period of negotiation.  In fact, there were still no overt negotiations at all.  The United States continued to suffer casualties in late July and early August 1945, especially from Japanese submarines and suicidal "kamikaze" attacks using aircraft and midget submarines.  (One example of this is the loss of the _Indianapolis_, which was sunk by a Japanese submarine on July 29, just days after delivering "Little Boy" to Tinian.  Of its crew of 1,199, only 316 sailors survived.)  The people of Japan, however, were suffering far more by this time.  Air raids and naval bombardment of Japan were a daily occurrence, and the first signs of starvation were already beginning to show.

The only alternative to the atomic bomb that Truman and his advisors felt was certain to lead to a Japanese surrender was an invasion of the Japanese home islands.  Plans were already well-advanced for this, with the initial landings set for the fall and winter of 1945-1946.  No one knew how many lives would be lost in an invasion, American, Allied, and Japanese, but the recent seizure of the island of Okinawa provided a ghastly clue.  The campaign to take the small island had taken over ten weeks, and the fighting had resulted in the deaths of over 12,000 Americans, 100,000 Japanese, and perhaps another 100,000 native Okinawans.

As with many people, Truman was shocked by the enormous losses suffered at Okinawa.  American intelligence reports indicated (correctly) that, although Japan could no longer meaningfully project its power overseas, it retained an army of two million soldiers and about 10,000 aircraft -- half of them kamikazes -- for the final defense of the homeland.  (During postwar studies the United States learned that the Japanese had correctly anticipated where in Kyushu the initial landings would have taken place.)  Although Truman hoped that the atomic bomb might give the United States an edge in postwar diplomacy, the prospect of avoiding another year of bloody warfare in the end may well have figured most importantly in his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.





__





						Manhattan Project: Potsdam and the Final Decision to Use the             Bomb, July 1945
					





					www.osti.gov


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> I dont think anything we say here will change your mind
> 
> and we have said a lot
> 
> hopefully this information will not be wiped from the internet leaving only old books tucked away somewhere for future Americans to learn from


At least you have generally tried to be polite and use facts in your debate

Better than most here


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> And I dont think anything said here will change your mind.
> 
> 
> You know that is not the point of this....right?
> 
> 
> This is just for fun
> 
> 
> But if I got strong evidence I would concede.  I have before.
> 
> 
> I just havent seen any here


“He didn’t want to have to do it but he felt that he had to, to stop the war and to save both American and Japanese lives. The reports they were getting were that, in a land invasion of the Japanese main islands, the Japanese were building up forces to resist. Now we know that the Japanese knew where we planned to land and they were massing troops.”









						'He felt he had to do it': Truman's grandson on bombing Hiroshima
					

Seventy-five years after the US president’s decision opened the nuclear age, Clifton Daniel is still grappling with his legacy




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> And I dont think anything said here will change your mind.
> 
> 
> You know that is not the point of this....right?
> 
> 
> This is just for fun
> 
> 
> But if I got strong evidence I would concede.  I have before.
> 
> 
> I just havent seen any here


I respectfully disagree that this is for fun

And I take defending my country’s honor very seriously

most of revisionist history is designed to break our bond with the nation and replace pride with shame

which really offends me

but if Eisenhower can question our decision to drop the bomb so can you


----------



## Vegasgiants

This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision ... If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> I respectfully disagree that this is for fun
> 
> I take defending my country’s honor very seriously
> 
> most of revisionist history is designed to break our bond with the nation and replace pride with shame
> 
> which really offends me
> 
> but if Eisenhower can question our decision to drop the bomb so can you


As you wish.  No ones mind here is changed....that much is crystal clear

I defended our country too once....and it wasnt in a forum.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> And I dont think anything said here will change your mind.
> 
> 
> You know that is not the point of this....right?
> 
> 
> This is just for fun
> 
> 
> But if I got strong evidence I would concede.  I have before.
> 
> 
> I just havent seen any here


The Allies desperately wanted to avoid invading Japan. Our anticipated death toll was north of 100,000 Allied soldiers and sailors, and in fact every Purple Heart medal actually awarded through the Persian Gulf War came from the never-needed stock ordered for the invasion of Kyushu. The battle for Okinawa showed the Allies that Japan would struggle until the last civilian was killed.

The destruction of Hiroshima should have brought an immediate Japanese surrender, but it did not. Three days later Nagasaki was obliterated. It was a strategic city, a major port and home to the great shipyard where the Musashi, one of the largest battleships in history, was built. It had other factories making steel, arms, ordnance and electrical equipment. As at Hiroshima, small machine shops essential to the large factories were embedded in the surrounding neighborhoods where the workers lived.

If the destruction of Nagasaki didn't end the war, a third atomic bomb was ready for shipment to the Pacific Theater for use on the nineteenth of August. Truman ordered a halt to the shipment, a hiatus to see what the Japanese would do. Conventional bombing was also interrupted. More nuclear weapons were being built at a rate of at least three bombs a month. If Olympic had faltered, several would have been available for use in November.

Nagasaki gave rise to urgent meetings with the emperor in attendance and, most extraordinarily, intervening. On the morning of August 10 Japan notified the Allied governments that it would accept the Potsdam terms with "the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler." After accepting additional points demanded by the West, in particular a requirement that the emperor be subordinate to General Douglas MacArthur, the Japanese civilian government surrendered.

But the Japanese military continued to fight, so conventional strategic bombing resumed on August 14. Still more meetings took place in the Imperial Palace. Late on the evening of the fourteenth a weeping Hirohito ordered an end. The next day, and despite threats of a coup by the Army, the Japanese people heard the voice of their emperor announcing the nation's capitulation. Hirohito explained that the "enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb." The Soviet invasion did not rate a mention.

The butcher's account was marked "Closed."





__





						Loading…
					





					www.usnews.com


----------



## Vegasgiants

The very day after the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, the personal pilot of General Douglas MacArthur, commander of Allied forces in the Pacific, recorded in his diary that MacArthur was "appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster."


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> As you wish.  No ones mind here is changed....that much is crystal clear
> 
> I defended our country too once....and it wasnt in a forum.


I try to be civil as long as others are, and you have been civil also

As for the revisionist historians who infest the halls of academia I have nothing but disrespect for them

because being professionals they are in the best position to get it right and they dont


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> I try to be civil as long as others are, and you have been civil also
> 
> As for the revisionist historians who infest the halls of academia I have nothing but disrespect for them
> 
> because being professionals they are in the best position to get it right and they dont


I dont think people like halsey, MacArthur, nimitz, lemay, Leahy and others are revisionist historians


----------



## ding

"...Although in later decades there was considerable debate about whether the bombings were ethically justified, virtually all of America’s political and *military leadership*, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman’s decision was correct..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​
"...Truman faced almost no pressure whatever to reexamine his own inclinations..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont think people like halsey, MacArthur, nimitz, lemay, Leahy and others are revisionist historians


In a way they are

certainly they’re in the crowd of monday morning quarterbacks


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> In a way they are
> 
> certainly they’re in the crowd of monday morning quarterbacks


I deeply admire what they did for thos country and the expertise it took to get the job done

So I cant dismiss their wealth of knowledge and experience that easily


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The very day after the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, the personal pilot of General Douglas MacArthur, commander of Allied forces in the Pacific, recorded in his diary that MacArthur was "appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster."


It was heavy burden to bear. Speaking of himself as president, Truman said, “And he alone, in all the world, must say Yes or No to that awesome, ultimate question, ‘Shall we drop the bomb on a living target?’”

Harry S Truman’s Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (U.S. National Park Service)​
As with many people, Truman was shocked by the enormous losses suffered at Okinawa. American intelligence reports indicated (correctly) that, although Japan could no longer meaningfully project its power overseas, it retained an army of two million soldiers and about 10,000 aircraft -- half of them kamikazes -- for the final defense of the homeland. (During postwar studies the United States learned that the Japanese had correctly anticipated where in Kyushu the initial landings would have taken place.) Although Truman hoped that the atomic bomb might give the United States an edge in postwar diplomacy, the prospect of avoiding another year of bloody warfare in the end may well have figured most importantly in his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

Manhattan Project: Potsdam and the Final Decision to Use the Bomb, July 1945

“He didn’t want to have to do it but he felt that he had to, to stop the war and to save both American and Japanese lives. The reports they were getting were that, in a land invasion of the Japanese main islands, the Japanese were building up forces to resist. Now we know that the Japanese knew where we planned to land and they were massing troops.”

'He felt he had to do it': Truman's grandson on bombing Hiroshima​


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> I deeply admire what they did for thos country and the expertise it took to get the job done
> 
> *So I cant dismiss their wealth of knowledge and experience that easily*


Neither do I

but its easy to criticize the tough decisions of others that they did not have to make


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> Neither do I
> 
> but its easy to criticize the tough decisions of others that they did not have to make


It is their job to make tough life and death decisions in battle based on the best information available 


If we cant trust them.....we can trust no one


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes and they surrendered when that last hope was gone.  Within hours actually


Simply not true they FOUGHT the Soviets even after surrendering to the Allies.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> It is their job to make tough life and death decisions in battle based on the best information available
> 
> 
> If we cant trust them.....we can trust no one


"...Although in later decades there was considerable debate about whether the bombings were ethically justified, virtually all of America’s political and *military leadership*, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman’s decision was correct..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​
"...Truman faced almost no pressure whatever to reexamine his own inclinations..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not true they FOUGHT the Soviets even after surrendering to the Allies.


You have been dismissed


----------



## ding

In July 1945 project administrators polled 150 of the 300 scientists working at the Chicago site and could find only 19 who rejected any military use of the bomb and another 39 who supported an experimental demonstration with representatives of Japan present, followed by an opportunity for surrender. Most of the scientists, however, supported some use of the bomb: 23 supported using it in a way that was militarily “most effective,” and 69 opted for a “military demonstration in Japan” with an opportunity for surrender “before full use of the weapons.” In later years, several key figures, including General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William Leahy, and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, claimed to have opposed using the bomb, *but there is no firm evidence of any substantial contemporary opposition.*

The decision to use the atomic bomb​


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> It is their job to make tough life and death decisions in battle based on the best information available
> 
> 
> If we cant trust them.....we can trust no one


The men you listed did not have to make that decision


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> The men you listed did not have to make that decision


I know.  The guy who did got it wrong


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> I know.  The guy who did got it wrong


Which is why it's surprising that they didn't resign beforehand.


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> I respectfully disagree that this is for fun



Seeing something as "fun" is typical of a troll.

Facts and reality do not matter, it is only for their own amusement.


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> I know.  The guy who did got it wrong


I say you are wrong


----------



## ding

He has been all over the map so it is fun and games to him.  He doesn't care about truth.


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> The very day after the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, the personal pilot of General Douglas MacArthur, commander of Allied forces in the Pacific, recorded in his diary that MacArthur was "appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster."



Most in the military hate the damned things.  And we realize that in the modern era they are not military weapons at all, but political weapons.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Seeing something as "fun" is typical of a troll.
> 
> Facts and reality do not matter, it is only for their own amusement.


I see


This is not fun for you.  You are on a mission!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> I see
> 
> 
> This is not fun for you.  You are on a mission!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA


Some of us just like the truth.  You seem to be the type who enjoys bending it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> I say you are wrong


And the military experts say you are wrong 


I'll go with them


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> And the military experts say you are wrong
> 
> 
> I'll go with them


You mean the ones who followed their orders and dropped the two bombs?


----------



## ding

It's probably worth repeating...

"...Although in later decades there was considerable debate about whether the bombings were ethically justified, virtually all of America’s political and *military leadership*, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman’s decision was correct..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​
"...Truman faced almost no pressure whatever to reexamine his own inclinations..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​
In later years, several key figures, including General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William Leahy, and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, claimed to have opposed using the bomb, *but there is no firm evidence of any substantial contemporary opposition.*

The decision to use the atomic bomb​


----------



## Vegasgiants

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[99][100] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet), and even the man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay:


----------



## Mac-7

Vegasgiants said:


> And the military experts say you are wrong
> 
> 
> I'll go with them


No they dont

a few well known officers say japan was a beaten nation

well duh?

even Tojo could have told us that

but surrender was a political decision for the japanese not military


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[99][100] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet), and even the man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay:


Yeah, you mentioned those already.  Unfortunately...

In later years, several key figures, including General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William Leahy, and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, claimed to have opposed using the bomb, *but there is no firm evidence of any substantial contemporary opposition.*

The decision to use the atomic bomb​


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mac-7 said:


> No they dont
> 
> a few well known officers say japan was a beaten nation
> 
> well duh?
> 
> even Tojo could have told is that
> 
> but surrender was a political decision for the japanese not military


Their opinion is quite clear 


The bombs were not needed to achieve that


Even the army survey group said that


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> I dont think people like halsey, MacArthur, nimitz, lemay, Leahy and others are revisionist historians



Nobody gets to that rank without also being a politician.  And for most of those involved that later spoke out against it, they had their own agendas.

LeMay was such a strong believer in "Air Power" that he believed that nothing but massive fleets of bombers was needed.  That they could literally bomb any enemy into submission.

For Halsey and Nimitz, it was the same but Naval Power.  That their fleets could blockade any enemy and starve them into submission.

For MacArthur, it was the raw power of an invasion itself.  Notice, not a single one of them thought that Japan was about to surrender.  Simply that their own methods would win the war and the bombs were not needed.  And if any of them are to be believed, many more times the number of Japanese would have died.  Through starvation through blockage, through the carpet and firebombings of cities by the Air Force, or by invasion by force by the Army and Marines.

Not a single one of the alternate "claims" was made until long after the war was over, and each proposed far more deaths than what actually happened.

And remember, all of them were also wrong in many ways.  I already pointed out how "Bomb a day" was wrong in his predictions of the power of bombers in future wars.  Hell, simply look at the "estimates" each proposed prior to Operation Olympic.

General LeMay believed that bombers alone would end the war.  And would not believe when one of his staff told him an actual invasion would leave over half a million US dead.

Admiral Nimitz sent a proposal that had around 49,000 US casualties.

General MacArthur sent a proposal saying 23,000 casualties.

General Marshall sent a proposal claiming 31,000 casualties.

General MacArthur's staff estimate (which Mac quashed) had almost 300,000 casualties before they got 1/3 of the way through Kyushu (the southernmost island, not even the main island).

Remember, those are the estimates of the "experts" you keep trying to parade in front of us.  And even their senior advisors were trying to tell them they were full of crap.

That is why the Secretary of War got his own independent estimate from William Shockley.  Who was not a military man, but was a physicist and mathematician.  Who sent a chilling estimate back in response after culling through the reports of Saipan and Okinawa.  1.7-4 million Allied casualties, and 400-800,000 Allied dead, and 7-10 million Japanese dead.

That report more than any other is what made the final decision.  The numbers reported by the "Commanders" were all fantasies, because they were pushing their own agendas and supporting their own branches.  Which is why your bringing them up over and over again is hilarious I find.

Oh, and the estimates expected for the Battle of Okinawa before that invasion?  10,000 Allied casualties, 3-5,000 Allied deaths.  One knows that is an absolute garbage estimate, because in reality it was over 55,000 Allied casualties, and 12,000 Allied deaths.  The number of deaths far exceeded even the amount of casualties in the pre-invasion estimates.

So take any claims of "estimates" from those leaders you keep quoting with a grain of salt.  The size of Mount Everest.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The bombs were not needed to achieve that


As with many people, Truman was shocked by the enormous losses suffered at Okinawa. American intelligence reports indicated (correctly) that, although Japan could no longer meaningfully project its power overseas, it retained an army of two million soldiers and about 10,000 aircraft -- half of them kamikazes -- for the final defense of the homeland. (During postwar studies the United States learned that the Japanese had correctly anticipated where in Kyushu the initial landings would have taken place.) Although Truman hoped that the atomic bomb might give the United States an edge in postwar diplomacy, the prospect of avoiding another year of bloody warfare in the end may well have figured most importantly in his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

Manhattan Project: Potsdam and the Final Decision to Use the Bomb, July 1945

“He didn’t want to have to do it but he felt that he had to, to stop the war and to save both American and Japanese lives. The reports they were getting were that, in a land invasion of the Japanese main islands, the Japanese were building up forces to resist. Now we know that the Japanese knew where we planned to land and they were massing troops.”

'He felt he had to do it': Truman's grandson on bombing Hiroshima​


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Nobody gets to that rank without also being a politician.  And for most of those involved that later spoke out against it, they had their own agendas.
> 
> LeMay was such a strong believer in "Air Power" that he believed that nothing but massive fleets of bombers was needed.  That they could literally bomb any enemy into submission.
> 
> For Halsey and Nimitz, it was the same but Naval Power.  That their fleets could blockade any enemy and starve them into submission.
> 
> For MacArthur, it was the raw power of an invasion itself.  Notice, not a single one of them thought that Japan was about to surrender.  Simply that their own methods would win the war and the bombs were not needed.  And if any of them are to be believed, many more times the number of Japanese would have died.  Through starvation through blockage, through the carpet and firebombings of cities by the Air Force, or by invasion by force by the Army and Marines.
> 
> Not a single one of the alternate "claims" was made until long after the war was over, and each proposed far more deaths than what actually happened.
> 
> And remember, all of them were also wrong in many ways.  I already pointed out how "Bomb a day" was wrong in his predictions of the power of bombers in future wars.  Hell, simply look at the "estimates" each proposed prior to Operation Olympic.
> 
> General LeMay believed that bombers alone would end the war.  And would not believe when one of his staff told him an actual invasion would leave over half a million US dead.
> 
> Admiral Nimitz sent a proposal that had around 49,000 US casualties.
> 
> General MacArthur sent a proposal saying 23,000 casualties.
> 
> General Marshall sent a proposal claiming 31,000 casualties.
> 
> General MacArthur's estimate (which Mac quashed) estimated almost 300,000 casualties before they got 1/3 of the way through Kyushu (the southernmost island, not even the main island).
> 
> Remember, those are the estimates of the "experts" you keep trying to parade in front of us.  And even their senior advisors were trying to tell them they were full of crap.
> 
> That is why the Secretary of War got his own independent estimate from William Shockley.  Who was not a military man, but was a physicist and mathematician.  Who sent a chilling estimate back in response after culling through the reports of Saipan and Okinawa.  1.7-4 million Allied casualties, and 400-800,000 Allied dead, and 7-10 million Japanese dead.
> 
> That report more than any other is what made the final decision.  The numbers reported by the "Commanders" were all fantasies, because they were pushing their own agendas and supporting their own branches.  Which is why your bringing them up over and over again is hilarious I find.
> 
> Oh, and the estimates expected for the Battle of Okinawa before that invasion?  10,000 Allied casualties, 3-5,000 Allied deaths.  One knows that is an absolute garbage estimate, because in reality it was over 55,000 Allied casualties, and 12,000 Allied deaths.
> 
> So take any claims of "estimates" from those leaders you keep quoting with a grain of salt.  The size of Mount Everest.


No invasion was ever going to be needed


You wish to attack these military leaders one by one but their unanimous opinion is crystal clear


The bombs were not needed to end the war


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> And the military experts say you are wrong



Look at my above post, on what they estimated the casualties would be for an invasion.  Then compare it to the real numbers on Okinawa.

And notice, not a single one of those "experts" was proposing a postponement of Operation Downfall because "Japan was about to surrender".  Okinawa was already being turned into a massive staging post for that very invasion.  Not a single one of them believed that anything short of an invasion would end the war.

You are the one believing "revisionist history".  Not us.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Look at my above post, on what they estimated the casualties would be for an invasion.  Then compare it to the real numbers on Okinawa.
> 
> And notice, not a single one of those "experts" was proposing a postponement of Operation Downfall because "Japan was about to surrender".  Okinawa was already being turned into a massive staging post for that very invasion.  Not a single one of them believed that anything short of an invasion would end the war.
> 
> You are the one believing "revisionist history".  Not us.


And invasion they clearly thought would never be needed


The war was over


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> No invasion was ever going to be needed


That's odd because...

American intelligence reports indicated (correctly) that, although Japan could no longer meaningfully project its power overseas, *it retained an army of two million soldiers and about 10,000 aircraft -- half of them kamikazes -- for the final defense of the homeland. *(During postwar studies the United States learned that the Japanese had correctly anticipated where in Kyushu the initial landings would have taken place.) Although Truman hoped that the atomic bomb might give the United States an edge in postwar diplomacy, the prospect of avoiding another year of bloody warfare in the end may well have figured most importantly in his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

Manhattan Project: Potsdam and the Final Decision to Use the Bomb, July 1945


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> No invasion was ever going to be needed


The only alternative to the atomic bomb that Truman and his advisors felt was certain to lead to a Japanese surrender was an invasion of the Japanese home islands.  Plans were already well-advanced for this, with the initial landings set for the fall and winter of 1945-1946.  No one knew how many lives would be lost in an invasion, American, Allied, and Japanese, but the recent seizure of the island of Okinawa provided a ghastly clue.  The campaign to take the small island had taken over ten weeks, and the fighting had resulted in the deaths of over 12,000 Americans, 100,000 Japanese, and perhaps another 100,000 native Okinawans.





__





						Manhattan Project: Potsdam and the Final Decision to Use the             Bomb, July 1945
					





					www.osti.gov
				




The evidence available to Washington indicated that Japan planned to fight to the end. Throughout July, intelligence reports claimed that troop strength on Kyushu was steadily escalating. 









						The decision to use the atomic bomb
					

Less than two weeks after being sworn in as president, Harry S. Truman received a long report from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. “Within four months,” it began, “we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history.” Truman’s decision to use the...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## Vegasgiants

The army survey group which studied this issue extensively said no invasion was ever going to be needed


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The war was over


Except it wasn't.  They didn't surrender until after the 2nd nuke was dropped.


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The army survey group which studied this issue extensively said no invasion was ever going to be needed


Again... American intelligence reports indicated (correctly) that, although Japan could no longer meaningfully project its power overseas, *it retained an army of two million soldiers and about 10,000 aircraft -- half of them kamikazes -- for the final defense of the homeland. *(During postwar studies the United States learned that the Japanese had correctly anticipated where in Kyushu the initial landings would have taken place.) Although Truman hoped that the atomic bomb might give the United States an edge in postwar diplomacy, the prospect of avoiding another year of bloody warfare in the end may well have figured most importantly in his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

Manhattan Project: Potsdam and the Final Decision to Use the Bomb, July 1945


----------



## Vegasgiants

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:



> There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
> 
> 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.[90][91]


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> No invasion was ever going to be needed
> 
> 
> You wish to attack these military leaders one by one but their unanimous opinion is crystal clear



Japan would never have ended the war otherwise.  Bushido would not have allowed it.  Under the Bushido Code, surrender was cowardly, and even death by suicide was preferred over it.  That is why over and over on every battle prior, the remainders of the Japanese forces would mount suicide charges and fight to the last man in a hopeless charge.  Better to die than surrender.

On Saipan, over 5,000 civilians killed themselves (many by throwing their families off of cliffs) rather than surrender.


And the pre-war civilian population of that island was less than 50,000 people.  Many of them natives, and not Japanese.  Yet, over 10% of them killed themselves rather than surrender.

Now, convert that to Japan

Over 73 million people.  So over 7 million dead by suicide alone.

Even to this day, suicide is a problem in Japan, because culturally they do not have a prohibition against it.  In fact, culturally they accept and endorse it even to this day.  Better to die than to suffer humiliation and failure.

The problem, is that you do not understand Japanese culture.  You especially do not understand Japanese culture in the Showa era.  You act like they were Europeans, and would surrender when it was obvious they could not win.  That was not the culture, they would have fought to the last man, as they had on every island prior to the dropping of the bombs.  With mass suicides if that failed.

The bombs gave them an "easy out".  Even for those drenched in Bushido, they could accept that ending the war (not surrender, I use that term but in reality Japan never surrendered) was the only alternative.  Which is why their Emperor told them to "endure the unendurable".


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> The army survey group which studied this issue extensively said no invasion was ever going to be needed



Is that the same "Army" that believed that the US would only have 23-31,000 casualties in an actual invasion of Japan?


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:


But it was to make Japan surrender.  How do we know?  Because they surrendered after we dropped the 2nd bomb.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Is that the same "Army" that believed that the US would only have 23-31,000 casualties in an actual invasion of Japan?


An invasion they determined would never have been needed


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> And the military experts say you are wrong
> 
> 
> I'll go with them


LOL hundreds of Military experts from WW2 and you believe a couple when the vast vast Majority supported the bombing as evidenced by them not criticizing it


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL hundreds of Military experts from WW2 and you believe a couple when the vast vast Majority supported the bombing as evidenced by them not criticizing it


Again....you are dismissed


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Japan would never have ended the war otherwise.  Bushido would not have allowed it.  Under the Bushido Code, surrender was cowardly, and even death by suicide was preferred over it.  That is why over and over on every battle prior, the remainders of the Japanese forces would mount suicide charges and fight to the last man in a hopeless charge.  Better to die than surrender.
> 
> On Saipan, over 5,000 civilians killed themselves (many by throwing their families off of cliffs) rather than surrender.
> 
> 
> And the pre-war civilian population of that island was less than 50,000 people.  Many of them natives, and not Japanese.  Yet, over 10% of them killed themselves rather than surrender.
> 
> Now, convert that to Japan
> 
> Over 73 million people.  So over 7 million dead by suicide alone.
> 
> Even to this day, suicide is a problem in Japan, because culturally they do not have a prohibition against it.  In fact, culturally they accept and endorse it even to this day.  Better to die than to suffer humiliation and failure.
> 
> The problem, is that you do not understand Japanese culture.  You especially do not understand Japanese culture in the Showa era.  You act like they were Europeans, and would surrender when it was obvious they could not win.  That was not the culture, they would have fought to the last man, as they had on every island prior to the dropping of the bombs.  With mass suicides if that failed.
> 
> The bombs gave them an "easy out".  Even for those drenched in Bushido, they could accept that ending the war (not surrender, I use that term but in reality Japan never surrendered) was the only alternative.  Which is why their Emperor told them to "endure the unendurable".


Well we have your opinion and the opinion of the army and all the military experts 


So theres that


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> An invasion they determined would never have been needed


Because they surrendered after we dropped the 2nd bomb which is why it was dropped in the first place.


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:



Which as I keep pointing out, is worthless because Germany was not Japan.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Which as I keep pointing out, is worthless because Germany was not Japan.


You have an opinion 


They have an opinion 



They are smarter than you



Case closed


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> Well we have your opinion and the opinion of the army and all the military experts
> 
> 
> So theres that


Except they didn't refuse the orders and resign.  So this was all after the fact.

"...Although in later decades there was considerable debate about whether the bombings were ethically justified, virtually all of America’s political and *military leadership*, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman’s decision was correct..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​
"...Truman faced almost no pressure whatever to reexamine his own inclinations..."

The decision to use the atomic bomb​
In later years, several key figures, including General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William Leahy, and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, claimed to have opposed using the bomb, *but there is no firm evidence of any substantial contemporary opposition.*

The decision to use the atomic bomb​


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> Well we have your opinion and the opinion of the army and all the military experts



Well, how about the opinions of General MacArthur's staff.  Who basically told the General that he was full of shit, and he buried their report so nobody would see it?

He said 23,000 casualties, his staff told him over 300,000 casualties.

This is in a courtroom called "credibility".  And in this aspect, most of your "experts" have little to none.  Because the Battles of Saipan and Okinawa proves they did not know what they were talking about.


----------



## Vegasgiants

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Well, how about the opinions of General MacArthur's staff.  Who basically told the General that he was full of shit, and he buried their report so nobody would see it?
> 
> He said 23,000 casualties, his staff told him over 300,000 casualties.
> 
> This is in a courtroom called "credibility".  And in this aspect, most of your "experts" have little to none.  Because the Battles of Saipan and Okinawa proves they did not know what they were talking about.


I see no evidence for your claim


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Well we have your opinion and the opinion of the army and all the military experts
> 
> 
> So theres that


Not all you lying sack of shit a couple out of hundreds,


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> You have an opinion
> 
> 
> They have an opinion
> 
> 
> 
> They are smarter than you
> 
> 
> 
> Case closed



Then tell me.

If they were so sure, why did not a single one of them speak out against the Invasion of Japan?

Why were every single one of them roaring full steam ahead for Operation Downfall?  If they were so fucking sure that Japan was "about to surrender", why were they still working as hard and fast as they could to prepare for the invasion?

Because in reality, most were only told of the bombs right before they were dropped.  And they saw their dreams of glory smashed.  But please, find a single one of them before the bombs that believed that Japan was about to surrender.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Not all you lying sack of shit a couple out of hundreds,


You have conceded

Carry on


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> You have conceded
> 
> Carry on


You keep lying and ignoring facts.


----------



## there4eyeM

Visceral feelings are all that remain here, and they are impossible to change. Some feel that incinerating so many so heartlessly is deeply disturbing. Others feel that any comment that reflects other than positively on any aspect of U.S. history is anathema. 
So be it.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Then tell me.
> 
> If they were so sure, why did not a single one of them speak out against the Invasion of Japan?
> 
> Why were every single one of them roaring full steam ahead for Operation Downfall?  If they were so fucking sure that Japan was "about to surrender", why were they still working as hard and fast as they could to prepare for the invasion?
> 
> Because in reality, most were only told of the bombs right before they were dropped.  And they saw their dreams of glory smashed.  But please, find a single one of them before the bombs that believed that Japan was about to surrender.


Anyone who has spent one day in the military knows you plan for any possibility no matter how remote


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> You keep lying and ignoring facts.


You're dismissed


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
> 
> — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]


That's misleading.  You should be ashamed.  But putting that aside, it was going to be unconditional surrender or the bomb.  They got the bombs, then we got the unconditional surrender.  So the bombs were needed.


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> I see no evidence for your claim



Here, since you love simply copying and pasting from Wikipedia without doing any of your own fucking research.



> In preparation for Operation Olympic, the invasion of southern Kyushu, various figures and organizations made casualty estimates based on the terrain, strength, and disposition of known Japanese forces. However, as reported Japanese strength in the Home Islands continued to climb and Japanese military performance increased, so too did the casualty estimates.[5] In April 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff formally adopted a planning paper giving a range of possible casualties based on experience in both Europe and the Pacific. These ranged from 0.42 dead and missing and 2.16 total casualties per 1000 men per day under the "European Experience" to 1.95 dead and missing and 7.45 total casualties per 1000 men per day under the "Pacific Experience."[97] This assessment included neither casualties suffered _after_ the 90-day mark (US planners envisioned switching to the tactical _defensive_ by X+120[98]), nor personnel losses at sea from Japanese air attacks.[99] In order to sustain the campaign on Kyushu, planners estimated a replacement stream of 100,000 men per month would be necessary, a figure achievable even after the partial demobilization following the defeat of Germany.[5] As time went on, other US leaders made estimates of their own:
> 
> 
> *In a letter to General Curtis LeMay when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, General Lauris Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.*[100]
> In May, Admiral Nimitz's staff estimated *49,000 U.S casualties* in the first 30 days of Operation Olympic, including 5,000 at sea.[101]
> A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated *23,000 US casualties* in the first 30 days of Olympic and 125,000 after 120 days, fighting an assumed Japanese force of 300,000[102] (in actuality some 917,000 Japanese troops were on Kyushu,[103]). When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[104]
> In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer *31,000* casualties in the first 30 days and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which he estimated would include the entire Japanese force. This implied a total of 70,000 American casualties in the battle of Kyushu using the June projection of 350,000 Japanese defenders.[105] Admiral Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[106] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[106] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities and a similar number of wounded per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[107] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
> In July MacArthur's Intelligence Chief,* Maj. Gen. Charles A. Willoughby, warned of between 210,000 and 280,000 battle casualties* in the push to the "stop line" one-third of the way up Kyushu. Even when rounded down to a conservative 200,000, this figure implied a total of nearly 500,000 all-causes losses, of whom perhaps 50,000 might return to duty after light to moderate care.[108]
> The US Sixth Army, the formation tasked with carrying out the major land fighting on Kyushu, estimated a figure of 394,859 casualties serious enough to be permanently removed from unit roll calls during the first 120 days on Kyushu, barely enough to avoid outstripping the planned replacement stream.[109]
> Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson stated *"We shall in my opinion have to go through an even more bitter finish fight than in Germany. We shall incur the losses incident to such a war and we shall leave the Japanese islands even more thoroughly destroyed than was the case with Germany."[110] From D-Day to V-E Day, the Western Allies alone suffered some 766,294 casualties.*[111]
> *A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.*[17]
> *Japanese military directives ordered the execution of all POWs being held if Japan was ever invaded. Towards the end of the war about 100,000 Allied prisoners were in Japanese custody.*











						Operation Downfall - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Is that not "evidence" enough?

Oh, wait.  I forget, you reject any evidence you do not like.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Here, since you love simply copying and pasting from Wikipedia without doing any of your own fucking research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Operation Downfall - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not "evidence" enough?
> 
> Oh, wait.  I forget, you reject any evidence you do not like.


We have invasion plans today for lots of countries


On paper only


----------



## ding

Vegasgiants said:


> We have invasion plans today for lots of countries
> 
> 
> On paper only


But in this case they were being executed.  So not just on paper.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> You're dismissed


LOL I will take your dismissal and ALL the thanks I get in this thread compare the two and I know which way this goes.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL I will take your dismissal and ALL the thanks I get in this thread compare the two and I know which way this goes.


Dont you have rocks that need painting?  Lol


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Dont you have rocks that need painting?  Lol


Lie some more it suits you.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lie some more it suits you.


So you dont have rocks that need painting?  Lol


----------



## ding

Isn't it time for the scientists didn't believe the bomb should be dropped argument?  I notice you haven't made that one in awhile.


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> We have invasion plans today for lots of countries
> 
> 
> On paper only



The invasion of Japan was going to happen.  You really do not know history, do you?

Most of the forces that had been in Europe were already being routed to Okinawa.  That was the staging base for Operation Olympic.  Every ship, airplane, soldier, and everything else was being sent there.  The 101st Airborne, after fighting to Germany was being sent to invade Japan.  My grandfathers ship which was heavily damaged in Leyte Gulf as part of the Taffy convoy, and after hasty repairs was off the coast of Okinawa in preparation for the invasion.

Oh, this invasion was going to happen.  Just as the Invasion of Kuwait was going to happen if Mad Dash did not pull out after Operation Desert Storm.

Now tell me, do you really think the Japanese were going to surrender?  Not even Saddam would surrender until most of his army was destroyed.  And his culture had nothing against surrender, and tens of thousands surrendered (many as soon as they could).

Now compare that to Japan.  Where for example at one battle, Japan had 2,636 troops.  17 of which were alive at the end of the battle (most too badly wounded to fight).

Or another battle, Iwo Jima.  Over 18,000 Japanese forces.  Only 216 taken prisoner.

Now please tell me of a single expert before the bombs that said Japan would quit fighting, without an invasion.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> The invasion of Japan was going to happen.  You really do not know history, do you?
> 
> Most of the forces that had been in Europe were already being routed to Okinawa.  That was the staging base for Operation Olympic.  Every ship, airplane, soldier, and everything else was being sent there.  The 101st Airborne, after fighting to Germany was being sent to invade Japan.  My grandfathers ship which was heavily damaged in Leyte Gulf as part of the Taffy convoy, and after hasty repairs was off the coast of Okinawa in preparation for the invasion.
> 
> Oh, this invasion was going to happen.  Just as the Invasion of Kuwait was going to happen if Mad Dash did not pull out after Operation Desert Storm.
> 
> Now tell me, do you really think the Japanese were going to surrender?  Not even Saddam would surrender until most of his army was destroyed.  And his culture had nothing against surrender, and tens of thousands surrendered (many as soon as they could).
> 
> Now compare that to Japan.  Where for example at one battle, Japan had 2,636 troops.  17 of which were alive at the end of the battle (most too badly wounded to fight).
> 
> Or another battle, Iwo Jima.  Over 18,000 Japanese forces.  Only 216 taken prisoner.
> 
> Now please tell me of a single expert before the bombs that said Japan would quit fighting, without an invasion.


But it was not likely to happen


Because the war was over


All our military leaders knew it


The evidence is overwhelming


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> But it was not likely to happen
> 
> 
> Because the war was over
> 
> 
> All our military leaders knew it
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming



Then name one of them that said the invasion was not needed, and urged the preparations for it to end.

*sits back and waits for this evidence*


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Then name one of them that said the invasion was not needed, and urged the preparations for it to end.
> 
> *sits back and waits for this evidence*


Why would you end preparations?  If you spent one day in the military you know you plan for every possiblility no matter how slight


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> Why would you end preparations? If you spent one day in the military you know you plan for every possiblility no matter how slight



You spin in circles once again.

If they believed Japan was about to surrender, then why waste needless lives in an invasion that was not needed.

Therefore, only two conclusions could be reached logically.

They knew Japan was not about to surrender.

Or.

They are speaking out their asses because their belief in Air-Sea-Land Power being dominant would never be put to the test as they had dreamed, and therefore were after the fact crying because they were denied their place in history of winning the ward themselves.

Me, I tend towards the latter.  Especially as there is nothing to prove the former at all.

You fail to present any proof that prior to the bombs a single one of them said Japan was about to toss in the glove.  Why?  Because there is none.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> You spin in circles once again.
> 
> If they believed Japan was about to surrender, then why waste needless lives in an invasion that was not needed.
> 
> Therefore, only two conclusions could be reached logically.
> 
> They knew Japan was not about to surrender.
> 
> Or.
> 
> They are speaking out their asses because their belief in Air-Sea-Land Power being dominant would never be put to the test as they had dreamed, and therefore were after the fact crying because they were denied their place in history of winning the ward themselves.
> 
> Me, I tend towards the latter.  Especially as there is nothing to prove the former at all.
> 
> You fail to present any proof that prior to the bombs a single one of them said Japan was about to toss in the glove.  Why?  Because there is none.


They knew japan was about to surrender 


Lemay said 2 weeks


----------



## Mushroom

Vegasgiants said:


> They knew japan was about to surrender
> 
> 
> Lemay said 2 weeks



Any reference to them saying so before the bombs were dropped?


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mushroom said:


> Any reference to them saying so before the bombs were dropped?


Any reference to them supporting dropping the bomb at any time?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Any reference to them supporting dropping the bomb at any time?


By not disparaging it they support it dumb Fuck


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> By not disparaging it they support it dumb Fuck


No moron.  Anyone who thought what they said was wrong would have spoken out against them after the war



No



One



Did




Dismissed


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> No moron.  Anyone who thought what they said was wrong would have spoken out against them after the war
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> One
> 
> 
> 
> Did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dismissed


Retard alert Retard alert.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Retard alert Retard alert.


There is your concession 


HAHAHAHAHA 


HAHAHAHAHA 


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> There is your concession
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA


Why don't you try engaging people in calm rational conversation instead of the constant trolling?   Just a suggestion.  You might find things go better.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Why don't you try engaging people in calm rational conversation instead of the constant trolling?   Just a suggestion.  You might find things go better.


I did to the one person on this thread who strongly disagrees with me but remained civil during our discussion.   He agreed I did the same.

You are like most of the morons here who flat out lie and then proceed to insult because your argument failed.


He or I never needed to insult each other....we debated


You guys should try it


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> Because he knew we never needed the bomb


LeMay probably thought we never needed the bomb because he was killing tens of thousands of Japanese Civilians by burning them to death every couple of nights.  He was routinely committing atrocities far worse than dropping two nukes.  His bombers were essentially invulnerable flying at night dropping napalm and other incendiaries on the Japanese wood and paper cities.  
the heavy bomber mafia just knew they could bomb any enemy into submission even though it hadn’t worked against either the British or Germans.  The Navy was convinced it could blockade and starve a Japan into submission.  The problem with both approaches was while the Japanese continued to resist submitting, they were killing hundreds of thousands or even millions of Chinese, Malaysian and Indo-Chinese civilians, thousands of interned allied civilians and allied POWs.  All those innocent people would die because the nukes weren’t dropped forcing the a Japanese War Council to deadlock allowing Hirohito to force the surrender.  None of you who oppose dropping the bomb ever even consider the innocent lives saved.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> Not the bomb.
> 
> Lemay initially said we should wait two weeks.  He then later said it would probably have been even less time


He was convinced he could burn enough Japanese civilians to death to force a surrender.  The Japanese government disagreed, as their internal records clearly show.


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> I did to the one person on this thread who strongly disagrees with me but remained civil during our discussion.   He agreed I did the same.
> 
> You are like most of the morons here who flat out lie and then proceed to insult because your argument failed.
> 
> 
> He or I never needed to insult each other....we debated
> 
> 
> You guys should try it


Well, that's good that you had a good conversation with the guy.  I did note that.  But your conversation with RetdgySgt didn't look very civil.  It looked like the same old trolling.  You do 300 posts a day and so many are like that, with the snark.    Why don't you try dropping the shtick for a day?


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> He was convinced he could burn enough Japanese civilians to death to force a surrender.  The Japanese government disagreed, as their internal records clearly show.


He and all the other military leaders I cited were pretty clear we did not need the bomb to end the war


----------



## AZrailwhale

gipper said:


> I’ve told the grunt many times over the years of documented evidence of Japan‘s efforts to surrender long before Dirty Harry committed his terrible crime. Unfortunately he stopped learning after fourth grade. So, nothing new gets in.


You’ve made that claim many times.  How about showing the rest of us some concrete proof.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> Well, that's good that you had a good conversation with the guy.  I did note that.  But your conversation with RetdgySgt didn't look very civil.  It looked like the same old trolling.  You do 300 posts a day and so many are like that.  Why don't you try dropping the shtick for a day.  See how it works.  Just a suggestion.


Yes I believe Gunny's last post to me was 

Retard alert retard alert



Which of course you approve of completely. 


So clearly you are just a moron who just wants to talk about me all day because you are too stupid to engage in the argument 


Dismissed


----------



## AZrailwhale

Vegasgiants said:


> All I have are facts.  LOL
> 
> 
> The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze,[89] concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:


The Strategic Bombing Survey was the creature of the bomber mafia.  It said the same thing about Germany not being able to continue the war.


----------



## Vegasgiants

AZrailwhale said:


> The Strategic Bombing Survey was the creature of the bomber mafia.  It said the same thing about Germany not being able to continue the war.


Yes you have a lot of opinions about any expert that disagrees with you


No evidence...but a lot of opinions


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes I believe Gunny's last post to me was
> 
> Retard alert retard alert
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course you approve of completely.
> 
> 
> So clearly you are just a moron who just wants to talk about me all day because you are too stupid to engage in the argument
> 
> 
> Dismissed


And then there was your post to Gunny before that where you called him a moron.  Wherever it starts,  all exchanges you're involved in always lead to the same place.

As for me, I make threads,  then you start in with the same crap, designed to get a reaction.  Never sourced,  never conversational, never authentic.  Always snarky.  Only then do I start playing your game.

But I'll make you a deal.  If you say sensibly conversational with me,  I'll return the favor.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> And then there was your post to Gunny before that where you called him a moron.
> As for me, I make threads,  then you start in with the same crap, designed to get a reaction.  Never sourced,  never conversational, never authentic.  Always snarky.  Only then do I play your own game with you.


I always let them make the first insult 


I then respond in kind

Dont start shit and there won't be shit


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> I always let them make the first insult
> 
> 
> I then respond in kind
> 
> Dont start shit and there won't be shit


That's never how it works. You start the snarky trolling 100% of the time. Always with an edge.  Always designed to piss people off.  Never conversational.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> That's never how it works. You start the snarky trolling 100% of the time.


Oh look.....another flat out lie from you.  Lol


Please continue to post about me.....because you got nothing on this debate.  Lol


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh look.....another flat out lie from you.  Lol
> 
> 
> Please continue to post about me.....because you got nothing on this debate.  Lol


You don't seem to understand.  I'm operating from a position of strength.  I don't get beat in debates.  You've never debated me.  Never tried.  You don't source.  You don't do anything except make snarky comments.
I'm offering you the chance to be normal, and I will do the same.
But if you choose not to, understand that I am better at your game than you are.

Got it?

Sheesh.  I tried.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> You don't seem to understand.  I'm operating from a position of strength.  I don't get beat in debates.  You've never debated me.  Never tried.  You don't source.  You don't do anything except make snarky comments.
> I'm offering you the chance to be normal, and I will do the same.
> But if you choose not to, understand that I am better at your game than you are.
> 
> Got it?
> 
> Sheesh.  I tried.


Oh look another post about me and not the debate


I wonder why?


HAHAHAHAHA 


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh look another post about me and not the debate
> 
> 
> I wonder why?
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA


What debate?  You don't debate.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> What debate?  You don't debate.


Oh look another post about me


Shocker.  Lol


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> Oh look another post about me
> 
> 
> Shocker.  Lol


But your post 5615 was about me, right?  So you do the same thing.


----------



## gipper

AZrailwhale said:


> You’ve made that claim many times.  How about showing the rest of us some concrete proof.


I’ve done it multiple times in prior threads. Get informed yourself. I’m too tired of trying to teach you warmongers.


----------



## Vegasgiants

Mashmont said:


> But your post 5615 was about me, right?  So you do the same thing.


Dont bring shit there wont be shit


----------



## Frankeneinstein

JoeB131 said:


> Except that the bombs didn't end the war. The entry of the USSR into the Pacific War did.


Yeah, it was the tit-for-tat of conventional warfare they were afraid of, not nuclear annihilation...man you will just say anything


----------



## Man of Ethics

JoeB131 said:


> The Soviets lost 20 million people fighting the Axis.
> 
> We lost 400,000.  You tell me who made greater sacrifices to end fascism.


I am Jewish from Russia.

We must remember the great sacrifice Russia made to save the World from Nazis.


----------



## Mashmont

JoeB131 said:


> The Soviets lost 20 million people fighting the Axis.
> 
> We lost 400,000.  You tell me who made greater sacrifices to end fascism.
> 
> The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward. The sticking point in the negotiations was the status of the Emperor. The Japanese felt that if he was tried as a war criminal, their society would fall apart.
> 
> The thing few people talk about was how after the USSR got into it, the US dropped it's insistence on trying Hirohito as a war criminal, which he obviously was.  In fact, a massive whitewash was done after the war to make it look like Hirohito was this nice guy who just wanted to study marine biology and those mean old generals tricked him into a war.


How many of those 20 million did Stalin murder himself?  The guy was an atheist butcher.  Human life meant nothing to him.


----------



## shoshi

Using the bomb was not easy decision for Truman. There were several reasons for it. it was done to end the war quickly.


----------



## AZrailwhale

gipper said:


> I’ve done it multiple times in prior threads. Get informed yourself. I’m too tired of trying to teach you warmongers.


No you haven't.  You make allegations, or post facto statements.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Relative Ethics said:


> I am Jewish from Russia.
> 
> We must remember the great sacrifice Russia made to save the World from Nazis.


The USSR didn't make ANY sacrifice to "save the world from Nazis" all it did was to defend itself when it's Nazi ALLIES turned on it.  The USSR did nothing in WWII that wasn't a direct benefit to the USSR.


----------



## gipper

AZrailwhale said:


> No you haven't.  You make allegations, or post facto statements.


I have well before you showed up. Learn to do a search and you’ll find them. It’s not hard.


----------



## AZrailwhale

gipper said:


> I have well before you showed up. Learn to do a search and you’ll find them. It’s not hard.


I've been here since the beginning fo the thread.  I haven't seen anything substantive.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AZrailwhale said:


> I've been here since the beginning fo the thread.  I haven't seen anything substantive.


He has not linked to anything substantive ever.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> He has not linked to anything substantive ever.


Nor have you


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Nor have you


LOL wrong I linked to an entire list of SOURCE DOCUMENTS about the Japanese offers and Atomic bombs


----------



## RetiredGySgt

__





						The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II | National Security Archive
					

To mark the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the National Security Archive is updating and reposting one of its most popular e-books of the past 25 years.




					nsarchive.gwu.edu
				




Just for you.


----------



## Vegasgiants

I have posted tons of evidence here


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> I have posted tons of evidence here


No you havent. My link destroys all the claims that Sweden was an attempt to surrender or that the offer to the Soviets was,


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> No you havent. My link destroys all the claims that Sweden was an attempt to surrender or that the offer to the Soviets was,


Yes I have and you are flat out lying......again


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> Yes I have and you are flat out lying......again


The offer in Sweden was by non Government sources and when the Big 6 found out about it they sent a telegram to their ambassador to cease and desist as the Government intended to fight to the bitter end. The proposal to the Soviets was to be a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with no concessions in China. And if they helped sell that Japan would ally with the Soviets against the US. At NO time did the Big 6 EVER make an offer of peace or surrender before Aug 10.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> The offer in Sweden was by non Government sources and when the Big 6 found out about it they sent a telegram to their ambassador to cease and desist as the Government intended to fight to the bitter end. The proposal to the Soviets was to be a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with no concessions in China. And if they helped sell that Japan would ally with the Soviets against the US. At NO time did the Big 6 EVER make an offer of peace or surrender before Aug 10.


You have nothing 


Dismissed


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vegasgiants said:


> You have nothing
> 
> 
> Dismissed


Read the link MORON it is SOURCE Documents from the US and Japanese Governments.


----------



## Vegasgiants

RetiredGySgt said:


> Read the link MORON it is SOURCE Documents from the US and Japanese Governments.


You are dismissed because you conceded long ago


Carry on


----------



## gipper

AZrailwhale said:


> I've been here since the beginning fo the thread.  I haven't seen anything substantive.


I’ve been here over ten years and I’m tired of dealing with ignorant Americans who still believe the statist myths about the bombings.


----------



## Mushroom

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL wrong I linked to an entire list of SOURCE DOCUMENTS about the Japanese offers and Atomic bombs



As have I.  I even provided them the actual source documents of the cables between Foreign Minister Togo and Soviet Ambassador Sato, asking exactly where in the directions the Japanese Government wanted anything other than a cease fire.






						Nuclear Files: Library: Correspondence: Telegrams: Togo-Sato
					

Japanese Peace feelers in the Soviet Union



					www.nuclearfiles.org
				




I have quoted the documents, provided the source (which by the way is a site *against* nuclear weapons), and they still just ignore it and scream Japan was about to surrender.

It has nothing to do with facts, it is a religion to them.  And religions need no proof, just belief.


----------



## Open Bolt

Here's a reason why the second atomic bomb should have been dropped on Kyoto (Stimson be dammed) instead of on Nagasaki:








						16 days to die at Pearl Harbor: Families weren’t told about sailors trapped inside sunken battleship
					

When salvage crews raised the battleship West Virginia six months after the Pearl Harbor attacks, they found the bodies of three sailors huddled in an airtight storeroom — and a calendar on which 16 days had been crossed off in...




					www.seattletimes.com


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> ^^^


Historians take notice of Walter Trohan:








						Did the Japanese offer to surrender before Hiroshima? (Part 1)
					

Did the Japanese offer to surrender before Hiroshima? Short answer: no. Long answer: also no, but it's a bit complicated.




					blog.nuclearsecrecy.com
				











						Did the Japanese offer to surrender before Hiroshima? (Part 2)
					

What if Japan did offer nearly-full surrender terms to the US in early 1945? In the 1940s, just this was claimed — but it's not very likely.




					blog.nuclearsecrecy.com
				




The verdict:
*Fake news.  Never happened.*


----------



## Mashmont

Vegasgiants said:


> You are dismissed because you conceded long ago
> 
> 
> Carry on


This guy kind of ran away.


----------



## Who_Me?

The Japanese did start the war but they attacked a military target, Pearl Harbor.

The US dropped nuclear bombs on cities taking hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.  Harry Truman guilty of war crimes?


----------



## Open Bolt

Who_Me? said:


> The Japanese did start the war but they attacked a military target, Pearl Harbor.


That is incorrect.  War was not declared so Pearl Harbor was not a military target.




Who_Me? said:


> The US dropped nuclear bombs on cities taking hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.


Both atomic bombs were dropped on important military targets.




Who_Me? said:


> Harry Truman guilty of war crimes?


No.  The war crime was attacking Pearl Harbor before war was declared.


----------



## Who_Me?

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  War was not declared so Pearl Harbor was not a military target.
> 
> 
> 
> Both atomic bombs were dropped on important military targets.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The war crime was attacking Pearl Harbor before war was declared.


BS the US Pacific fleet was targeted.  

100,000 civilians were killed in Hiroshima.  Not sure about Nagasaki.  Nice try though.


----------



## Open Bolt

Who_Me? said:


> BS


No BS.  Japan attacked before war was declared.  That is a war crime.




Who_Me? said:


> the US Pacific fleet was targeted.


The US Pacific fleet was targeted in peacetime before war was declared.

That is a war crime.




Who_Me? said:


> 100,000 civilians were killed in Hiroshima.


Irrelevant.  Hiroshima was a huge military base with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers and was the headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion.




Who_Me? said:


> Not sure about Nagasaki.


Nagasaki was a gigantic warship factory.




Who_Me? said:


> Nice try though.


Facts always win over anti-American propaganda.


----------



## Mushroom

Who_Me? said:


> The US dropped nuclear bombs on cities taking hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. Harry Truman guilty of war crimes?



One of which was the command and logistics center for the defense of the Southern Islands, and had over 75,000 military personnel.

The other was their largest shipyard, home base of their submarine fleet, and where hundreds of submarines were being prepared for the final battles.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> No. The war crime was attacking Pearl Harbor before war was declared.



Actually, that is not true at all.  Nowhere is it stated or accepted that a formal war must be declared before hostilities start.

But please, there are a great many documents that define what a "war crime" is.  Point out to the one that states that starting hostilities without a formal declaration of war is required.  Point out where such charges have been brought up in any "War Crimes" trial.

The fact is, a "declaration of war" is actually a very modern concept, and is rarely ever done.


----------



## Mushroom

Who_Me? said:


> 100,000 civilians were killed in Hiroshima. Not sure about Nagasaki. Nice try though.



And the Japanese killed around a million in their invasion and occupation of the Philippines.  Almost all civilians.

The death toll in China was around 20 million, almost all civilians.

Your point is what, exactly?  That the US was far more humane, in that they did not slaughter millions for the simple pleasure of it, like Japan did?


----------



## Unkotare

The other favorite "yeahbut, yeahbut" suggesting we incinerated hundreds of thousands of *civilians* as an act of revenge for China.


----------



## Open Bolt

Mushroom said:


> Actually, that is not true at all.  Nowhere is it stated or accepted that a formal war must be declared before hostilities start.
> But please, there are a great many documents that define what a "war crime" is.  Point out to the one that states that starting hostilities without a formal declaration of war is required.  Point out where such charges have been brought up in any "War Crimes" trial.
> The fact is, a "declaration of war" is actually a very modern concept, and is rarely ever done.


1907 Hague Conventions:
_"The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."_




__





						The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Opening of Hostilities (Hague III); October 18, 1907
					





					avalon.law.yale.edu


----------



## Open Bolt

Unkotare said:


> The other favorite "yeahbut, yeahbut" suggesting we incinerated hundreds of thousands of *civilians* as an act of revenge for China.


We should have nuked Hiroshima and Kyoto instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But as it happens the atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.  Hiroshima was a large military base.  Nagasaki was a giant warship factory.


----------



## AZrailwhale

RetiredGySgt said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II | National Security Archive
> 
> 
> To mark the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the National Security Archive is updating and reposting one of its most popular e-books of the past 25 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nsarchive.gwu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for you.


I read through all that.  Nowhere does it make the point that using the nukes was unnecessary.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Who_Me? said:


> The Japanese did start the war but they attacked a military target, Pearl Harbor.
> 
> The US dropped nuclear bombs on cities taking hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.  Harry Truman guilty of war crimes?


The Japanese spent from 1936 until 1945 bombing Chinese cities killing at least hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Germans bombed DEFENCELESS Spanish cities killing civilians plus bombing Warsaw AFTER the Polish government declared it an "open city" that wouldn't be defended.  Not to mention all the British cities that were bombed with the direct aim of killing civilians.  The Axis nations merely reaped what they had sowen.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AZrailwhale said:


> I read through all that.  Nowhere does it make the point that using the nukes was unnecessary.


No but it does show that at NO TIME did Japan offer to surrender before the dropping of the bombs.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."



DO not forget, that the US issued an ultimatum to Japan on 26 November 1941 which demanded the complete withdrawal of all Japanese forces from French Indochina and China.  So once again, there was an ultimatum made, it was just not by Japan.  And the attack was basically their response.


----------



## Open Bolt

Mushroom said:


> Open Bolt said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war"_
> 
> 
> 
> DO not forget, that the US issued an ultimatum to Japan on 26 November 1941 which demanded the complete withdrawal of all Japanese forces from French Indochina and China.  So once again, there was an ultimatum made, it was just not by Japan.  And the attack was basically their response.
Click to expand...

The Hull note did not state that war was declared if it was rejected.


----------



## Who_Me?

Open Bolt said:


> The Hull note did not state that war was declared if it was rejected.


You all rationalize the use of nuclear weapons very well.


----------



## Open Bolt

Who_Me? said:


> You all rationalize the use of nuclear weapons very well.


That is easy to do when their use is entirely justified.


----------



## AZrailwhale

RetiredGySgt said:


> No but it does show that at NO TIME did Japan offer to surrender before the dropping of the bombs.


I agree.


----------



## Mushroom

Open Bolt said:


> The Hull note did not state that war was declared if it was rejected.



They were waffeling, as they were still preparing their attack which was already in the opening phases of being carried out.

Remember, they had diplomats in the US who claimed to be actively seeking to resolve the issue peacefully.  However, not unlike their own Ambassador later to the USSR, they never had any intention of following through with anything short of getting what they wanted.  And it worked, the US was lulled into believing that war could be avoided, and even the Ambassador was shocked once they translated the "14 Part Message", and learned that even he had been duped by his own superiors.

Japan had ended all plans on reconciliation by early 1941, and nothing was going to stop them going to war.  They had already captured most of the Chinese territory they wanted, and by the end of 1940 they were looking at the land held by the UK and the Dutch East Indies.  They really did think the US was a "sideshow", that they could pluck the Philippines, and negotiate some kind of peace after that.  Something they never understood was never possible.  The Allied Powers learned after WWI that you have to end a major war not with an armistice, but an outright surrender.


----------



## DudleySmith

Mushroom said:


> The Allied Powers learned after WWI that you have to end a major war not with an armistice, but an outright surrender.



^This.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Chicago Tribune 14 Aug 1965, page 1 - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> View the digital scanned newspaper from Chicago Tribune dated 14 Aug 1965, page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> "Walter Trohan, a reporter for the _Chicago Tribune_ with impeccable credentials for integrity and accuracy, reported that two days before President Roosevelt left for the Yalta conference with Churchill and Stalin in early February 1945, he was shown a forty-page memorandum drafted by General MacArthur outlining a Japanese offer for surrender almost identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, President Truman. The single difference was the Japanese insistence on retention of the emperor, which was not acceptable to the American strategists at the time, though it was ultimately allowed in the final peace terms. Trohan relates that he was given a copy of this communication by Admiral Leahy who swore him to secrecy with the pledge not to release the story until the war was over. Trohan honored his pledge and reported his story in the _Chicago Tribune_ and the _Washington Times-Herald _on August 19, 1945. According to historian Anthony Kubek, Roosevelt, in the presence of witnesses, read the memorandum and dismissed it with a curt "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bomb Was Not Necessary |  History News         Network
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hnn.us


^^^^


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> ^^^^


You’re still whining?
Did you ever answer as to what civilians were not expected by the Japanese government to NOT give up their lives defending the Emperor when the Allies invaded?


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> You’re still whining?
> Did you ever answer as to what civilians were not expected by the Japanese government to NOT give up their lives defending the Emperor when the Allies invaded?


The starving women, children and old people who were left?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Unkotare said:


> The starving women, children and old people who were left?


/——/ Yes, set your fake outrage aside and try reading some WWII history books about war in the Pacific Rim.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> The starving women, children and old people who were left?


Yes. Almost every civilian in Japan was to die trying to defend the Emperor.


----------



## Unkotare

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ Yes, set your fake outrage aside and try reading some WWII history books about war in the Pacific Rim.


I've read far more history books of all kinds than you've ever read anything.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> I've read far more history books of all kinds than you've ever read anything.


Then why do you downplay how Japanese civilians were actually combatants?


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Then why do you downplay how Japanese civilians were actually combatants?


Because they weren't.


----------



## BackAgain

Unkotare said:


> Because they weren't.


But they are said to have been prepared to be.


----------



## Unkotare

BackAgain said:


> But they are said to have been prepared to be.


Starving women, children and old people? Have some common sense.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Starving women, children and old people? Have some common sense.


you're the one with no common sense, the Japanese civilians in that time did whatever they were told to by the emperor or the military that's why at Saipan and Okinawa so many committed suicide rather than surrender.


----------



## BackAgain

Unkotare said:


> Starving women, children and old people? Have some common sense.


I’m the one (of the two of us) *with* common sense in this matter. 

The upper range of deaths caused by the two atomic bombings is about 226,000 people. Had the United States tried to invade the Japanese Empire main island, and the other islands, the death toll was projected as being vastly higher for bothebJapanese people AND for American GI’s alone. 

To the extent that those projections were _believed_ to be accurate, then as disgusting as the use of atomic weapons was, their use probably *saved* lives.


----------



## Unkotare

Miles, Rufus E. “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved.” _International Security_, vol. 10, no. 2, 1985, pp. 121–40. _JSTOR_, https://doi.org/10.2307/2538830. Accessed 3 Nov. 2022.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Because they weren't.


Ah. So training to kill and die for the Emperor makes them innocent bystanders!

Me thinks you’re extremely ignorant of history. 

Every single male age 15 to 60 and every single female age 17 to 40 was trained to kill and die for the Emperor when we landed on the Japan mainland.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Miles, Rufus E. “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved.” _International Security_, vol. 10, no. 2, 1985, pp. 121–40. _JSTOR_, https://doi.org/10.2307/2538830. Accessed 3 Nov. 2022.


Fact is I knew a number of guys who were preparing for the invasion and a number who were in the occupation forces.​The invasion would have killed millions​There Are No Civilians in Japan​Allied military planners faced a bitter truth as they planned for a possible invasion of Japan: there were no distinctions between soldiers and civilians.








						There Are No Civilians in Japan | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans
					

Allied military planners faced a bitter truth as they planned for a possible invasion of Japan: there were no distinctions between soldiers and civilians.




					www.nationalww2museum.org


----------



## BackAgain

Unkotare said:


> Miles, Rufus E. “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved.” _International Security_, vol. 10, no. 2, 1985, pp. 121–40. _JSTOR_, https://doi.org/10.2307/2538830. Accessed 3 Nov. 2022.


As I correctly noted. It was a projection. It isn’t a “strange myth.”  

You don’t buy the projections for a number of reasons. Ok. But here’s the thing:

I don’t buy the retrospective analyses that revise those projections. 






						What If The U.S. Had Invaded Japan On Nov. 1, 1945?
					






					ladailypost.com
				




More scholarly and better supported than the above is this piece:



			http://theamericanpresident.us/images/projections.pdf
		


Sorry Unk. I get the fact that this is kind of personal for you. But here I believe your personal bias is leading you astray.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Miles, Rufus E. “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved.” _International Security_, vol. 10, no. 2, 1985, pp. 121–40. _JSTOR_, https://doi.org/10.2307/2538830. Accessed 3 Nov. 2022.


Operation Overlord from June to August 44 resulted in over 425,000 Allied and German casualties. 

Three months. 

Only a loon could think Japan would’ve been easier.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ah. So training to kill and die for the Emperor makes them innocent bystanders!
> 
> Me thinks you’re extremely ignorant of history.
> 
> Every single male age 15 to 60 and every single female age 17 to 40 was trained to kill and die for the Emperor when we landed on the Japan mainland.
> 
> View attachment 720441


 What a dope.

That was a propaganda program meant to bolster the very much flagging support for the war among a starving and demoralized public. I have, in my time, spoken to many people who were alive at the time. People knew what it really was, and many scoffed at it in private. Participation was mandatory, but if the US Marines really rolled up on the beach nobody was gonna get their ass killed by trying to take out a Marine with a stick. 

Propaganda from 77 years ago, meant for domestic consumption and here you are still falling for it.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Operation Overlord from June to August 44 resulted in over 425,000 Allied and German casualties.
> 
> Three months.
> 
> Only a loon could think Japan would’ve been easier.


Invasion or incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in an instant were not the only options.


----------



## Unkotare

BackAgain said:


> ...
> 
> More scholarly and better supported ...


  Hardly.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

BackAgain said:


> I’m the one (of the two of us) *with* common sense in this matter.
> 
> The upper range of deaths caused by the two atomic bombings is about 226,000 people. Had the United States tried to invade the Japanese Empire main island, and the other islands, the death toll was projected as being vastly higher for bothebJapanese people AND for American GI’s alone.
> 
> To the extent that those projections were _believed_ to be accurate, then as disgusting as the use of atomic weapons was, their use probably *saved* lives.


*The Pacifist Term "Non-Combatant" Is a Contradiction in a Combat Zone*

If anyone doesn't believe in the suicide-fetish of the Japanese, he should consider the aborted mainland invasion's dress rehearsal in the Battle of Okinawa.  Every single Japanese soldier and sailor died (80,000) and half (150,000) the "civilian" population.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Invasion or incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in an instant were not the only options.


And killing OBL was not the only option too. 

But the only one that was logical, moral, and justified.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> What a dope.
> 
> That was a propaganda program meant to bolster the very much flagging support for the war among a starving and demoralized public. I have, in my time, spoken to many people who were alive at the time. People knew what it really was, and many scoffed at it in private. Participation was mandatory, but if the US Marines really rolled up on the beach nobody was gonna get their ass killed by trying to take out a Marine with a stick.
> 
> Propaganda from 77 years ago, meant for domestic consumption and here you are still falling for it.


Tell us what civilians did on Okinawa.


----------



## Unkotare

"The international law of armed conflict has evolved considerably since 1945, and an attack like that against Hiroshima would be illegal today. It would violate three requirements of the law of armed conflict codified in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions: to not intentionally attack civilians (the principle of distinction); to ensure that incidental damage against civilians is not excessive compared to the direct military advantage gained from an attack against a lawful target (the principle of proportionality), especially where, as here, the value of the identified military targets in Hiroshima was modest; and to take all feasible precautions to minimize collateral damage against civilians (the precautionary principle)."









						Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender
					

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.




					www.lawfareblog.com


----------



## Unkotare

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402399908437744?journalCode=fjss20


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> "The international law of armed conflict has evolved considerably since 1945, and an attack like that against Hiroshima would be illegal today. It would violate three requirements of the law of armed conflict codified in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions: to not intentionally attack civilians (the principle of distinction); to ensure that incidental damage against civilians is not excessive compared to the direct military advantage gained from an attack against a lawful target (the principle of proportionality), especially where, as here, the value of the identified military targets in Hiroshima was modest; and to take all feasible precautions to minimize collateral damage against civilians (the precautionary principle)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender
> 
> 
> Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lawfareblog.com


Hilarious!
Let’s talk about Japan and International law. 

Let’s have some target practice with our prisoners!




Free haircuts!






Weight loss programs!


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Tell us what civilians did on Okinawa.


Okinawa is not and was not Honshu.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hilarious!
> Let’s talk about Japan and International law.
> 
> .....


I don't see anyone rationalizing, justifying, or excusing war crimes committed by the Japanese military.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> I don't see anyone rationalizing, justifying, or excusing war crimes committed by the Japanese military.


Look, I know you’re a teacher so obviously you’re oblivious to the real world, but in August 1945 the Japanese were raping and murdering civilians and our troops. 

We put it to an end. 

So fuck you for wanting it to continue any longer.


----------



## Unkotare

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

                          - Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Look, I know you’re a teacher so obviously you’re oblivious to the real world, ....


Why would that be?


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Look, I know you’re a teacher so obviously you’re oblivious to the real world, but in August 1945 the Japanese were raping and murdering civilians and our troops.
> 
> We put it to an end.
> 
> So fuck you for wanting it to continue any longer.


How about fuck you for dragging the good name of The United States of America through the mud by trying to paint us as being at the same level of moral turpitude as the Axis Powers. We're better than that.


----------



## themirrorthief

war can get damned ugly....sometimes you got to get even uglier than the most monstrous enemy


----------



## BackAgain

Unkotare said:


> Hardly.


Oh give it a rest.


----------



## BackAgain

Unkotare said:


> "The international law of armed conflict has evolved considerably since 1945, and an attack like that against Hiroshima would be illegal today. It would violate three requirements of the law of armed conflict codified in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions: to not intentionally attack civilians (the principle of distinction); to ensure that incidental damage against civilians is not excessive compared to the direct military advantage gained from an attack against a lawful target (the principle of proportionality), especially where, as here, the value of the identified military targets in Hiroshima was modest; and to take all feasible precautions to minimize collateral damage against civilians (the precautionary principle)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender
> 
> 
> Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lawfareblog.com


So?  It was not yet post 1945 at the time.


----------



## Unkotare

BackAgain said:


> Oh give it a rest.


No thanks.


----------



## Unkotare

BackAgain said:


> So?  It was not yet post 1945 at the time.


Do you agree with the terms of the International law of armed conflict?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Unkotare said:


> I've read far more history books of all kinds than you've ever read anything.


/——/ Then you understand the Japanese mindset of that time.


----------



## BackAgain

Unkotare said:


> No thanks.


No really. You’re often right about many things. But you're way off base in this one.


----------



## BackAgain

Unkotare said:


> Do you agree with the terms of the International law of armed conflict?


The ones _*now*_ in existence?  Kind of irrelevant.


----------



## Unkotare

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ Then you understand the Japanese mindset of that time.


I do, and it was not the cartoon stereotype some seem to think.


----------



## Unkotare

BackAgain said:


> No really. You’re often right about many things. But your way off base in this one.


In what way?


----------



## Unkotare

BackAgain said:


> The ones _*now*_ in existence?  Kind of irrelevant.


Do you agree with those principles?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Unkotare said:


> Do you agree with the terms of the International law of armed conflict?


Yeah, the Russians abided by that in Ukraine.  Bill Clinton and NATO abided by that in Yugoslavia.  What good is a fucking law with no enforcement?


----------



## BackAgain

Unkotare said:


> In what way?


Your position is the claim that the bombings didn’t save lives. You’re very much mistaken. Of course it did. No less tragic and horrifying. But still. It is effectively certain that it saved maybe over a million lives.


----------



## Unkotare

Absurd ^^^


----------



## Unkotare

BackAgain said:


> Your position is the claim that the bombings didn’t save lives. .....


Over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, killed is "saving lives"? Are you insane?


----------



## Unkotare

BackAgain said:


> .... It is effectively certain that it saved maybe over a million lives.


NO, it isn't.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> How about fuck you for dragging the good name of The United States of America through the mud by trying to paint us as being at the same level of moral turpitude as the Axis Powers. We're better than that.


Fuck you for wishing the Japanese could have continued their rapes and murders of civilians even a second longer, let alone the years you demand. 

It’s ‘teachers’ like you that I mock who shouldn’t be allowed within a thousand feet of any school.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, killed is "saving lives"? Are you insane?


Combatants, shitforbrains. 200,000 combatants.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> I don't see anyone rationalizing, justifying, or excusing war crimes committed by the Japanese military.


No, just let them rape and murder for as long as they wish. 
Freak.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fuck you for wishing the Japanese could have continued their rapes and murders of civilians even a second longer...


I have never said anything even remotely like that, you lying sack of shit. You just revealed your utter lack of character. What a disgrace.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Combatants, shitforbrains. 200,000 combatants.


95% civilians.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> No, just let them rape and murder for as long as they wish.
> Freak.


Fuck you, disingenuous liar.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> I do, and it was not the cartoon stereotype some seem to think.



Yes, yours are from a different cartoon, probably involving playing with feces.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Unkotare said:


> I have never said anything even remotely like that, you lying sack of shit. You just revealed your utter lack of character. What a disgrace.


/——-/ Sowhatis your grand plan to stop the Japanese from fighting? Maybe let Stalin help and after Japan fell Uncle Joe could have occupied the country like he did Eastern Europe.


----------



## Unkotare

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Sowhatis your grand plan to stop the Japanese from fighting? ...


You know Honshu is an island, right?


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Yes, yours are from a different cartoon, probably involving playing with feces.


?????????????


----------



## Cellblock2429

Unkotare said:


> You know Honshu is an island, right?


/----/ Yes, and you know Rhode Island isn't, right?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fuck you for wishing the Japanese could have continued their rapes and murders of civilians even a second longer, let alone the years you demand.
> 
> It’s ‘teachers’ like you that I mock who shouldn’t be allowed within a thousand feet of any school.


He is an ESL teacher, so he will never touch history, thank God!


----------



## Unkotare

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> He is an ESL teacher, so he will never touch history, thank God!


Wrong again. I also teach History.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Unkotare said:


> Wrong again. I also teach History.


/---/ Yeah? Then who was the first president of our country?


----------



## Unkotare

Cellblock2429 said:


> /---/ Yeah? ...


Yeah.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Unkotare said:


> Wrong again. I also teach History.


Are you certified to teach history?  What is your degree in?


----------



## Unkotare

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Are you certified to teach history?


Yup. Biology as well.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Wrong again. I also teach History.


Last month I spent a day lecturing 450 incoming VMI cadets on WW2 history. 

Top that.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Fuck you, disingenuous liar.


Call me when you’ve provided an alternative scenario of Japan’s unconditional surrender on or before 9/2/45.


----------



## DudleySmith

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> He is an ESL teacher, so he will never touch history, thank God!



You believe his claim? I don't see any evidence he ever finished high school.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Unkotare said:


> Do you agree with the terms of the International law of armed conflict?


*THOSE HORRIBLE WHITE PEOPLE*

You mean the "Make America Lose" law?  We are not under the jurisdiction of multiculturalist traitors.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Last month I spent a day lecturing 450 incoming VMI cadets on WW2 history.
> 
> Top that.


“A day “?

Try 29 years.


----------



## gipper

Weatherman2020 said:


> Last month I spent a day lecturing 450 incoming VMI cadets on WW2 history.
> 
> Top that.


I hope you told them FDR provoked Japan and knew the attack on Pearl was forthcoming and refused to warn commanders.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> “A day “?
> 
> Try 29 years.


You’ve been teaching 4th graders 29 years?
Congratulations. 

No wonder kids are so stupid these days.


----------



## Unkotare

High school, college, professionals.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> High school, college, professionals.


Dovetails into so many learning lies. 

Did I miss your alternate hypothetical scenario that would have had an unconditional surrender in September 45?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> High school, college, professionals.


BTW - last year I spent an hour with a 2 star Army General and his staff teaching WW2. 
General told me afterwards I told him a few things he didn’t know and thanked me.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> BTW - last year I spent an hour with a 2 star Army General and his staff teaching WW2.
> General told me afterwards I told him a few things he didn’t know and thanked me.


A whole hour?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> A whole hour?


You get an hour with a 2 Star General and his staff. 

Call me when you do.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Dovetails into so many learning lies.
> 
> Did I miss your alternate hypothetical scenario that would have had an unconditional surrender in September 45?











						Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
					

Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> You get an hour with a 2 Star General and his staff.
> 
> Call me when you do.


Did you take a week off after your one whole hour of glory? You should get a medal.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Did you take a week off after your one whole hour of glory? You should get a medal.


Because I know a thing or two about WW2 so Major Generals listen to me so I should get a medal!


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
> 
> 
> Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newspapers.com


I’m still waiting.
The Japanese Army was conducting a coup to keep the war going on your dates. 








						Kyūjō incident - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Because I know a thing or two about WW2 so Major Generals listen to me so I should get a medal!


I'm sure you love yourself madly. I mean one whole hour!


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> I’m still waiting.
> The Japanese Army was conducting a coup to keep the war going on your dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kyūjō incident - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


Wikipedia


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Wikipedia


No shock you don’t know about it. 
After all, 29 years of teaching impressionable kids bullshit.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> I'm sure you love yourself madly. I mean one whole hour!


I teach Generals and military school cadets WW 2 history for fun, you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Wikipedia


you deny there was a coup?


----------



## Weatherman2020

RetiredGySgt said:


> you deny there was a coup?


He does. Our teacher of children for 29 years denies well documented historical fact.


----------



## Cellblock2429

gipper said:


> I hope you told them FDR provoked Japan and knew the attack on Pearl was forthcoming and refused to warn commanders.


/—-/ I met vets from PH who swore it was common knowledge. They blame FDR.


----------



## gipper

Cellblock2429 said:


> /—-/ I met vets from PH who swore it was common knowledge. They blame FDR.


It’s not common knowledge with a lot of Americans and many will call you names if you inform them of this.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Did you take a week off after your one whole hour of glory? You should get a medal.


You should stop supporting the Chinese Communist Party. But you won’t.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> I'm sure you love yourself madly. I mean one whole hour!


And I’m sure you love your ignorance about _every_ topic - because you display it so proudly every time you post.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> I hope you told them FDR provoked Japan and knew the attack on Pearl was forthcoming and refused to warn commanders.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> I hope you told them FDR provoked Japan and knew the attack on Pearl was forthcoming and refused to warn commanders.


And the Jews “provoked” Adolf Hitler, right Gipper?

Have to wonder what kind of piece of shit thinks Pearl Harbor was _justified_.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> I hope you told them FDR provoked Japan and knew the attack on Pearl was forthcoming and refused to warn commanders.


And the peasants “provoked” Joseph Stalin, right Gipper?

Have to wonder what kind of piece of shit thinks Pearl Harbor was _justified_.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> I hope you told them FDR provoked Japan and knew the attack on Pearl was forthcoming and refused to warn commanders.


And the Kurds in the north “provoked” Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali, right Gipper?

Have to wonder what kind of piece of shit thinks Pearl Harbor was _justified_.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> I hope you told them FDR provoked Japan and knew the attack on Pearl was forthcoming and refused to warn commanders.


You know what is fall-down hilarious about tin-foil hat conspiracy theory idiocy like that ☝️ ?

The way _actual_ intelligence works is that the President is briefed by “commanders” - *not* the other way around.

Gipper was duped into believing the President of the United States goes under cover in foreign nations, taps phone lines, intercepts communications, deciphers encrypted messages, works informants, analyzes all of the data - and then reports all of that to the military.

      fucking howling right now at the profound stupidity and how easy it is to dupe simpletons


----------



## gipper

P@triot said:


> You know what is fall-down hilarious about tin-foil hat conspiracy theory idiocy like that ☝️ ?
> 
> The way _actual_ intelligence works is that the President is briefed by “commanders” - *not* the other way around.
> 
> Gipper was duped into believing the President of the United States goes under cover in foreign nations, taps phone lines, intercepts communications, deciphers encrypted messages, works informants, analyzes all of the data - and then reports all of that to the military.
> 
> fucking howling right now at the profound stupidity and how easy it is to dupe simpletons





_“He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”_

*~ Albert Einstein*


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> _“He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”_
> 
> *~ Albert Einstein*


Tell us again how the President of the United States is an intelligent analyst who briefs those under him


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> _“He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”_
> 
> *~ Albert Einstein*


Fuck’n ironic quote posted by a person declaring Pearl Harbor “justified”


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> You should stop supporting the Chinese Communist Party. ...


I don't, of course.


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> And I’m sure you love your ignorance about _every_ topic - .....


How long have you taught history? More than an hour?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> How long have you taught history? More than an hour?


Well, I’m off to talk to 5 dozen wounded warriors about ….. WORLD WAR 2…. For the rest of the day, so have fun today trying to rewrite history!


----------



## Mac-7

Weatherman2020 said:


> Well, I’m off to talk to 5 dozen wounded warriors about ….. WORLD WAR 2…. For the rest of the day, so have fun today trying to rewrite history!


Do you think we have low quality teachers in the public school system these days?


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Well, I’m off to talk to 5 dozen wounded warriors about ….. WORLD WAR 2…. For the rest of the day, so have fun today trying to rewrite history!


A day? A whole day?  Wow!


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Cellblock2429 said:


> /—-/ I met vets from PH who swore it was common knowledge. They blame FDR.


*Don't Believe Any of the Various Explanations the Shallow Experts Tell Us*

FDR took the carriers out of Pearl Harbor to shadow the Japanese fleet and provoke an attack that way.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Mac-7 said:


> Do you think we have low quality teachers in the public school system these days?


Why would I think that?

Vast majority at Baltimore high school read at elementary level, some kindergarten​
Only half of California students meet English standards and fewer meet math standards, test scores show​








						Only half of California students meet English standards and fewer meet math standards, test scores show
					

California test scores 2019: Half of students meet English standards, fewer meet math standards




					www.latimes.com


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> A day? A whole day?  Wow!


How many of your 4th graders voluntarily listen to you?


----------



## gipper

Weatherman2020 said:


> Why would I think that?
> 
> Vast majority at Baltimore high school read at elementary level, some kindergarten​
> Only half of California students meet English standards and fewer meet math standards, test scores show​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only half of California students meet English standards and fewer meet math standards, test scores show
> 
> 
> California test scores 2019: Half of students meet English standards, fewer meet math standards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com


Illiteracy in America is a big problem. To think you can graduate HS and be essentially illiterate, tells you all you need to know about our educational system. Americans are dumb MFers.

See my thread…
Thread 'America the illiterate'
America the illiterate


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> How many of your 4th graders voluntarily listen to you?


I don’t teach 4th grade.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Well, I’m off to talk to 5 dozen wounded warriors about ….. WORLD WAR 2…. For the rest of the day, so have fun today trying to rewrite history!


Let me know when you get to 29 years.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Unkotare said:


> Let me know when you get to 29 years.


How old do you think I am?
Did you get that appointment to have a Major General listen to you talk about WW2 for a hour yet?


----------



## Weatherman2020

gipper said:


> Illiteracy in America is a big problem. To think you can graduate HS and be essentially illiterate, tells you all you need to know about our educational system. Americans are dumb MFers.
> 
> See my thread…
> Thread 'America the illiterate'
> America the illiterate


Teachers will strike because Johnny won’t wear a useless mask, but they won’t utter a peep 80% of their high school seniors read at a 3rd grade level.


----------



## gipper

Weatherman2020 said:


> Teachers will strike because Johnny won’t wear a useless mask, but they won’t utter a peep 80% of their high school seniors read at a 3rd grade level.


This is a national disgrace, yet no one in authority says a word. Apparently they want a dumb populace. Who benefits?  The MIC certainly benefits.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> How old do you think I am?
> .....


Too old to possibly teach long enough to mean shit to me.


----------



## Unkotare

Weatherman2020 said:


> Well, I’m off to talk to 5 dozen wounded warriors about ….. WORLD WAR 2…. For the rest of the day, ....


You're not qualified.


----------



## Esdraelon

Unkotare said:


> You're not qualified.


Was my father, his friends and brothers who served at the time?  Were they "qualified" to have an opinion?  Japan not only started that war with the U.S., they proved through their commission of atrocities WORSE than the Nazis that their ruling system had become evil and needed to be removed as a global threat.


----------



## Mac-7

gipper said:


> Illiteracy in America is a big problem. To think you can graduate HS and be essentially illiterate, tells you all you need to know about our educational system. Americans are dumb MFers.
> 
> See my thread…
> Thread 'America the illiterate'
> America the illiterate


Americans kids are not dumb

Our liberal/progressive public education system only makes them appear that way


----------



## Mac-7

gipper said:


> This is a national disgrace, yet no one in authority says a word. Apparently they want a dumb populace. Who benefits?  The MIC certainly benefits.


Public teachers have a powerful union that prevents democrat party politicians from criticizing them


----------



## Unkotare

Esdraelon said:


> Was my father, his friends and brothers who served at the time?....


Qualified to teach? Kinda seems like a separate question.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> How long have you taught history? More than an hour?


Those who can…_do_. Those who can’t…teach (propaganda)


----------



## mikegriffith1

I wonder how many conservatives who endorse Truman's nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki realize that General MacArthur and General Eisenhower, among many other senior officers, said it was unnecessary. 

Part of the problem is that the Japanese army was a monstrous evil, and that most people project the army's awful conduct onto all of Japan. They assume that all Japanese were vicious and cruel. In actuality, most of Japan's civilian leaders despised the militarists, never wanted war with the U.S. in the first place, and were willing to surrender weeks before Hiroshima.


----------



## Mac-7

mikegriffith1 said:


> I wonder how many conservatives who endorse Truman's nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki realize that General MacArthur and General Eisenhower, among many other senior officers, said it was unnecessary.
> 
> Part of the problem is that the Japanese army was a monstrous evil, and that most people project the army's awful conduct onto all of Japan. They assume that all Japanese were vicious and cruel. In actuality, most of Japan's civilian leaders despised the militarists, never wanted war with the U.S. in the first place, and were willing to surrender weeks before Hiroshima.


Both macArthur and eisenhower were planning to run for president so their opinion was politically tainted


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> Those who can…_do_. Those who can’t…teach (propaganda)


Those who do ANYTHING were taught.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Mac-7 said:


> Both macArthur and eisenhower were planning to run for president so their opinion was politically tainted


*Grant Also Retroactively Opposed the Mexican War on Political Party Pretexts*

There is a logical disconnect between the claim that Mac the Knife opposed bombing Nagasaki and his own equally victory-focused desire to nuke the Chinese army getting ready to reinforce its invasion of Korea.


----------



## Mushroom

mikegriffith1 said:


> I wonder how many conservatives who endorse Truman's nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki realize that General MacArthur and General Eisenhower, among many other senior officers, said it was unnecessary.



Only years later.

Ike was not even in the theater, so in reality he has nothing to add to the topic.  No more than those of say a British or French General.

And Mac was a glory hound.  He also fabricated a hell of a lot, so anything he says is generally buried deep behind a mask of politics.

And that is painfully obvious when he also wanted to use between 30 and 50 nukes on North Korea, nuking every military base in the country, as well as every rail line and road that could provide access from North to South Korea.

So logically, we are to believe that he was against two nukes in Japan, a country that had attacked the US without warning.  Yet, he supported using dozens of them again a country that had not actually attacked the US in any way?  Even going so far as suggesting that a miles wide belt of radioactive cobalt be scattered along the border to prevent another invasion.

That makes absolutely no logical sense at all.  We are to believe a man who seems to have hated the use in one war, then advocated using from 30 to 50 in a smaller regional war.  Then in later life he told people he thought they should never have been used or invented.

One thing about Mac, he was never really consistent in what he said.  He would constantly make a statement to one person, then a completely different statement to another.  Largely based on what he thought they wanted to hear.


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> Both macArthur and eisenhower were planning to run for president so their opinion was politically tainted



Mac has long been recognized as the most political General ever in the US.  Almost nothing he ever said was not clouded with politics.  

And he very clearly said many things over the years about nukes.  One of the most striking was a 1954 interview with respected journalists Jim Lucas and Bob Considine.



> Of all the campaigns of my life, 20 major ones to be exact, [Korea was] the one I felt most sure of was the one I was deprived of waging. I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days.... *I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria*.... It was my plan as our amphibious forces moved south to *spread behind us—from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea—a belt of radioactive cobalt. It could have been spread from wagons, carts, trucks and planes*.... For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the north. The enemy could not have marched across that radiated belt.



Now think on that for a bit.  This was one of the recommendations that actually led to his relief as it was things like this that caused a lot in the Pentagon and ultimately the White House to question his grasp on reality.  The use of a few bombs on key targets is one thing.  But from 30 to 50, and then poisoning an area purposefully with radioactive contamination?  And it is known as a fact that Mac tried to get the President multiple times to release authorization for the use of nukes directly to him, and the President refused to ever do that.

Then years later, President Nixon revealed a discussion with the General shortly before Mac died.



> MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy the bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants... MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him.



Since the General died in 1964, that would place it most likely during the Kennedy or Truman administrations.  And Nixon even then was widely known to be anti-nuclear.  SALT he always thought was a keystone to his administration, and was the first treaty to limit several categories of weapons.  Also the ABM treaty, the Treaty of Tlatelolco (which prohibited nukes in Latin America and the Caribbean), the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (which limited all tests to 150 kt or less), the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), and the Seabed Treaty.  It was known even when he was VP that he was against nukes, so it was no real surprise that Mac would tell him what he wanted to hear.

There is a reason why I have long said that any statements by General MacArthur have to be taken with a grain of salt.  A grain of salt larger than Mt. McKinley.


----------



## Mac-7

Mushroom said:


> Mac has long been recognized as the most political General ever in the US.  Almost nothing he ever said was not clouded with politics.
> 
> And he very clearly said many things over the years about nukes.  One of the most striking was a 1954 interview with respected journalists Jim Lucas and Bob Considine.
> 
> 
> 
> Now think on that for a bit.  This was one of the recommendations that actually led to his relief as it was things like this that caused a lot in the Pentagon and ultimately the White House to question his grasp on reality.  The use of a few bombs on key targets is one thing.  But from 30 to 50, and then poisoning an area purposefully with radioactive contamination?  And it is known as a fact that Mac tried to get the President multiple times to release authorization for the use of nukes directly to him, and the President refused to ever do that.
> 
> Then years later, President Nixon revealed a discussion with the General shortly before Mac died.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the General died in 1964, that would place it most likely during the Kennedy or Truman administrations.  And Nixon even then was widely known to be anti-nuclear.  SALT he always thought was a keystone to his administration, and was the first treaty to limit several categories of weapons.  Also the ABM treaty, the Treaty of Tlatelolco (which prohibited nukes in Latin America and the Caribbean), the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (which limited all tests to 150 kt or less), the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), and the Seabed Treaty.  It was known even when he was VP that he was against nukes, so it was no real surprise that Mac would tell him what he wanted to hear.
> 
> There is a reason why I have long said that any statements by General MacArthur have to be taken with a grain of salt.  A grain of salt larger than Mt. McKinley.


Korea was the first modern limited war

And it followed our experience of total war in WWII where anything except chemical and biological weapons were on the table

I’m sure Truman made decisions that were politically harmful to him but nevertheless best for America

I respect MacArthur

but he made a lot of mistakes along with his successes


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> I respect MacArthur
> 
> but he made a lot of mistakes along with his successes



I have never said I do not respect him.  I simply recognize that almost everything he ever said or did was politically motivated.  And he often would simply tell people what they wanted to hear.  Even if he told two people two completely different things.  And his almost constant contradictory statements of the decades kind of prove that.  And even though that was the "Wilderness Years" for Nixon, he had still been Vice President, and was an influential Republican, and largely the unofficial leader of the "Liberal Wing" of the party.

So when speaking to a Politician, he would resort to what he knew best.  Say to them what they want to hear.  Just as he did to Commander Lyndon Johnson (member of the US House of Representatives from Texas) when he was in the theater on a fact finding tour for President Roosevelt.  He told him what he wanted him and ultimately the President to hear, and gave him a medal in the hopes it would help influence him to tell things to the President as he wanted.

Generally, Generals do not go around recommending Silver Star awards for Navy Commanders that are not even attached to them but on a mission for the President.  But being a political general, that is the kind of thing he would do in the hopes that the Congressman would be more supportive of him.


----------



## P@triot

Unkotare said:


> Those who do ANYTHING were taught.


By those who weren't capable to actually _do_... 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Unkotare

P@triot said:


> By those who weren't capable to actually _do_... 🤷‍♂️


Capable of doing something. Think about it.


----------

